Podcasts about legalnews

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss recent Epstein files release, what's going on with Lindsey Halligan, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990On November 12, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 into law, enacting one of the most ambitious environmental regulatory packages in U.S. history. The amendments addressed a broad range of air quality concerns, including acid rain, smog in urban areas, and emissions of hazardous air pollutants. At the time, the legislation was notable for its bipartisan support and its embrace of both traditional regulation and market-based solutions. Among its most innovative features was the introduction of a cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, the primary cause of acid rain. This program placed a national cap on emissions and allowed utilities to buy and sell allowances, incentivizing the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices.The legislation also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 189 toxic air pollutants, a massive expansion from the original eight. It required cleaner gasoline in high-pollution areas and set deadlines for phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. States were mandated to submit detailed plans for meeting federal air quality standards, significantly increasing local accountability. The law established a new operating permit system for major sources of air pollution, centralizing compliance efforts. It also increased civil and criminal penalties for violators and expanded the public's right to sue polluters and the government for non-enforcement.The amendments reflected growing public concern about environmental degradation and represented a turning point in how the federal government approached pollution control. By pairing stricter standards with economic incentives, the 1990 law helped redefine regulatory strategy in environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court extended a temporary pause on a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits during the ongoing government shutdown. The administration is currently withholding approximately $4 billion from the program, which supports 42 million low-income Americans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who initially granted the pause, stated she would have denied the request to extend it further. The pause is now set to expire Thursday, though an end to the shutdown could render the legal fight moot. Meanwhile, the Senate has approved a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history. The lapse in SNAP funding marks the first such disruption in the program's six-decade existence, prompting recipients to rely on food pantries and cut back on essential expenses like medications.US Supreme Court extends pause on order requiring Trump to fully fund food aid | ReutersThree former senior enforcement officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have launched a new legal initiative aimed at holding corporations accountable in the absence of federal action. The project, backed by the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, will focus on bringing strategic lawsuits against companies accused of exploiting consumers, workers, and small businesses. The team—Eric Halperin, Cara Petersen, and Tara Mikkilineni—previously held top roles at the CFPB before it was effectively sidelined by the Trump administration.The CFPB's enforcement and supervision functions were largely dismantled this year, leaving a vacuum in consumer protection at the federal level. In response, consumer advocates and state officials have begun stepping in to fill the enforcement gap. Halperin emphasized that rising corporate profits alongside deepening financial stress for ordinary Americans is no coincidence, pointing to a lack of oversight that enables corporate misconduct to go unchecked.Former top enforcers at US watchdog join project to bring pro-consumer lawsuits | ReutersThe NCAA has agreed to a $303 million settlement to resolve claims from over 7,700 current and former Division I coaches who say they were illegally denied pay under a now-repealed policy that barred compensation for so-called “volunteer” coaches in all sports except baseball. Filed in federal court in Sacramento, the proposed class action settlement still requires approval from U.S. District Judge William Shubb. If approved, no coach will receive less than $5,000, with average payouts expected to be around $39,260 before fees, and some six-figure awards anticipated.The plaintiffs argued the NCAA and its member schools violated antitrust laws by maintaining the compensation ban, a rule repealed in 2023. The NCAA denies wrongdoing but said the deal provides “certainty and clarity.” The lawyers representing the coaches plan to seek up to 30% of the settlement—around $90.9 million—in legal fees. This case follows a $49 million NCAA settlement with baseball coaches over similar claims and comes amid broader legal pressure on the NCAA, including a pending $2.8 billion settlement allowing schools to pay student-athletes directly.NCAA agrees to $303 million settlement with unpaid college coaches | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Mexico's latest attempt to crack down on value-added tax (VAT) invoice fraud—and why it misses the mark. The new measure shifts enforcement burdens onto digital platforms like Amazon and eBay, criminalizing them for fraud they are neither equipped nor authorized to detect. Instead of building a real-time fiscal invoicing system that validates transactions as they occur, the government is digitizing enforcement without changing the underlying system that enables fraud in the first place.False VAT invoice fraud in Mexico typically involves shell companies, or factureras, issuing legally compliant but entirely fictitious receipts that allow taxpayers to inflate deductions or claim improper refunds. The fraud takes root not in shady ads or informal platforms, but in a tax infrastructure that fails to verify the legitimacy of transactions in real time. Despite having a digital identity framework and certified validators in place, more than 8,000 shell entities have used these tools to issue fake invoices that are indistinguishable from valid ones.The government's move to deputize digital platforms sidesteps the real problem: the lack of a transactional choke point where the buyer, seller, and tax authority all converge—namely, the point of sale. Countries like Brazil and Italy have shown that embedding validation at checkout prevents fraud from scaling. Until Mexico adopts this kind of infrastructure, enforcement efforts will continue to target the periphery while the core system remains vulnerable.Mexico Effort to Curtail VAT Fraud Needs Real-Time Verification This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Armistice DayOn November 11, 1918, World War I came to an end with the signing of the Armistice between the Allies and Germany. While not a legal instrument in the treaty sense, the armistice was a binding agreement that had massive legal and geopolitical ramifications. Its terms, including a cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of German forces, and surrender of military equipment, were enforced by military and diplomatic means, laying the groundwork for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The legal aftermath of the war led to the creation of new nation-states, redrawn borders, and the first formal attempt at international governance through the League of Nations.November 11 would later be recognized in the United States as Veterans Day, originally commemorated as Armistice Day, reflecting the legal shift from honoring only WWI veterans to recognizing all who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The legal transition occurred in 1954 when President Eisenhower signed legislation formally renaming the holiday. The legal framework surrounding veterans' benefits also expanded post-WWI, with landmark legislation like the GI Bill of Rights in 1944 and its subsequent reauthorizations, shaping how the U.S. compensates military service.Internationally, the armistice also contributed to legal debates over war guilt and reparations, particularly with Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles—the so-called “War Guilt Clause”—which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies. That clause became a flashpoint in both legal and political discussions and was later cited by Germany as a grievance contributing to the rise of Nazism and WWII.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis had argued that her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shielded her from liability, but lower courts rejected that defense, awarding damages and attorneys' fees exceeding $360,000 to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore. The Sixth Circuit found that Davis's actions constituted state action, not protected private conduct, and that she could not invoke her own constitutional rights to infringe on the rights of others while acting in an official capacity.Davis had also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, arguing it rested on the same substantive due process doctrine as Roe v. Wade, which the Court overturned in 2022. However, the justices declined to take up that issue, just as they had in 2020. The Court's refusal to revisit Obergefell signals a reluctance, at least for now, to reexamine established rights to same-sex marriage, even as the bench remains deeply conservative.US Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage right | ReutersSenior U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, appointed by President Reagan in 1985, announced his resignation in order to publicly oppose what he describes as President Donald Trump's abuse of legal authority. In an article for The Atlantic, Wolf accused Trump of weaponizing the law against political enemies while shielding allies, a pattern he claims contradicts the principles he upheld over five decades in the Justice Department and on the bench. Wolf cited Trump's direction to Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict political opponents, including New York AG Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, as especially troubling.Wolf expressed frustration over the ethical constraints on judges that prevent them from speaking out publicly, saying he could no longer remain silent as Trump undermined the rule of law and dismantled oversight mechanisms such as inspectors general and the FBI's public-corruption unit. His resignation comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, underscored by combative rhetoric at a recent Federalist Society event. Wolf, who had previously criticized the handling of ethics complaints against Justice Clarence Thomas, said he now plans to support litigation and advocacy efforts to protect democratic norms and defend judges unable to speak for themselves.Reagan Judge Says He Quit Bench to Speak Out Against TrumpThe Trump administration has significantly shortened the time between publicly announcing judicial nominees and holding their Senate confirmation hearings, in some cases to as little as two days—far less than the typical 28-day window used by past administrations. While the Senate Judiciary Committee still adheres to its rule requiring 28 days between receiving nominee questionnaires and hearings, the White House now delays public disclosure until much later in the process, often after nominees have cleared internal background checks. Critics argue this reduces transparency and limits public scrutiny of lifetime judicial appointments, while supporters claim the process is efficient and appropriate given the nominees' qualifications.Some nominees, like Louisiana district court picks William Crain and Alexander Van Hook, received swift hearings with little controversy, though others, like appellate nominee Emil Bove, drew public concern during the brief window between announcement and hearing. Observers also criticized the administration's choice to reveal nominees via Trump's Truth Social account, often late at night, bypassing traditional press channels. Legal experts suggest this shift reflects a strategic move to minimize opposition and accelerate confirmations, but it has alarmed advocacy groups who say it undermines public trust and democratic norms.Trump Changes How Judicial Nominees Get Publicly Revealed This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Social Security AmendmentsOn November 10, 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at addressing a looming fiscal crisis in the Social Security system. At the time, the program was projected to run out of funds within months, threatening benefits for millions of retirees. The bipartisan effort, led by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, produced a package of reforms that fundamentally altered the structure of Social Security and continue to shape its operation today. One of the most significant changes was the gradual increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67, a shift that reflected growing life expectancies and was designed to reduce long-term benefit payouts.Another major provision subjected Social Security benefits to federal income tax for higher-income recipients, marking a departure from the program's previously tax-exempt status. These changes helped restore solvency to the system and underscored the evolving view of Social Security not merely as a safety net, but as part of a broader fiscal policy framework. The amendments also mandated that federal employees begin paying into Social Security and included temporary payroll tax increases.The 1983 reforms were notable for their rare bipartisan consensus, forged between a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled House. The political compromise demonstrated that major structural entitlement reform was possible when both parties shared a sense of urgency and responsibility. The law's legacy is complex—it shored up the system for decades but left future generations facing similar solvency questions. Legal scholars and policymakers still reference the 1983 amendments as a model of negotiated reform, even as the political climate has become more polarized. The taxation of benefits and the higher retirement age remain central to debates about equity and sustainability within the program.The Social Security Amendments of 1983 exemplify how statutory changes can recalibrate entitlement programs to respond to demographic and economic pressures, while raising ongoing questions about intergenerational fairness and fiscal responsibility.A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to rely solely on $4.65 billion in contingency funds, which would have resulted in reduced aid, but the court found this inadequate. The Rhode Island judge had ordered the USDA to tap into a separate $23.35 billion fund intended for child nutrition programs to cover the $4 billion shortfall and avoid widespread harm to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.While the 1st Circuit declined to stay the lower court's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order, creating ongoing uncertainty about benefit distribution. The USDA has since directed states to reverse any moves to issue full benefits made before the pause, warning of potential financial penalties. The administration argued that it couldn't be forced to reallocate funds during a shutdown, blaming Congress for the funding crisis. However, the appeals court emphasized the urgent need to prevent food insecurity during the winter. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by cities, nonprofits, a union, and a food retailer seeking full benefit payments.Trump administration cannot withhold full funding for food aid, US appeals court rules | ReutersLarge and midsized U.S. law firms experienced a strong increase in client demand during the third quarter of 2025, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Demand rose 3.9% year-over-year—marking one of the largest quarterly gains in two decades and the highest outside the 2021 post-pandemic rebound. Transactional practices drove much of this growth, particularly among midsized firms, with M&A work rising 6.7%, corporate work up 4.4%, and real estate and tax also showing solid gains.Litigation demand increased 4.9%, while labor and employment rose 4%. Bankruptcy, however, dipped slightly by 0.4%. Demand for countercyclical practices—those that tend to rise in downturns—was more modest, with larger firms seeing smaller gains compared to firms ranked 101–200. Midsized firms also saw a 3.9% rise in these areas. Analysts attribute part of the shift to corporate clients seeking cost control by reallocating work to more affordable firms.Billing rates were also up 7.4%, contributing to greater profitability despite a 7.5% increase in overhead expenses driven by tech investments. While current trends point to a strong 2025, the report warned of continued global economic and geopolitical instability that could reverse gains quickly.US law firms saw demand surge in third quarter - report | ReutersDemocrats ended a record-long government shutdown without securing their primary goal: the extension of health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Despite initial unity, eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans to advance a bill reopening the government on its 40th day, omitting the sought-after healthcare provisions. In return, they received only a vague promise of a future vote on the subsidies, a concession many in the party, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and leaders in the House, criticized as a strategic failure.The decision has sparked internal party conflict, especially after Democrats had recently seen electoral gains tied to their affordability messaging. Some Democrats believed holding out longer might have forced Republican concessions, but others, like Senator Jeanne Shaheen, argued prolonging the shutdown would only harm the public. The failed push is reminiscent of past shutdowns, including Trump's 2018-19 border wall standoff, where policy goals were ultimately abandoned after prolonged disruption.Air travel chaos and delayed food aid added pressure to end the shutdown, with more than 10,000 flights affected and warnings of a near-complete travel halt ahead of Thanksgiving. While public opinion largely blamed Republicans for the impasse, Democrats now hope to leverage the upcoming healthcare vote in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms. The fate of the tax credits—and potentially rising premiums for 24 million Americans—will likely become a defining campaign issue. The shutdown technically continues as the Senate and House still need to finalize and pass the bill before President Trump can sign it.Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in HandPresident Donald Trump has issued pardons to at least 77 individuals connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and other close allies. The pardons, outlined in a proclamation dated Friday, were framed by Trump as an attempt to end a “grave national injustice” and promote “national reconciliation.” These actions come amid ongoing investigations into the fake elector scheme that aimed to keep Trump in power after his 2020 loss to Joe Biden—a plan Trump and his allies continued to promote until his 2024 re-election.While Trump himself had been federally indicted in connection with the elector plot, that case was dismissed after his re-election, citing the Justice Department's policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The pardons only apply to federal charges and do not shield recipients from state-level prosecutions, which remain active in some jurisdictions. The White House has not publicly commented on the latest round of pardons, many of which were not formally announced.Included in the list of recipients are legal and political figures such as John Eastman, Christina Bobb, and Boris Epshteyn, all of whom played public roles in contesting the 2020 results. The full number of individuals pardoned could be even higher, as the list may include unnamed individuals.Trump pardons Giuliani and dozens of others accused of seeking to overturn his 2020 defeat | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss the oral arguments over Trump's tariffs which are now being heard before the Supreme Court, Dick Cheney's legacy, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: 2000 Presidential ElectionOn November 7, 2000, the United States held a presidential election that would evolve into one of the most significant legal showdowns in American history. The race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida, where just hundreds of votes separated the two candidates. Under state law, the closeness of the vote triggered an automatic machine recount. What followed was a legal and political firestorm involving punch-card ballots, partially detached chads, and controversial ballot designs like the “butterfly ballot,” which some argued led to voter confusion.Litigation quickly erupted in Florida state courts, with both campaigns fighting over recount procedures and ballot validity. Central to the legal debate was whether Florida counties could use different standards in determining voter intent during manual recounts. The legal issues raised tested interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the boundaries of state versus federal authority in managing elections. Amid national uncertainty and media frenzy, the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.On December 12, 2000, the Court issued a 5–4 decision halting the Florida recount, citing equal protection concerns due to inconsistent recount standards across counties. The ruling effectively secured Florida's 25 electoral votes for Bush, granting him the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. The decision was criticized by many for its perceived partisanship and for explicitly stating it should not be viewed as precedent. It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern history.The legal battles following the November 7 election exposed deep vulnerabilities in U.S. election infrastructure and prompted calls for reform, including updating voting technology and clarifying recount laws. The case continues to shape discussions around judicial involvement in elections, federalism, and democratic legitimacy.A federal judge is expected to rule on whether President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon to suppress protests. The case, brought by Oregon's attorney general and the City of Portland, challenges the legality of Trump's domestic military deployment under emergency powers, with broader implications for similar plans in other Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who already issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, will now decide if that block should become permanent. The central legal question is whether the Portland protests legally constituted a rebellion, which is one of the few conditions under which federal troops may be used domestically.The Justice Department argued the deployment was justified, citing violence at a federal immigration facility and describing Portland as “war-ravaged.” Defense attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that most protests were peaceful and that any violence was limited and contained by local authorities.A Reuters review revealed 32 federal charges tied to the protests, mostly for assaulting federal officers. Only a few resulted in serious charges or potential prison time.This case marks a significant test of civil-military boundaries and the limits of presidential emergency powers, and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.Judge to rule on Trump's Portland troop deployment | ReutersSean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was acquitted of misdemeanor assault by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., after a high-profile trial over an incident in which he threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a 2025 protest. The case, which gained viral attention, stemmed from an August 10 altercation during President Trump's law enforcement surge in the capital. Video footage showed Dunn yelling at officers and then throwing the sandwich, which reportedly splattered mustard and left onion on the officer's equipment.The jury deliberated for about seven hours over two days before finding Dunn not guilty under a statute that criminalizes assaulting or interfering with federal officers. Prosecutors argued the sandwich throw interfered with official duties, while Dunn's defense contended it caused no injury and was symbolic, intended to divert law enforcement from what Dunn feared was an impending immigration raid at a nearby LGBTQ+ nightclub. The CBP officer testified the sandwich left minor messes but no harm, and later received humorous gifts from coworkers related to the incident, which the defense used to downplay its seriousness.The verdict is another setback for the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, which has struggled to secure convictions in protest-related cases stemming from Trump enforcement policies. Dunn, who had been fired from the DOJ shortly after the incident, expressed relief and said he believed his actions defended immigrant rights. The presiding judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case mid-trial but ultimately left the decision to the jury, which rejected the prosecution's claim that the act met the legal threshold for assault.Sandwich Hurler Acquitted of Assault Charge in Viral DC Case (2)U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits (food aid) for 42 million low-income Americans by Friday, rejecting the administration's plan to issue reduced payments during the ongoing government shutdown. McConnell sharply criticized the administration for what he described as using food aid as a political weapon, and warned of irreparable harm if full benefits were not provided, including hunger and overwhelmed food pantries.The USDA had initially planned to suspend benefits entirely in November due to a lack of congressional funding. It later proposed covering only 65% of benefits using limited contingency funds—an option McConnell said was inadequate and failed to address administrative challenges, such as outdated state computer systems unable to process reduced payments. Some states estimated it would take days to weeks to reconfigure their systems for partial payouts.McConnell said the administration should instead use a $23.35 billion tariff fund—previously used for child nutrition—to fully fund November benefits. His ruling followed a related case in Boston, where another judge also found that the government was legally obligated to use available emergency funds to keep food aid flowing.The Trump administration appealed the ruling and blamed Senate Democrats for blocking a funding bill that would end the shutdown. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the court's decision as “absurd,” framing it as interference in a political stalemate.Trump administration must fully fund food aid benefits by Friday, US judge rules | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week marks the anniversary of the death of Tchaikovsky, who passed away on November 6, 1893 according to the Gregorian calendar—November 7 on the Julian calendar still used in Russia at the time. His death, just days after the premiere of his Sixth Symphony (Pathétique), remains a subject of speculation and sorrow in classical music history. In honor of that date, we're closing the week with one of his earlier and more intimate works: the String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11.Composed in 1871, the quartet was Tchaikovsky's first major chamber piece and reflects his growing confidence outside the orchestral realm. Though best known for sweeping ballets and symphonies, here Tchaikovsky demonstrates a delicate sense of form and emotional restraint. The second movement, “Andante cantabile,” became especially beloved—Leo Tolstoy reportedly wept when he heard it performed.Unlike his dramatic orchestral works, this quartet offers a quiet depth, full of folk-inspired melodies and lyrical interplay between the instruments. It balances elegance with melancholy, a quality that would come to define much of his later music. Tchaikovsky himself cherished the piece, often arranging and revisiting it throughout his career. The “Andante cantabile” was even played at his own memorial.As we mark November 7, it's fitting to reflect on the more introspective side of a composer whose life and death still stir emotion more than a century later. Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 doesn't shout—it speaks gently, as if in conversation, and in that quiet voice, it endures.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's String Quartet No. 1 in D Major, Op. 11 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Saddam Hussein Sentenced to DeathOn November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The charges stemmed from the 1982 massacre of 148 Shiite men and boys in the town of Dujail, an act of collective punishment after an assassination attempt on Hussein. The verdict came after a year-long trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal, a special court established to prosecute former members of Saddam's regime. The proceedings were highly controversial, drawing criticism for their fairness, security lapses, and political interference.Saddam's defense team faced threats and attacks, with several lawyers murdered during the trial. International human rights organizations expressed concern over the tribunal's procedures, noting a lack of due process protections. Despite these criticisms, the court found Hussein guilty and sentenced him to death. His co-defendants, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bandar, also received death sentences. Saddam remained defiant throughout the trial, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the court and accusing it of being a tool of occupation.The sentence was upheld on appeal and carried out swiftly, with Saddam Hussein executed on December 30, 2006. His execution, filmed and leaked online, sparked outrage and deepened sectarian tensions in Iraq. Many saw the trial and its aftermath as exacerbating divisions rather than promoting justice and reconciliation. The event marked a pivotal moment in Iraq's post-invasion legal and political reconstruction, highlighting both the possibilities and limits of transitional justice in a conflict-ridden environment.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law not originally intended for such use. The case stems from lawsuits by affected businesses and 12 mostly Democratic-led states, claiming Trump's application of IEEPA to impose tariffs violated constitutional limits, as Congress—not the president—holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. The law has traditionally been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions during national emergencies, not to regulate routine trade.Trump's administration has defended the tariffs as a national security measure and emphasized their economic impact, having generated nearly $90 billion in revenue. The president has pressured the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to uphold his interpretation of IEEPA, warning that overturning the tariffs would leave the nation vulnerable. If struck down, the administration intends to pursue the tariffs through other legal avenues.Critics argue the case reflects broader concerns about Trump's expansion of executive power, as IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Federal Circuit Court ruled against Trump, stating that Congress likely did not intend to hand the president such broad trade authority and invoking the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive power absent clear congressional approval. The justices' decision will test their willingness to check presidential overreach and could reshape the boundaries of executive authority in economic policy.Supreme Court weighs legality of tariffs in major test of Trump's power | ReutersSupreme Court Confronts Trump's Power to Disrupt World Trade (1)The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Joshua Dunlap, to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, marking a significant shift for the Boston-based court that had, until now, consisted solely of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The confirmation vote was 52-46, largely along party lines. This is Trump's first successful appointment to the 1st Circuit, long viewed as a legal roadblock to many of his policies due to its liberal composition.Dunlap, a conservative litigator from Maine, has a background in challenging progressive state laws, including Maine's ranked-choice voting system and paid family leave policies. He previously interned with the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom and has expressed personal views critical of abortion and same-sex marriage in past public writings. During his confirmation hearing, he maintained that his personal beliefs would not influence his judicial decisions.The vacancy Dunlap fills opened when Judge William Kayatta, an Obama appointee, assumed senior status in late 2024. President Biden had nominated Julia Lipez for the seat, but her confirmation stalled before the end of his term. With this appointment, Trump gains a foothold in a court that has played a central role in legal challenges against his administration, and which could now shift incrementally rightward.Senate confirms Trump's pick to join liberal-majority US appeals court | ReutersA federal appeals court appeared doubtful of Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to overturn his fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence tied to the collapse of his FTX cryptocurrency exchange. During oral arguments, judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether the trial judge's exclusion of certain defense evidence truly compromised the fairness of the proceedings. One judge asked if, by not disputing the strength of the evidence, Bankman-Fried was effectively conceding its sufficiency.Bankman-Fried's legal team argued that even if the jury had enough evidence to convict, the judge's decisions about what evidence to allow still denied him a fair trial. Specifically, they claimed the jury never saw key materials that could have supported Bankman-Fried's belief that FTX had the funds to honor customer withdrawals.Prosecutors pushed back, emphasizing that the government's case was overwhelming. They noted that three insiders testified they conspired with Bankman-Fried to misappropriate customer funds, and documents corroborated their accounts. Bankman-Fried, once a billionaire and crypto industry figurehead, was convicted in 2023 on seven counts, including fraud and conspiracy, for stealing $8 billion from users.At sentencing, the judge said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted illegally but underestimated the risk of being caught. Though some close to him have reportedly sought a presidential pardon, Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated in a low-security facility in California and is eligible for release in 2044.Appeals court skeptical of Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to toss crypto fraud conviction | ReutersGoogle and Epic Games announced a settlement in their years-long legal dispute over app distribution and payment systems on Android devices. While the full terms were not made public, the agreement follows a 2023 jury verdict in favor of Epic, which found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by securing exclusivity deals with phone makers and app developers to lock them into its Play Store.The settlement arrives as Google was already under a court order to restructure aspects of its app store. U.S. District Judge James Donato had previously mandated that Google stop favoring its own services and allow developers more freedom, including steering users to cheaper payment options outside the Play Store. He also required Google to provide app catalog access to rivals to support competition.Under the new agreement, many of Donato's requirements remain, but with modifications. Instead of full catalog access, “registered app stores” will now receive equal treatment to the Play Store, and commission fees for off-store purchases are capped at either 9% or 20%, depending on the transaction. Both companies told the court that negotiations involved top executives and were prompted by the court's pressure.The settlement also resolves Epic's related litigation against Samsung. Executives from both companies described the agreement as a step toward greater developer freedom and a more open Android ecosystem. Google emphasized user safety and developer flexibility, while Epic praised the deal as a return to Android's open platform roots.Google, Epic Games Settle Yearslong Legal Fight Over App Store This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Massachusetts Institutes Death Penalty for HeresyOn November 4, 1646, the Massachusetts General Court enacted a law that imposed the death penalty for heresy, marking one of the most extreme expressions of religious intolerance in early American colonial history. The law required all members of the colony to affirm the Bible as the true and authoritative Word of God. Failure to do so was not merely frowned upon—it was made a capital offense. This legislation reflected the theocratic underpinnings of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which had been established by Puritans seeking religious freedom for themselves but not necessarily for others.The Puritan leadership equated dissent with disorder, and heresy with treason against divine authority. The law was aimed particularly at groups such as Quakers, Baptists, and others who challenged orthodox Puritan theology. While it is unclear whether anyone was actually executed under this specific statute, it laid the foundation for later persecution, including the execution of Mary Dyer, a Quaker, in 1660. The law exemplifies how early colonial governments wielded both civil and religious authority in tandem.It also foreshadows the centuries-long struggle in American legal and cultural history to define the boundaries between church and state. Though the U.S. Constitution would later enshrine religious freedom in the First Amendment, this 1646 law demonstrates how precarious that freedom was in earlier periods. The harshness of the law also underscores the broader context of 17th-century Europe and its colonies, where religious uniformity was often enforced through state power. Massachusetts would gradually shift away from such punishments, but not without considerable resistance.Sam Bankman-Fried's legal team will argue before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his conviction for defrauding FTX customers should be overturned. The 33-year-old former crypto executive is currently serving a 25-year sentence after being found guilty in 2023 of stealing $8 billion from FTX users. His lawyers claim the trial judge unfairly excluded key evidence—specifically, information supporting Bankman-Fried's belief that FTX had sufficient assets to cover customer withdrawals. Prosecutors counter that the evidence against him, including internal records and testimony from former associates, was overwhelming.Bankman-Fried was once considered a leading figure in the crypto space, known for his high-profile donations and media presence before his downfall. During the trial, former executives at FTX and Alameda Research testified that he instructed them to misuse customer funds to cover hedge fund losses. He was convicted of two fraud counts and five conspiracy charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who sentenced him in March 2024, said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted criminally but underestimated the risk of detection. There are also unconfirmed reports that some in his circle are lobbying Donald Trump for a pardon, though Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated at a low-security facility in California and is expected to be released in 2044.Sam Bankman-Fried's lawyers to argue for new fraud trial for FTX founder | ReutersGetty Images has largely lost its high-profile UK lawsuit against Stability AI, the company behind the image-generating tool Stable Diffusion. Getty had accused Stability AI of copyright infringement, claiming the AI system was trained on millions of its images without permission. However, Getty dropped the core part of the case mid-trial due to insufficient evidence about where and how the AI was trained, leaving that central legal question unresolved. The remaining claims focused on trademark infringement and secondary copyright violations.The High Court ruled that Getty partially succeeded on the trademark issue, noting Stable Diffusion sometimes generated images that included Getty's watermark. But the judge emphasized that this finding was historically narrow and of limited scope. Getty's broader copyright claim was dismissed, with the court finding that Stable Diffusion does not store or directly reproduce copyrighted works. Legal experts called the ruling disappointing for copyright holders and warned it exposed gaps in UK intellectual property protections regarding AI.Both companies claimed aspects of victory: Getty pointed to the trademark ruling and the recognition that AI models can be subject to IP laws, while Stability AI emphasized that the decision effectively cleared the core copyright concerns. Getty warned the decision highlights the difficulty even well-funded companies face in protecting creative works and urged governments to strengthen transparency rules around AI training data. Legal analysts say the ruling leaves a major legal question unresolved—whether training AI on copyrighted content without consent constitutes infringement under UK law.Getty Images largely loses landmark UK lawsuit over AI image generator | ReutersPennsylvania lawmakers are advancing a regulatory and fee-based proposal targeting “skill games”—arcade-style gambling machines—without first resolving the legal and oversight framework surrounding them. Senate Bill 1079, introduced by Senators Gene Yaw and Anthony Williams, proposes a $500 monthly fee per machine, capped at 50,000 terminals, potentially raising $300 million annually. However, I argue that this revenue-driven approach puts fiscal goals ahead of sound regulation. The bill includes some regulatory provisions like machine limits, ID checks, and a centralized monitoring system, but these appear to have been crafted after the fee structure, not as foundational policy.Skill games have operated in a legal gray area since a 2023 court ruling found they don't meet the state's definition of gambling devices. That ambiguity has persisted, leaving the machines largely unregulated but widespread. Instead of clarifying the legal status of these machines and building a regulatory framework first, lawmakers now seem focused on monetizing them quickly—potentially to preempt a stricter tax plan proposed by Governor Shapiro. The bill notably keeps enforcement under the Department of Revenue rather than the more experienced Gaming Control Board, raising questions about effective oversight.This structure may incentivize the rapid deployment of machines to meet revenue goals, risking poor compliance and ineffective safeguards. In sum, I go on to say the proposal uses regulation to justify revenue collection, rather than using revenue to support a robust regulatory system. Without a clear legal definition, licensing process, and proper enforcement authority, the current plan prioritizes money over governance.Pennsylvania Skill Game Fee Regulations Have Questionable Timing This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory's readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada's population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada's leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada's admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada's telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state's motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada's admission also helped secure support for Lincoln's re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE's requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama's address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama's D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump's mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto's defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn't committed any violence.After White and Valdivia's suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob' | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department's recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani's ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency's employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs' law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client's withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master's authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week's closing theme is Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death's dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music's most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: October ManifestoOn October 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia issued the October Manifesto in response to mounting unrest and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Russian Empire. The 1905 Revolution had erupted earlier that year following the Bloody Sunday massacre, in which unarmed protesters were gunned down by imperial guards. Strikes, peasant revolts, and mutinies within the military and navy intensified public pressure for reform. The October Manifesto promised several liberalizing measures: the creation of a legislative Duma (parliament), expansion of civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience, and a commitment that no law would be enacted without the Duma's consent.Though revolutionary factions remained skeptical, the manifesto temporarily quelled widespread unrest and led to the formation of Russia's first constitutional structure. It marked the first time autocratic power in Russia was publicly limited by law, at least in theory. However, the tsarist regime maintained significant control: Nicholas retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and manipulate election laws. Conservative forces viewed the manifesto as a concession made under duress, while radicals criticized it as too limited and unenforceable.The October Manifesto also split opposition forces. Some liberals, known as Octobrists, supported working within the new constitutional framework. Others, including the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, dismissed the document as a façade and continued to push for broader revolution. In legal terms, the manifesto introduced the concept of legislative consent into Russian governance, establishing a precedent for popular representation in lawmaking. Although the Duma's actual power remained constrained, the October Manifesto set the stage for future political conflicts that would culminate in the Russian Revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration's recent approvals for oil and gas leasing in Alaska and road development projects are drawing scrutiny from environmental groups, who say the decisions were made opaquely during a government shutdown, limiting their ability to challenge them in court. These projects include reopening leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), issuing permits for the 211-mile Ambler Road to mining sites, and approving a controversial land exchange to allow road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. Environmental attorneys argue that key documents and analyses justifying these decisions remain unavailable, complicating legal strategies.The Interior Department, operating with a reduced staff, has only offered links to decision documents, providing little insight into environmental protections or regulatory compliance. Although these projects have been previously contested in court, the lack of transparency surrounding the latest approvals hinders further action. Some legal experts suggest potential conflicts of interest—such as the U.S. acquiring a stake in a company tied to the Ambler Road—could be grounds for future lawsuits. Additionally, the Izembek land swap may face legal challenges for bypassing required congressional approval.Environmental Groups Challenged in Fighting Trump's Alaska MovesThree former Morgan Stanley financial advisers are suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a recent advisory opinion that they argue unlawfully shields the bank from arbitration claims related to unpaid deferred compensation. Filed in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that the Labor Department's September 9 finding—that Morgan Stanley's deferred compensation plan does not qualify as an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA—conflicts with two prior court rulings that said it does.The plaintiffs, Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, say the opinion was “arbitrary and capricious” and would undermine their efforts, and those of other former employees, to arbitrate claims over canceled or unpaid compensation. They also claim Morgan Stanley is already using the Labor Department's stance to dismiss ongoing claims and seek reimbursement of legal costs.Though Morgan Stanley is not a defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs argue the agency overstepped its authority and are asking the court to revoke the advisory opinion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Sheresky et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, raises broader questions about administrative agencies issuing legal interpretations that can influence private litigation outcomes without proper judicial or legislative review.Former Morgan Stanley advisers sue US Labor Department | ReutersEli Lilly has announced a new partnership with Walmart to offer its weight-loss drug Zepbound at discounted, direct-to-consumer prices through Walmart pharmacies nationwide. This marks the first time customers using the LillyDirect platform can pick up the medication in person at a retail location. The lowest dose of Zepbound will be available for $349 per month for self-paying patients.The move is part of Lilly's broader strategy to expand access and boost market share in the competitive obesity drug space, currently valued at around $150 billion. Zepbound competes directly with Novo Nordisk's Wegovy, but recent data suggests Lilly has pulled ahead in prescriptions, despite Novo's earlier market entry.Lilly reported that around 35% of Zepbound prescriptions in Q2 came from cash-paying customers using LillyDirect. Both Lilly and Novo have also made their weight-loss drugs available through various telehealth platforms, further expanding patient access.Lilly, Walmart launch first retail pick-up option for weight-loss drug | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week looks at the escalating tensions surrounding digital services taxes (DSTs), with France once again moving to raise its DST—from 3% to 15%—primarily targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. The U.S. has responded with familiar threats of tariffs and trade retaliation, repeating a now well-worn pattern of diplomatic pushback without addressing the underlying issue. That issue is structural: the global tax framework was built around physical presence, but today's digital economy allows companies to generate profits in countries where they have no offices, employees, or infrastructure.As frustration builds in countries watching tech firms reap profits without corresponding local tax contributions, DSTs have become a tool to reclaim taxing rights. In response, nearly 140 countries have worked through the OECD to build a two-pillar international solution. Pillar One aims to reallocate taxing rights based on where users are located; Pillar Two introduces a global minimum tax. Yet, while other countries move forward, the U.S. continues to resist fully embracing Pillar One—out of concern for political optics and revenue loss.That resistance is counterproductive. By refusing to commit to a multilateral framework, the U.S. is guaranteeing the very outcome it opposes: a fragmented global tax landscape where each country sets its own rules. The current whac-a-mole strategy—reacting to every unilateral move with threats—offers no long-term protection for U.S. companies and only heightens global instability. It's time for the U.S. to stop playing defense and help finalize a framework that reflects the realities of the digital economy.Whac-A-Mole Taxation Battles Will Persist Without A Global Deal This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Black TuesdayOn October 29, 1929, the United States experienced one of the most catastrophic financial events in its history—Black Tuesday, the climax of the stock market crash that helped trigger the Great Depression. While primarily remembered as an economic crisis, this day also had profound and lasting legal consequences that reshaped American financial regulation and the federal government's role in the economy.In the immediate aftermath, the lack of oversight and rampant speculation that had fueled the 1920s bull market came under intense scrutiny. The legal system responded in the 1930s with a suite of landmark legislative reforms designed to stabilize financial markets and restore public confidence. Chief among these were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established mandatory disclosure requirements for public companies and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce federal securities laws.These laws introduced the legal principle that corporations owe a duty of candor to investors and that misleading or fraudulent statements can be subject to civil and criminal penalties. They also laid the foundation for modern financial regulation, including rules governing insider trading, market manipulation, and fiduciary duties of brokers and advisors.The legal legacy of October 29, 1929, is thus not limited to market losses but includes the birth of a federal regulatory framework that continues to govern securities markets today. It marked a turning point where the federal government took a permanent role in policing Wall Street and protecting investors through statutory and administrative mechanisms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Argentina's appeal of a $16.1 billion judgment related to its 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF. The judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in 2023, awarded $14.39 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and $1.71 billion to Eton Park Capital Management, former minority shareholders of YPF. They claimed Argentina violated contractual obligations by failing to make a tender offer when it nationalized 51% of YPF from Spanish energy firm Repsol.Argentina argues the case should not be heard in a U.S. court, citing sovereign immunity, misapplication of Argentine law, and the principle of international comity. It also contends the damages are vastly overstated—amounting to 45% of its 2024 national budget. The litigation has been financially backed by Burford Capital, which could receive a large payout if the appeal fails.The appeal arrives as President Javier Milei, a libertarian reformer, works to stabilize Argentina's economy with austerity measures, having recently achieved a rare budget surplus. Meanwhile, Argentina is also separately appealing a court order to hand over YPF shares, an order currently on hold. The U.S. government has not taken a stance on the appeal but opposed the share turnover, citing foreign policy risks.Argentina to ask US appeals court to overturn $16.1 billion YPF judgment | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Bilal Essayli was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for California's Central District, which includes Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli's continued service beyond the 120-day interim period allowed by law was improper since he had neither been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This decision disqualifies him from serving in the acting role but allows him to remain as first assistant U.S. attorney.The ruling does not dismiss three criminal indictments issued during Essayli's tenure, as they were signed by other prosecutors and no due process violations were found. Still, the judgment raises concerns about leadership stability in the largest federal judicial district in the country, serving roughly 19 million people.Essayli's appointment was part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of bypassing Senate confirmation for key prosecutorial roles. A similar ruling recently invalidated the acting U.S. attorney appointment in Nevada, and another decision in New Jersey blocked Alina Habba, a Trump ally, from participating in prosecutions. These appointments are now under appeal.Judge disqualifies ‘acting' US attorney in California | ReutersThe celebrity video platform Cameo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court, accusing it of unlawfully using the name “Cameo” for a new feature in its Sora video generation app. Cameo claims that OpenAI's use of the term for AI-generated virtual likenesses causes brand confusion and threatens the distinctiveness of its trademark.OpenAI launched Sora as a standalone app in late September, and its feature—also named “Cameo”—lets users create AI-generated videos that can include virtual celebrities. Cameo argues this directly competes with its own service, where users pay real celebrities for personalized video messages. The company pointed to examples of AI-generated videos featuring public figures like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul, claiming this puts OpenAI in head-to-head competition with their business model.Cameo said it attempted to resolve the issue privately, but OpenAI declined to change the feature's name. OpenAI responded that it disagrees with the lawsuit, arguing no one can monopolize a generic term like “cameo.”The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court injunction to stop OpenAI from using the name “Cameo.”OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora's ‘Cameo' feature | ReutersTexas has hired the law firm Keller Postman—which previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta—to lead a new lawsuit alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Filed in Panola County, the suit accuses Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, Tylenol's current owner, of misleading consumers by marketing the drug to pregnant women despite knowing potential developmental risks tied to its active ingredient, acetaminophen.Ashley Keller, a senior partner at the firm, said the case will be handled on a contingency basis, meaning Texas pays only if it wins, similar to prior deals with Meta and Google. The firm's effective hourly rate under that model can reach $3,780, though its total fees are capped at 11% of any recovery. Keller defended the state's approach, saying the firm invests heavily and shares the litigation risk with Texas.The lawsuit builds on ongoing national litigation over acetaminophen and childhood developmental disorders, though courts have previously rejected similar claims. A 2024 federal ruling in New York dismissed related cases after expert testimony linking acetaminophen to ADHD was excluded. Texas' case, however, is distinct because it focuses on state-level claims of deceptive trade practices and fraudulent transfer, alleging J&J unlawfully moved Tylenol liabilities to Kenvue.Texas Returns to Keller Postman to Link Tylenol to Child Autism This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Volstead ActOn October 28, 1919, the Volstead Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over President Woodrow Wilson's veto, laying the legal foundation for Prohibition in the United States. Formally titled the National Prohibition Act, the law was intended to provide for the enforcement of the 18th Amendment, which had been ratified earlier that year and prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors.The Volstead Act, named after Representative Andrew Volstead of Minnesota who introduced it, defined what constituted “intoxicating liquors”—a key point of contention. It set the threshold at anything containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume, thereby banning even beer and wine, which many Americans had not expected to be included. The law also outlined penalties and enforcement mechanisms, giving the federal government new policing powers.Prohibition officially began in January 1920, sparking a surge in bootlegging, speakeasies, and organized crime. While intended to curb alcohol consumption and related social problems, the law instead fueled a vast illicit economy. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for Prohibition declined steadily throughout the 1920s.The Volstead Act remained in effect until the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933, marking the only time a constitutional amendment has been entirely undone by a subsequent amendment. The legacy of the Volstead Act lingers in ongoing debates about federal regulation, moral legislation, and the limits of enforcement.In a push to speed up electricity access for the fast-growing data center sector, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has directed federal energy regulators to consider a rule that would streamline how new projects connect to the electric grid. The proposed rule, sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), would allow customers to file combined requests for both energy demand and generation at the same site—cutting study times and costs. Wright also asked FERC to explore completing grid project reviews within 60 days, a sharp departure from the years-long timelines currently common.This move comes as U.S. power demand rises sharply, largely due to artificial intelligence workloads, prompting the Trump administration to seek expanded capacity, particularly from fossil fuel and nuclear sources. Though the Energy Secretary cannot compel FERC to act, the Republican-led commission will now weigh the proposals. Industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute praised the initiative as a necessary step to stay competitive, while environmental advocates criticized the fast-tracked timelines as reckless, especially during a government shutdown.Wright also urged FERC to ease the permitting process for hydroelectric development, drawing praise from the hydropower industry, which sees regulatory delays as a major barrier to growth. The proposals reflect the administration's strategy to meet surging energy demand quickly, though they raise concerns about environmental oversight and procedural rigor.US pushes regulators on connecting data centers to grid | ReutersTexas's new Business Court, launched in September 2024 across five major cities, is quickly becoming a boon for law firms, attracting a wave of high-stakes commercial litigation and prompting staffing increases. Major firms like Jackson Walker, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Baker Botts are leading the charge, with over 220 cases already filed—far exceeding early expectations. The court, designed to compete with Delaware's Court of Chancery and bolster Texas's business-friendly reputation, is drawing interest from corporate giants like AT&T, BP, and Exxon Mobil.Lawyers are treating the venue as a prestige arena for complex business disputes, and firms are responding by hiring, publishing guides, and producing media content to market their expertise. For example, Norton Rose launched a video series on court developments, while Haynes Boone created an internal task force to track rule changes.The court's promise of faster timelines—often under 18 months compared to multi-year waits in traditional courts—is one of its major selling points. Judges are aiming to build out a body of corporate case law to make Texas a viable alternative to Delaware for resolving business disputes. Despite no trials yet, over three dozen cases are jury-bound in the next year, signaling strong demand. The court's rapid rise suggests it could reshape where and how major commercial litigation happens in the U.S.Law Firms Join Early Winners in ‘Very Hot' Texas Business CourtThe head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal worker union, is urging Senate Democrats to help end the nearly month-long government shutdown—the second longest in U.S. history. AFGE President Everett Kelley called for an immediate reopening of the government through a “clean” short-term funding bill, aligning with a version passed by the Republican-controlled House in September.Democrats have resisted that approach, instead demanding that Republicans first agree to renew subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Kelley's statement increases pressure on Democrats, as federal employees begin to feel the financial strain—many missed their first full paycheck last week, and essential services like food aid and air traffic control are being impacted.Kelley also called for guaranteed back pay for all affected workers and urged bipartisan efforts to fix the broken appropriations process and address rising costs. A senior Senate GOP aide noted the union's position might signal a turning point in negotiations, potentially encouraging Democrats to reconsider the short-term funding route.Federal Worker Union Calls to End Shutdown, Pressuring DemocratsMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Italy's decision to raise its flat tax on wealthy foreign residents—a move that reflects the unsustainability of luring the rich with short-term tax deals. Italy isn't backtracking because its plan failed outright; it's doing so because it succeeded just long enough to paper over a deeper revenue gap. The original policy, a 100,000-euro annual payment to exempt new wealthy residents from foreign income taxes, was a bold but limited solution that boosted luxury markets without delivering long-term fiscal stability. Now, Italy is bumping that fee up to 300,000 euros by 2026 to keep the scheme afloat.That's a warning for the U.S., where the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act followed a similar path—offering generous upfront tax cuts to high earners with no lasting funding mechanism. Rather than building resilience into the tax system, both countries are layering short-term relief on top of structural deficits, leaving future policymakers to scramble for temporary fixes. I argue for automatic sunset provisions that scale back preferential tax treatment when equity or revenue metrics worsen, allowing tax codes to serve as stabilizers instead of giveaways. Metrics like tax revenue as a share of GDP or the Gini coefficient could trigger phaseouts without requiring political intervention.Italy's flat tax is a case study in what happens when fiscal policy becomes a subscription model for the wealthy: the price keeps going up, and the returns diminish. The U.S. is running a version of the same play, just with fewer disclosures and rosier assumptions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Copyright Act of 1976On October 27, 1978, key provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 officially took effect, modernizing U.S. copyright law for the first time in nearly 70 years. Although signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the Act delayed implementation of its core provisions until this date to allow for public and institutional adjustment. The law marked a major shift in how copyright was conceived, particularly by aligning U.S. law more closely with international standards.One of the most important changes was the extension of copyright protection to unpublished works, which had previously existed in a murky legal space. The Act also introduced the concept of works being protected once they were “fixed in a tangible medium of expression”, rather than requiring publication or registration, making protection more automatic and accessible. It moved away from the fixed-term system—previously 28 years with a renewal—toward a life-plus-50-years standard for most works, further updated to life-plus-70 years in 1998.Additionally, the law provided for fair use codification, laying out a four-factor test still used by courts today. It also clarified authorship and ownership rights, especially in the context of work-for-hire arrangements, and created clearer paths for compulsory licensing of certain works, including music.The Copyright Act of 1976 thus ushered in a more author-centric and technologically adaptive framework. It was designed with an eye toward the emerging digital era, even though it predates the internet. The Act remains the backbone of American copyright law today, regularly referenced and amended as new challenges arise.What I guess could be broadly considered a feel-good story, Isaac Stein's pivot from federal tax attorney to full-time hot dog vendor during the government shutdown is equal parts charming and quietly damning. With the IRS idled and thousands of public workers furloughed, Stein has taken his sidelining as an opportunity to live out a childhood dream — running a hot dog cart named SHYSTERS, complete with Moon Pies, RC Cola, and a slogan that reads, “The Only Honest Ripoff in D.C.” Wearing his usual business suit, he blends satire and performance art while serving construction workers, telecommuters, and other locals near the D.C. Metro.What began as a quirky weekend hobby has become a daily operation thanks to the indefinite work stoppage. Stein, 31, brings a regulatory lawyer's precision to the permitting process and a people person's flair to sidewalk commerce, referencing old-school D.C. aesthetics and childhood nostalgia with every dog he serves. Customers who can explain the cultural significance of RC Cola and Moon Pies even get a nickel off — an appropriately ironic twist in a city where billions of dollars are stuck in limbo.But the charm of this setup — a suit-clad lawyer slinging hot dogs under a punny sign — shouldn't distract from the underlying issue: Stein, like hundreds of thousands of other federal workers, is benched not by choice but by political dysfunction. He can afford to make it into an art project; others can't. The shutdown has real economic and emotional consequences, and not everyone has the resources or flexibility to turn lost income into a pop-up business. As clever and good-humored as SHYSTERS is, it also reminds us that “doing something fun” is not a substitute for stable governance or paychecks that come on time.Washington lawyer on furlough lives out dream of running a hot dog cart | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has appointed Michael Selig as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), signaling a continued push to make the U.S. a global hub for digital assets. Selig, currently the CFTC's chief counsel for its crypto task force, confirmed his selection alongside David Sacks, the White House's lead official for AI and crypto policy. Both praised the move as aligning with broader goals to modernize financial regulations and support innovation in digital markets.Selig stated he would prioritize freedom, competition, and innovation while helping establish the U.S. as the “Crypto Capital of the World.” His appointment follows a series of pro-crypto policy moves under Trump, including passage of the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts, both aimed at creating clearer regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies.Selig replaces Brian Quintenz, whose stalled nomination was reportedly derailed by lobbying efforts from Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss. The episode highlighted tensions within the crypto industry over regulatory leadership. Selig brings both public and private sector experience to the role, having previously worked at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher before joining the CFTC in March 2025. His appointment reflects the administration's continued alignment with digital asset advocates and its willingness to reshape financial oversight around emerging technologies.Trump names Michael Selig to chair CFTC; Selig cites crypto capital goal | ReutersExxon Mobil has filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging two newly enacted climate disclosure laws that require large companies to publicly report greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. In its complaint filed in federal court, Exxon argues that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling it to endorse views on climate reporting it disagrees with. The company contends that California's mandated frameworks are misleading, unnecessary, and conflict with existing voluntary disclosures and federal regulations.SB 253, set to take effect in 2026, targets companies earning over $1 billion annually and requires them to report both direct and indirect emissions — including those from suppliers and consumers. SB 261 applies to firms with over $500 million in revenue and mandates disclosure of climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies. Exxon says the laws amount to forced speech and overreach by the state, particularly given the overlap with federal disclosure requirements.While tech giants like Apple, Ikea, and Microsoft backed the legislation, major industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau Federation opposed it, calling the mandates burdensome. California has defended similar environmental policies in the past, but the outcome of this case could shape how far individual states can go in regulating corporate climate disclosures, especially when federal standards already exist.Exxon sues California over climate disclosure laws | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Vetoes War Powers ResolutionOn October 24, 1973, President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution (H.J. Res. 542), a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad. The resolution came in the wake of growing public and congressional frustration over the Vietnam War and secret military actions in Southeast Asia. The law required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and prohibited armed forces from remaining in conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Nixon, in a written veto message, declared the measure “unconstitutional and dangerous,” arguing that it infringed on the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.Despite Nixon's objections, Congress overrode the veto on November 7, 1973, with bipartisan support, thereby enacting the War Powers Resolution into law. This override marked a rare and forceful assertion of legislative authority over foreign military engagements. The resolution aimed to correct what many in Congress saw as decades of executive overreach in matters of war and peace. However, its constitutional legitimacy has remained contested. Presidents from both parties have often complied only in part—or ignored it altogether—asserting that the resolution unlawfully limits executive authority.While the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent unilateral military action, it has had limited practical effect in restraining presidents from engaging in hostilities without express congressional approval. Legal scholars continue to debate its enforceability and the constitutional balance it attempts to strike. The 1973 veto and subsequent override encapsulate enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of U.S. military power.Two federal judges—Julien Neals of New Jersey and Henry Wingate of Mississippi—recently admitted that erroneous rulings issued from their chambers were the result of law clerks or interns improperly using AI tools. The judges revealed in letters to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the flawed opinions contained fictitious citations or parties due to unvetted generative AI research. Judge Neals said a law school intern used ChatGPT, which led to nonexistent case quotes in a June 30 order, violating his chambers' unwritten policy against AI use. He has since formalized that policy. Judge Wingate reported that a law clerk used Perplexity AI to help draft a July 20 restraining order, which contained completely inaccurate case details. He acknowledged the draft “should have never been docketed” and is now requiring dual reviews of all drafts and hard-copy verification of cited cases.Legal scholars were critical of the situation, arguing that the use of AI does not relieve judges of their duty to verify citations and legal reasoning. Professors Stephen Gillers and Bruce Green both questioned how such oversights could occur and whether this reflects a broader trend of judges signing off on unverified drafts. Senator Chuck Grassley, who initiated an inquiry into the incidents, urged the judiciary to develop robust AI policies to prevent similar breakdowns in judicial accuracy. Interim guidance from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now cautions against using AI for core judicial tasks and emphasizes user accountability.Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out (1)Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the House of Representatives to officially swear her in, and the case has been assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23 to succeed her late father, Raúl Grijalva, has not yet been seated, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has delayed scheduling her swearing-in. Her formal entry into Congress would reduce the Republican majority and enable Democrats to trigger a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Judge McFadden is known for conservative rulings, though his record includes some independent decisions, such as restoring the Associated Press' White House access. Grijalva's legal team is examining the implications of his assignment to the case.Grijalva argues that the delay is not just procedural but prevents her from doing the basic work of a representative. Without a formal swearing-in, she lacks an office budget, staff, constituent services, and a working phone line. The number for her late father's office still routes to outdated voicemails. In contrast, Speaker Johnson downplayed the significance of the delay, suggesting Grijalva can still serve constituents informally. The case, Ariz. v. House of Representatives, now centers not only on procedural norms but also on the balance of political power in a narrowly divided House.Grijalva's Lawsuit to Force House Swearing-In Draws Trump JudgeNew York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to plead not guilty today in federal court to charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of misrepresenting a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia property as a second home to secure a lower mortgage interest rate—saving nearly $19,000—when she allegedly used the home as a rental investment. James denies wrongdoing and plans to challenge the charges, calling them baseless.The case marks a dramatic turn for James, a Democrat who last year won a $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Although the monetary penalty was overturned on appeal, the court upheld the underlying fraud finding. James is one of several public figures who have clashed with Trump and are now facing criminal charges under his administration, alongside former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.Critics, including a third of Republicans according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, believe Trump is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target perceived enemies. The lead prosecutor in the James case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was appointed by Trump after he replaced a prior prosecutor who raised concerns about the strength of the case. James' team argues Halligan is unlawfully serving in the role and has already moved to dismiss the charges. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.NY Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump adversary, to plead not guilty to mortgage charge | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss, Jr.This week's closing theme features Johann Strauss Jr. and a spirited dive into the Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss – I (”Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss – I”). Known as the “Waltz King,” Strauss Jr. was born on October 25, 1825, in Vienna and became the most celebrated composer of light dance music in the 19th century. While his father, Johann Strauss Sr., founded the family's musical dynasty, it was Strauss Jr. who elevated the Viennese waltz to international acclaim, transforming what had been a lively but modest ballroom dance into a glittering art form.Strauss Jr. composed over 500 works, including waltzes, polkas, and operettas, many of which captured the charm and social energy of Habsburg Vienna. His most famous pieces—like The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Woods, and Vienna Blood—remain fixtures in concert halls and New Year's galas to this day. The selection in Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt offers a snapshot of this legacy, blending elegance, momentum, and melodic wit with unmistakable Viennese flair.Beyond their musical appeal, these waltzes represent a cultural moment: a fading empire still wrapped in gilded pageantry, danced into memory by the music of Strauss. They also underscore Strauss Jr.'s gift for orchestration—light but never shallow, sentimental yet never saccharine. His music invites listeners not just to hear, but to move, swirl, and feel the rhythm of a society twirling on the edge of modernity.As we close this week, let the shimmering 3/4 time of Johann Strauss Jr. remind us of both the power of beauty and the politics of public joy. In the same way his music bridged popular entertainment and sophisticated art, so too does this moment ask us to consider how culture can move between courts, crowds, and chambers alike.Without further ado, Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss, the first movement – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: PATRIOT Act IntroducedOn October 23, 2001, just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3162, the bill that would become the USA PATRIOT Act. Officially titled the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” the legislation represented one of the most significant expansions of domestic surveillance and law enforcement powers in modern U.S. history. The bill was drafted rapidly, largely by the Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft, and was introduced with bipartisan support.Key provisions of the act included expanded authority for wiretaps, the ability to access business and personal records through National Security Letters, and increased surveillance of internet and email communications. Section 215, in particular, allowed the government to obtain “any tangible things” relevant to a terrorism investigation, a phrase later scrutinized for its vagueness. Civil liberties organizations quickly raised concerns about the law's impact on privacy, due process, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.Despite these objections, the bill moved swiftly through Congress. The House passed it on October 24, and the Senate followed on October 25. President George W. Bush signed it into law on October 26, 2001. In the years that followed, the PATRIOT Act would become a focal point in debates over national security versus individual rights, particularly as revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA surfaced in the 2010s.Some provisions were later challenged in court, amended by Congress, or allowed to expire. Nevertheless, the PATRIOT Act reshaped the legal framework for counterterrorism in the U.S., leaving a legacy still felt in debates over surveillance, transparency, and executive power today.Several major lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., posted record or near-record revenues in the third quarter of 2025, driven by policy shifts under President Donald Trump and rising client demand for regulatory guidance. Ballard Partners led the surge, reporting a 400% year-over-year increase and nearly $25 million in lobbying revenue. Other top performers included BGR Group ($19.1 million), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck ($18.9 million), Holland & Knight ($13.9 million), and Hogan Lovells ($4.4 million), each claiming their best quarter yet.The increase in lobbying activity was largely fueled by the Trump administration's aggressive moves on tariffs, trade, and the implementation of a sweeping tax-and-spending bill signed in July. Lobbyists noted that even during the early October government shutdown, regulatory deadlines such as public comment periods on tariffs kept work moving. Akin Gump reported $16.3 million, its best third quarter ever, and K&L Gates earned $5.4 million.Overall lobbying expenditures have continued to climb, with companies spending over $2.53 billion by late July 2025. Industries like pharmaceuticals, health products, and tech accounted for a significant share of that spending, reflecting ongoing regulatory and legislative uncertainty.Lobbying firms record 3rd quarter gains amid Trump policy shifts | ReutersPaul Ingrassia, nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, withdrew from consideration after losing Republican support in the Senate. He announced his withdrawal ahead of a scheduled confirmation hearing, citing an insufficient number of GOP votes. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had already postponed a prior hearing in August amid growing concerns.Senate Republicans distanced themselves from Ingrassia after Politico published alleged chat messages from him. His connections to controversial figures — including his legal work for Andrew Tate and attendance at a rally for White nationalist Nick Fuentes — drew additional scrutiny. Senator Thom Tillis labeled him “unfit to serve,” and Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the nomination was unlikely to move forward.The Office of Special Counsel plays a crucial role in enforcing civil service protections, particularly amid Trump's push to reshape the federal workforce. It also oversees Hatch Act compliance, which limits political activity by federal employees. With the Merit Systems Protection Board now restored, a new nominee will be needed to confront upcoming legal battles over career employee protections.Trump's Special Counsel Nominee Withdraws After GOP BlowbackIn Delaware court, tensions escalated between bidders and creditors over who should win control of Citgo Petroleum's parent company, PDV Holding, as part of a court-ordered auction aimed at compensating creditors tied to Venezuela's defaults and expropriations. The case, which has dragged on for eight years, now faces a decisive moment after three bidding rounds.A $5.9 billion offer from Amber Energy, affiliated with Elliott Investment Management, has been recommended by the court-appointed auction officer. However, Citgo's legal team and Venezuelan representatives argue the offer is too low, especially compared to a $7.9 billion bid from a Gold Reserve subsidiary. They also allege flaws in the auction process itself.Amber's bid includes a key side deal to pay $2.1 billion to holders of a disputed Venezuelan bond, making timing crucial since the agreement expires in early December. Gold Reserve, on the other hand, seeks to distribute more of the proceeds among a wider group of creditors, raising concerns over whether bondholders should benefit at all given unresolved legal questions about the bond's validity.Judge Leonard Stark also heard motions from Venezuela and Gold Reserve to disqualify him, court officer Robert Pincus, and two advisory firms over alleged conflicts of interest. The U.S. Treasury Department's approval is still required to finalize the auction, and both the Maduro government and Venezuela's opposition oppose the sale.Bidders, creditors battle in US court over who should win Citgo auction | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

This Day in Legal History: US Naval Blockade of CubaOn October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy delivered a televised address announcing that the United States would impose a naval “quarantine” on Cuba. This action followed the discovery of Soviet nuclear missile installations on the island, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. The announcement marked the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a 13-day standoff that brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before. In his address, Kennedy framed the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba as a direct threat to American national security and international peace. He warned that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union, prompting a full retaliatory response.The legal foundation for the blockade, while not formally declared an act of war, was justified under the collective security framework of the Organization of American States (OAS). The U.S. sought and received OAS backing to frame the blockade as a multilateral action rather than a unilateral act of aggression. Over the next six days, the world watched as U.S. Navy ships encircled the island, intercepting Soviet vessels bound for Cuba. Behind the scenes, intense diplomatic negotiations unfolded between the White House and the Kremlin.Ultimately, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the missile sites in exchange for a U.S. public pledge not to invade Cuba and a secret agreement to remove American missiles from Turkey. The crisis ended without military conflict, but it exposed the fragility of Cold War-era deterrence. The blockade, while effective, raised unresolved legal questions about executive war powers, international law, and the role of regional organizations in legitimizing force. It also led directly to the establishment of the “hotline” between Washington and Moscow and spurred negotiations for the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.President Donald Trump responded to reports that he is seeking $230 million from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for legal costs tied to federal investigations, stating he is not personally involved in the request but would donate any awarded money to charity. The New York Times reported that Trump is pursuing compensation, alleging the investigations against him were politically motivated. Trump claimed he has not been in direct contact with his lawyers about the matter but believes the DOJ owes him for what he called unfair treatment related to election interference investigations.Trump has filed two administrative claims—typically a precursor to a lawsuit. One challenges the FBI and special counsel's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The other concerns the FBI's 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, during which classified documents were seized, and accuses the DOJ of malicious prosecution and privacy violations.The filings mark a notable reversal, as Trump now leads the federal government that previously investigated him. A DOJ spokesperson stated that any potential conflicts in reviewing the claims would be handled according to ethics guidance from career officials.Trump says Justice Department owes him money, vows to donate any payout to charity | ReutersThe state of Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. House of Representatives over the delay in swearing in Democrat Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election to replace her late father, Representative Raul Grijalva. Although Speaker Mike Johnson has said she will be sworn in when the House reconvenes, he has not called lawmakers back to Washington, citing the ongoing government shutdown and the Senate's failure to pass a resolution.Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes argues in the suit that the delay violates the Constitution by preventing a duly elected representative, who meets all legal qualifications, from assuming office. The state is asking a judge to recognize Grijalva as a House member upon taking the oath, even allowing someone other than Johnson to administer it if necessary.Speaker Johnson dismissed the lawsuit as “absurd,” insisting the House controls its own procedures and accusing Mayes of seeking publicity. With three vacancies, the current House makeup is 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats. Once sworn in, Grijalva would slightly narrow that margin to 219-214.Arizona contends the delay is politically motivated, aimed at stopping Grijalva from supporting a petition that would force a vote on a bill requiring the release of all unclassified documents related to Jeffrey Epstein from the Trump administration. Grijalva herself has accused Johnson of silencing her district to protect political allies and obstruct justice for Epstein survivors.Arizona sues US House over delay in swearing in Democrat Grijalva | ReutersApple has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a lower court ruling that restricts its ability to collect commissions on certain app purchases. The request follows a contempt finding by District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ruled in April that Apple had violated her previous 2021 order by continuing to impose indirect restrictions on alternative payment systems for app developers. That earlier order came out of a lawsuit filed by Fortnite creator Epic Games, which sought to loosen Apple's control over in-app transactions.In the appeals hearing, Apple's attorney argued that the district judge went too far by expanding the original injunction, and insisted that Apple deserves to be compensated for developers' access to its ecosystem. Apple claims it followed the original court order but maintains it has a right to impose a fair commission, including on external purchases. After Apple removed prior restrictions, it introduced a new 27% fee on purchases made outside its App Store if the user clicked a link within the app—prompting Epic to argue that Apple is still undermining the court's intent.Judge Smith of the appellate panel expressed concern about the potential financial impact of the new injunction, suggesting the stakes run into billions of dollars. Epic's attorney countered that Apple shouldn't get another chance to justify its commission practices after allegedly misleading the lower court. The district judge also referred Apple and an executive to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation.A decision from the appeals court is expected in the coming months, and the case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court if further appealed.Apple asks US appeals court to lift app store restrictions in Epic Games case | ReutersSEC Chairman Paul Atkins is advancing a fast-track strategy to implement deregulatory changes without going through the full rulemaking process, which often takes a year or more and is vulnerable to legal challenges. Appointed under President Trump, Atkins is using policy statements, guidance memos, and interpretations of existing law to relax corporate disclosure rules, restrict shareholder proposals, and expand companies' ability to divert investor fraud claims into mandatory arbitration.For instance, the SEC recently issued guidance allowing companies to include arbitration clauses in their filings—avoiding formal rulemaking while significantly altering investor rights. Similarly, Atkins has encouraged companies to reject environmental and social shareholder proposals under Delaware law, without a formal vote by SEC commissioners. Critics, including Democratic Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, argue this approach sidesteps transparency and due process.While Atkins plans to propose new rules on shareholder resolutions and corporate disclosures by April 2026, current changes are being made through interpretations and enforcement discretion. This comes amid a government shutdown that has furloughed most of the SEC's staff, further limiting the agency's capacity to pursue traditional rulemaking.Atkins has also voiced support for eliminating quarterly reporting and scaling back executive compensation disclosures. However, even if rules are adopted, their durability is uncertain. Previous SEC rules—such as Biden-era climate disclosures and Gensler-era hedge fund regulations—have faced legal reversals. Experts note that rules with bipartisan support and grounded in market efficiency are more likely to survive than politically motivated ones.SEC Chief Fast Tracks Agenda, Averting Slog Through Rule Changes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Abrams v. United States ArguedOn October 21, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Abrams v. United States, a seminal case in the development of First Amendment jurisprudence. The case arose during the post–World War I Red Scare, when the government aggressively prosecuted speech perceived as dangerous or subversive. The defendants were Russian immigrants who distributed leaflets in New York City denouncing U.S. military intervention in the Russian Revolution and calling for a general strike. They were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 for allegedly inciting resistance to the war effort.The Supreme Court upheld their convictions in a 7–2 decision, finding that the speech posed a “clear and present danger” to national security. However, it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' dissent, joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, that left the most lasting impression. Holmes argued that only speech intended to produce imminent lawless action should be punished, introducing the enduring metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” as essential to democratic deliberation.Legally, the case illustrates the government's ability to impose post-speech punishment—penalties after speech has occurred—as opposed to prior restraint, which involves preventing speech before it happens. The distinction is vital in American law: prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional, while post-speech sanctions may be permitted under narrow circumstances. In Abrams, the Court leaned toward deference to governmental wartime authority, but Holmes' dissent marked the beginning of a shift toward greater speech protections.The decision laid the groundwork for the more speech-protective standards adopted in later cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The post-speech punishment principle debated in Abrams remains a cornerstone of First Amendment law, highlighting the tension between state interests and individual liberties in times of political conflict.When two alleged drug traffickers survived a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, the Trump administration immediately repatriated them rather than detain them — a decision that reveals a troubling logic behind the president's new “war” on narco‑terrorism. The administration has declared the campaign a “non‑international armed conflict,” but legal experts note that this classification offers no real authority for military detention. In other words, the United States can kill suspects under this self‑declared war framework, but it has no clear legal footing to hold survivors.Experts said the administration likely chose the least damaging option: send the survivors home and avoid a courtroom. Detaining them at Guantanamo or on U.S. soil would have triggered habeas corpus challenges, forced disclosure of evidence, and risked exposing the strikes as legally indefensible. One former State Department lawyer said any trial would have “undermined the narrative” that the attacks were lawful military operations. By refusing to hold prisoners, the administration sidesteps both judicial scrutiny and transparency.The result is a perverse incentive structure. If survivors are released but detainees are liabilities, the easiest path for officials is to ensure there are no survivors at all. The legal asymmetry—where killing is simpler than capture—encourages tactics that maximize lethality while minimizing accountability. As a result, Trump's “drug war” risks becoming less about law enforcement and more about ensuring that no one lives long enough to challenge the legality of U.S. actions.In Trump's drug war, prisoners may be too much of a legal headache, experts say | ReutersGlobal pharmaceutical companies are rapidly ramping up U.S. manufacturing in response to a looming Trump administration policy that would impose 100% tariffs on imported branded and patented drugs. While enforcement is delayed for companies that commit to domestic investment, the threat has already triggered a wave of fast-tracked spending, direct-to-consumer sales shifts, and pricing concessions in exchange for temporary tariff exemptions.Major players like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, and Roche have pledged tens of billions of dollars to build or expand plants across the U.S. to shield themselves from future penalties. Some, like Pfizer and AstraZeneca, secured multi-year tariff exemptions by agreeing to pricing deals and participation in the administration's new TrumpRx.gov program. Others, like Novartis and Sanofi, are spreading investments across multiple states and sites, creating thousands of jobs as part of their strategic insulation.The tariff threat is driving a major reshaping of global supply chains and investment strategies, as companies aim to avoid the legal and financial burden of import duties by domesticating both manufacturing and distribution. While some firms say they are already well-positioned with sufficient U.S. inventory, the broader trend reflects a defensive industry-wide shift to preemptively comply with the administration's protectionist push.Global drugmakers rush to boost US presence as tariff threat looms | ReutersTrevor Milton, the disgraced founder of electric-truck startup Nikola, is somehow back as a CEO—this time leading SyberJet Aircraft, a private jet manufacturer, according to reporting by Techdirt. Milton was convicted of fraud for deceiving investors about Nikola's technology, most famously releasing a misleading video of a prototype truck that was actually rolling downhill, not self-propelled. He was sentenced to four years in prison but never served a day, thanks to a pardon from Donald Trump earlier this year—reportedly after donating millions to Trump-aligned causes and hiring the brother of current Attorney General Pam Bondi as his attorney.Now, just months after that pardon, Milton has been tapped to lead development of a new high-speed jet for SyberJet, with promised performance metrics that already sound suspiciously ambitious. The company, privately backed, won't need to answer to public shareholders—but it will still need investor trust to raise money for a jet not slated for delivery until 2032. TechDirt points out how the company's promotional material leans into rewriting Milton's history, calling him “renowned” rather than acknowledging the full scope of his fraudulent past.The piece underscores a broader theme of “failing upward,” highlighting how white-collar offenders, especially white men with political connections, often land on their feet despite serious criminal convictions–and has some interesting implications for the future career of George Santos. Milton's quick rebound from federal fraud conviction to C-suite leadership is less an exception than a reminder of how accountability gaps persist in American corporate culture.Convicted Fraudster Trevor Milton Rides His Trump Pardon To Another CEO Job, Somehow | TechdirtIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I dive in to the governor's race in my home state. The 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial race has become a tax-policy showdown between Jack Ciattarelli and Mikie Sherrill—both of whom are framing affordability as their central mission, but doing so with deeply flawed approaches. Ciattarelli is offering aggressive tax cuts and structural overhauls that are, frankly, reckless in a state with a delicate and complicated fiscal ecosystem. His plan to flatten income tax brackets and slash corporate rates isn't just optimistic—it's ahistorical. We've seen this movie before in Kansas, where sweeping tax cuts led to revenue collapse, credit downgrades, and bipartisan regret. Ciattarelli is essentially proposing a rerun, but with no clearer escape plan if it fails.Sherrill, by contrast, is pragmatic to the point of inertia. Her emphasis on municipal service sharing and administrative tweaks is fine as far as it goes—but it doesn't go very far. Her promise to freeze utility rates via emergency powers, for instance, isn't just legally questionable, it also misdiagnoses the issue: state governments don't control wholesale energy prices. It's a symbolic gesture dressed up as policy.Neither candidate seems willing to address the structural drivers of New Jersey's notoriously high property taxes, preferring instead to nibble around the edges or promise caps that could backfire. That's a missed opportunity. As I argue in the column, New Jersey doesn't need sweeping cuts or more bureaucratic tinkering—it needs targeted relief for the people who actually feel the pinch. Expanding the state Earned Income Tax Credit and implementing a robust child tax credit would offer immediate, evidence-backed help to those struggling most with affordability. These aren't radical ideas; they're already working in other states.Ciattarelli's plan is built on trickle-down economics and wishful math. Sherrill's is built on competent management, but lacks ambition. The voters deserve more than either of those options.Tax Platforms in NJ Governor's Race Leave Out the Best Ideas This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Al Capone ConvictedOn October 17, 1931, notorious gangster Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in federal court, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. Capone, who had risen to national infamy during Prohibition as the head of a sprawling Chicago crime syndicate, had long evaded prosecution for his violent and illegal enterprises. Despite widespread public knowledge of his role in bootlegging, extortion, and murder, prosecutors struggled to tie him directly to any of those crimes. Instead, federal investigators, led by Treasury Department agent Frank J. Wilson, focused on Capone's lavish lifestyle and failure to file income tax returns.The government's case rested on a novel legal theory at the time: that even illegally obtained income was subject to federal taxation. This approach was upheld by the Supreme Court in prior decisions and proved decisive in Capone's prosecution. During trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of Capone's expenditures and testimony from witnesses who detailed his earnings, none of which had been declared to the IRS. The jury found him guilty on five counts of tax evasion.Capone was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, fined $50,000, and charged nearly $30,000 in court costs and back taxes. He was denied bail and began serving time in the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta before being transferred to Alcatraz in 1934. His conviction not only marked the downfall of one of America's most feared mob bosses but also cemented the IRS's role in fighting organized crime. The case showcased the growing power of the federal government in regulating and prosecuting financial crimes.Former National Security Adviser John Bolton was indicted on charges of sharing classified government information, including top-secret material, with two relatives identified by sources as his wife and daughter. The indictment alleges Bolton transmitted over a thousand pages of sensitive information—gleaned from high-level meetings and intelligence briefings—between 2018 and 2025, with discussions indicating the material might be used in a book project. He referred to his relatives as his “editors” and communicated with a publisher about potential rights. Bolton has denied wrongdoing, stating he looks forward to defending himself and accusing Trump of abuse of power. His attorney maintains no classified information was unlawfully shared or stored.The case is part of a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has pursued indictments against multiple critics, including James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump has actively pushed for such prosecutions, and concerns have been raised about the politicization of the Justice Department. Still, officials note Bolton's case began in 2022 and involves more substantial evidence. Bolton's personal email was reportedly hacked by an actor tied to the Iranian government, which further complicated the case, though he allegedly failed to report the storage of classified material. If convicted, Bolton faces up to 10 years per count under the Espionage Act.John Bolton, former Trump adviser, charged with sharing classified information | ReutersThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's imposition of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The lawsuit, brought in Washington, D.C., argues that the fee—announced by Trump in a September proclamation—exceeds the president's legal authority and threatens to destabilize the visa system established by Congress. This marks the Chamber's first legal action against the Trump administration since his second term began in January.The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign workers, particularly in fields like technology and engineering. Companies typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 per H-1B petition, with most applications costing under $3,600. The newly announced fee would significantly raise costs for employers, potentially forcing them to reduce their reliance on foreign talent or abandon the program altogether.Trump justified the fee by citing national and economic security concerns, claiming the H-1B program facilitates the replacement of American workers. The Chamber disputes that, arguing the fee is not an immigration restriction because employers—not foreign nationals—pay it. The policy is also facing another legal challenge in California from unions, religious groups, and employers. Business leaders warn that the fee will exacerbate labor shortages and harm U.S. competitiveness.Major US business group sues over Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee | ReutersNew Jersey filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Sig Sauer, seeking to halt sales of its P320 handgun within the state over allegations that the weapon can fire without the trigger being pulled. Filed in Sussex County state court, the lawsuit claims the company marketed the pistol as safe while knowing of a design flaw that allows for unintentional discharges. The complaint cites several such incidents, including the fatal shooting of a detective lieutenant in April 2023 as he was preparing to clean his P320.The state is seeking a mandatory recall of all P320s sold in New Jersey and a court order to ban further sales of the model. The lawsuit invokes product liability, consumer fraud, and public nuisance laws, marking the first time a government entity has sued over this issue, according to Attorney General Matthew Platkin. At a press conference, Platkin accused Sig Sauer of promoting the handgun's safety while omitting information about its known risks.Sig Sauer has denied the P320 can fire on its own, blaming incidents on user error. Still, the company has faced numerous lawsuits from civilians and law enforcement officers nationwide and has paid out millions in damages. New Jersey's suit claims the P320's design allows it to be fully cocked with a chambered round and that minor movement can activate the internal striker, causing it to discharge unexpectedly—especially dangerous for law enforcement officers who carry the firearm holstered and ready.New Jersey sues Sig Sauer, alleging handguns fire on their own | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.Frédéric Chopin, the Polish composer and virtuoso pianist, died on October 17, 1849, at the age of 39 in Paris. Though his life was brief, his influence on Romantic music—and piano literature in particular—has been profound and enduring. Chopin composed almost exclusively for solo piano, blending technical innovation with a deeply expressive, often introspective voice. Among his most beloved works is the Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2, composed when he was just 20.This piece exemplifies Chopin's signature style: lyrical, ornamented melodies floating over a gently rocking accompaniment. It unfolds in a graceful ternary form, inviting both performer and listener into a world of delicate melancholy and understated virtuosity. The Nocturne's opening theme returns with increasingly elaborate embellishment, showcasing Chopin's genius for subtle variation and emotional nuance. Though brief, the piece captures a vast interior world—what Robert Schumann once described as “cannons buried in flowers.”Chopin's nocturnes elevated the genre from salon entertainment to high art, and the Nocturne in E-flat major remains a favorite among pianists and audiences alike. Its enduring popularity testifies to Chopin's ability to transform a simple melody into something timeless. That he died on this day in 1849 makes this day an especially fitting moment to revisit his music, which continues to resonate with quiet power over 175 years later.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg ExecutionsOn October 16, 1946, ten prominent Nazi war criminals were executed by hanging in the aftermath of the landmark Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key figures of the Third Reich for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. The executions marked the culmination of months of legal proceedings conducted by an international military tribunal composed of judges from the Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Among those hanged was Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's former Foreign Minister, convicted for his role in orchestrating Nazi foreign policy and enabling the Holocaust.The trials had concluded in late September 1946, with 12 of the 22 main defendants receiving death sentences. However, Hermann Göring, one of the most high-profile defendants and head of the Luftwaffe, committed suicide by cyanide just hours before his scheduled execution. The hangings took place inside the gymnasium of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the tribunal had convened, and were carried out in the early morning hours.The executions were overseen by U.S. Army personnel, and steps were taken to document them for historical record. The event was viewed by many as a pivotal moment in the establishment of international criminal law, affirming that individuals—even heads of state and high-ranking officials—could be held personally accountable for war atrocities. These proceedings laid the groundwork for future tribunals, including those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Some criticized the process as “victor's justice,” pointing to perceived inconsistencies in sentencing and legal procedures. Nevertheless, the trials represented a significant shift from the post-World War I approach, which had failed to adequately prosecute war crimes. The executions on October 16 symbolized not only the end of an era of unchecked totalitarian violence but also the beginning of a new international legal order based on accountability and the rule of law.A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's latest wave of federal layoffs, calling the move likely “illegal and in excess of authority.” In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston halted terminations that began last week, siding with a coalition of federal worker unions. Illston criticized the administration's approach as “ready, fire, aim” and warned that the human cost of such abrupt cuts is unacceptable.The layoffs—over 4,100 in total—targeted several federal agencies, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury seeing the bulk of cuts. Judge Illston's order requires the administration to report all completed and planned layoffs by Friday and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on October 28. She also rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to steer the case toward procedural issues, stating that the legal merits were too concerning to ignore.President Trump has framed the cuts as politically motivated, stating they were aimed at eliminating programs he called “egregious socialist, semi-communist.” He added that Republican-backed programs would be spared. The administration recently lifted a long-standing hiring freeze but is now requiring agencies to submit staffing plans for approval.Union plaintiffs argue that the layoffs violate the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing the administration's use of the government shutdown as an arbitrary justification. This case, AFGE v. OMB, marks another legal confrontation over workforce reductions, following an earlier freeze issued by Judge Illston that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.Trump's Shutdown-Linked Layoffs Paused by California Judge (4)The 2026 U.S. law school admissions cycle is off to an intense start, with applications up 33% compared to this time last year, according to new data from the Law School Admission Council. This surge follows last year's admissions boom and signals another highly competitive year for aspiring law students. Admissions consultant Mike Spivey noted he's never seen such a sharp early increase in over two decades of reviewing application data, predicting a likely total rise of around 20% once the cycle concludes.Several factors are driving the spike, including a tough job market for recent college graduates—whose unemployment rate now surpasses that of the broader labor force—and growing political instability. Law School Admission Council President Sudha Setty also cited concerns about the impact of AI and broader economic uncertainty as motivators for many applicants. Additionally, more people are taking the LSAT this year, up nearly 22% over 2025 levels.A recent Kaplan survey found 56% of law school admissions officers pointed to politics as a major factor behind last year's surge, with 90% expecting this cycle to be just as competitive, if not more so. Some applicants are likely reapplying after being rejected last year, or returning after delaying applications due to last year's high volume. While law schools will benefit from a deeper pool of candidates, Spivey warned the sharp increase means tougher odds for acceptance across the board.US law school applicants increase 33%, boosting competition | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to fund military pay during the ongoing government shutdown is only a short-term solution, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. On Wednesday, Johnson confirmed that 1.3 million active-duty service members, along with tens of thousands of National Guard and reservists, were paid using $6.5 billion in unused military research and development funds. However, he warned that unless Democrats act to reopen the government, troops are unlikely to receive their next paycheck on October 31.The White House has not explained its legal rationale for this funding maneuver, and it hasn't requested the required congressional approvals to shift funds between accounts. Federal law caps such transfers at $8 billion annually and only allows them if the funds are used for their legally designated purposes. Without further funding authority, it's unclear how the administration could cover future military pay. While many lawmakers support a standalone bill to guarantee troop pay, Republican leaders—including Johnson and Senate Majority Whip John Thune—are resisting that option. They argue that doing so would reduce pressure to end the shutdown overall.Some Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say the move has reduced urgency in Congress while leaving other federal workers unpaid. The political optics are further complicated by Trump's claim that only Democrat-backed programs are being cut, as he seeks to frame the issue as partisan. Internally, GOP leaders worry that passing targeted funding bills could open the door to broader demands for agency-by-agency funding relief, weakening their leverage in shutdown negotiations.By way of brief background, the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which bars federal officials from spending money before or beyond congressional appropriations. Trump reportedly ordered the Department of Defense to divert funds from the RDT&E account—meant for weapons research—to cover military payroll. That account is not legally authorized for such use, and the funds may have also exceeded their availability period.This raises two major legal issues. First, under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9, cl. 7), only Congress may authorize government spending. The president cannot repurpose funds without specific legislative approval. Second, the ADA prohibits both misappropriation of purpose (spending money on unauthorized functions) and misappropriation of timing (using expired funds). If proven willful, such violations can carry criminal penalties, though prosecutions are rare.Beyond the legal breach, this act could set a dangerous precedent. If courts decline to intervene, it could signal that future presidents—regardless of party—can redirect federal funds without congressional consent. This would erode legislative power and potentially turn the presidency into a de facto appropriations authority, undermining the Constitution's separation of powers.Special thanks to Bobby Kogan, the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for the Center for American Progress, for his instructive Bluesky post explaining the deficiency issue in a way much clearer and more succinctly than I otherwise would have been able to.Trump's troop pay move is a ‘temporary fix,' Johnson says - Live Updates - POLITICOPost by @did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm — BlueskyA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at how Norway is showing the rest of the world how to end EV subsidies without wrecking the market. The country announced in its latest budget that it will phase out its long-standing value-added tax (VAT) exemption for electric vehicles—partially in 2026, and fully by 2027. This might seem like a policy retreat, but the timing is deliberate: EVs now make up 95–98% of new car sales in Norway. The market has matured, and the subsidy is no longer essential.I argue that this is what smart policy looks like—temporary support that steps aside when it's no longer needed. The U.S., by contrast, killed its federal EV tax credit abruptly and politically, without phasing it out or adapting it for current market conditions. In doing so, it treated the credit as a political symbol rather than a market tool. Norway, on the other hand, used the exemption strategically, aligning it with broader policy goals and allowing it to sunset once those goals were met.The piece highlights how the U.S. often fears both removing and maintaining subsidies, caught in a cycle where incentives become political footballs. Norway's approach offers a model for how to responsibly end subsidies: gradually, rationally, and only once the market no longer needs them. This isn't anti-EV or anti-climate policy—it's a sign that the original policy worked.Norway Shows How To End EV Subsidies Without Killing The Market This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Clayton Antitrust Act PassedOn October 15, 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at strengthening U.S. antitrust law and curbing anti-competitive business practices. The Act was designed to build upon the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which had proven inadequate in addressing certain forms of corporate behavior that undermined market fairness. Unlike the Sherman Act, which broadly prohibited monopolistic conduct, the Clayton Act identified specific practices as illegal when they substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly.The law targeted interlocking directorates—situations where the same individuals served on the boards of competing companies—recognizing such arrangements as fertile ground for collusion. It also outlawed price discrimination that lessened competition, exclusive dealing contracts that restricted a buyer's ability to purchase from competitors, and mergers or acquisitions that threatened market competition. Another critical provision banned tying agreements, where the sale of one product was conditioned on the purchase of another, potentially unrelated, product.The Clayton Act was notable for providing more detailed guidance to businesses and regulators, reducing ambiguity that had plagued the enforcement of the Sherman Act. It also allowed for both government and private parties to seek injunctive relief and recover damages, increasing the avenues for challenging anti-competitive behavior. Importantly, labor unions and agricultural organizations were exempted from the Act's provisions, a significant shift from previous antitrust enforcement that had often targeted labor as a “combination in restraint of trade.”This legislative move reflected the progressive era's push to check corporate power and protect consumers and smaller businesses from monopolistic abuses. The Federal Trade Commission Act, passed just weeks earlier, worked in tandem with the Clayton Act to provide an institutional mechanism—the FTC—for enforcement. Together, these laws marked a turning point in the federal government's role in regulating the economy and ensuring competitive markets.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, a dispute that could undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a key provision prohibiting electoral practices that dilute minority voting power, even without direct evidence of racist intent. The controversy centers on Louisiana's post-2020 redistricting, initially producing a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising about a third of the state's population. A federal judge sided with Black voters who challenged the map, prompting lawmakers to draw a new version adding a second Black-majority district.That revision sparked a separate lawsuit from white voters who claimed the new map unfairly diminished their voting influence. A three-judge panel agreed, ruling the map relied too heavily on race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state, which had previously defended the redrawn map, has now reversed course and is urging the justices to bar race-conscious districting entirely.This marks the second time the Court will hear arguments in the case this year, after sidestepping a decision in June. With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court could issue a ruling that weakens Section 2, building on a 2013 decision that nullified another major part of the Voting Rights Act. However, a 2023 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh side with liberals in upholding Section 2 in an Alabama case. The outcome could impact congressional control, with Democrats warning that as many as 19 districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is curtailed.By way of brief background, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Originally passed in 1965 and strengthened by Congress in 1982, the provision allows voters to challenge laws that either deny the right to vote outright (“vote deprivation”) or weaken the effectiveness of their vote (“vote dilution”), even if no discriminatory intent can be proven. Courts reviewing Section 2 claims consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether minority voters have an equal opportunity to participate in elections and elect candidates of their choice. In redistricting cases, plaintiffs must show that minority voters are numerous and politically unified enough to elect a representative, and that white voters typically vote as a bloc to defeat them. The Supreme Court has clarified over time that states aren't required to maximize minority districts, but race-based line drawing must strike a balance between avoiding racial discrimination and complying with equal protection principles. As other parts of the Voting Rights Act have been weakened, Section 2 has taken on even greater importance in protecting minority voting rights.US Supreme Court to hear case that takes aim at Voting Rights Act | ReutersElon Musk's $56 billion Tesla compensation package heads to the Delaware Supreme Court today, marking the final stage of a high-stakes corporate legal battle. A lower court struck down the record-setting pay plan in January 2024, ruling that Tesla's board was not sufficiently independent and that shareholders lacked vital information when they approved the deal in 2018. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery found the award unfair and applied strict legal scrutiny, igniting criticism from business leaders who argue Delaware courts are increasingly hostile to entrepreneurs.In response to the ruling, some companies—including Tesla—relocated their legal incorporation from Delaware to states like Texas and Nevada, where corporate governance laws are more lenient. This exodus, dubbed “Dexit,” prompted Delaware lawmakers to revise the state's corporate statutes in an attempt to retain business charters.Musk's legal team contends that McCormick misapplied the law and ignored evidence that Tesla shareholders were fully informed when they approved the deal. They argue the board's decision should have been reviewed under the more deferential “business judgment” standard. Despite the setback, Musk remains in line to receive billions under a replacement compensation plan approved in August, aimed at retaining him as Tesla shifts focus to robotics and autonomous technology.Tesla's board also proposed a $1 trillion future compensation framework, underscoring confidence in Musk's leadership, even as the company faces slowing EV demand and stiff competition from China. The Delaware justices will also weigh whether Tesla must pay $345 million in legal fees to the shareholder who brought the lawsuit. The Court typically takes months to issue a decision.Musk's legal fight over $56 billion payday from Tesla enters final stage | ReutersAustralia's High Court upheld the government's decision to deny far-right U.S. commentator Candace Owens a visa, citing concerns that her presence could incite social discord. Owens had applied for a visa to conduct a speaking tour in late 2024, but Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke rejected the request, referencing her history of controversial remarks—including Holocaust denial and Islamophobic statements. Owens challenged the decision, arguing that it violated the implied freedom of political communication in Australia's Constitution. The court unanimously disagreed, emphasizing that this freedom is not an absolute personal right and that the Migration Act's restrictions served a legitimate purpose in safeguarding public order.The judges found that Owens' record of inflammatory commentary—touching on issues such as race, religion, gender, and public health—posed a significant risk of social division. The ruling also noted that denying her visa was consistent with protecting Australia's national interest and social cohesion. As a result, Owens was ordered to pay the government's legal costs.Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration defied a prior court order by reintroducing nearly identical immigration-related conditions for states to receive FEMA emergency preparedness grants. Judge William Smith, based in Rhode Island, had previously struck down the original grant conditions, which required state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. After his ruling, the Department of Homeland Security issued new grant documents with the same conditions, adding a clause that they would only take effect if the ruling was overturned. Smith rejected this workaround, stating that it was not a good faith attempt at compliance but a coercive tactic to pressure states into supporting federal immigration efforts.He ordered the administration to remove the conditions by the following week, emphasizing that states should not be forced to choose between upholding their policies and losing critical disaster funding. The judge characterized the move as an unlawful effort to bully states, not a legitimate policy revision. DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling. The case is one of several legal challenges brought by Democratic-led states aimed at halting parts of Trump's immigration agenda through the courts.Trump administration flouted court order on FEMA grant funding, US judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

In this episode, Jeff points out the ridiculousness of the belief that President Trump has brought peace to the Middle East with the ceasefire agreement he got Israel and Hamas to sign. There is a mountain of evidence which makes clear that this ceasefire is simply a lull until the next war. In the meantime, the leftists/terrorists are making massive inroads into America and our failure to cut off the head of the terror snake will be our country's greatest failure in the not so distant future.In other news, Bruce Cutler has passed, at one point the most famous lawyer in the world. Bruce also was the lawyer who had a large part in getting Jeff to drop Pre-med in college and go to law school. In this podcast, Jeff recounts some very funny Bruce stories from years past. RIP Bruce.

This Day in Legal History: Supreme Court Denies Cert for RosenbergsOn October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage by passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The couple had been sentenced to death in 1951 following a high-profile trial that captivated Cold War-era America. The Rosenbergs' appeal was their final attempt to overturn the conviction and avoid execution. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed their death sentences to stand without offering an opinion on the merits of the case.The decision intensified public debate over the fairness of their trial, with critics arguing that anti-communist hysteria had tainted the proceedings and supporters maintaining that the punishment fit the crime. Nearly a year later, on June 17, 1953, Justice William O. Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution after a new legal argument was raised involving the application of the Atomic Energy Act. However, the full Court reconvened in an emergency session and voted to vacate Douglas's stay the next day.The Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing prison on June 19, 1953, marking the first and only time American civilians were executed for espionage during peacetime. Their case remains controversial, with questions still surrounding the extent of Ethel's involvement and the fairness of the trial. Over time, declassified documents, including material from the Venona project, have confirmed Julius's espionage activities but left lingering doubts about Ethel's role and the proportionality of her sentence.California enacted a new law (A.B. 931) that prohibits in-state lawyers and law firms from sharing contingency fees with out-of-state alternative business structures (ABS)—firms that are owned by non-lawyers. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, directly impacts litigation funding operations and firms based in states like Arizona, which began allowing non-lawyer ownership in 2021. Originally broader in scope, the bill was narrowed to specifically ban contingent fee sharing, a common payment model in mass tort and personal injury cases.The move is expected to disrupt partnerships between California lawyers and ABS firms in jurisdictions like Arizona, Utah, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Critics argue the law may harm both legal practitioners and consumers by limiting access to capital and cross-border collaboration. Amendments to the bill in August preserved certain flat fee and fixed fee arrangements, allowing some limited forms of financial collaboration to continue. KPMG, which recently launched a law firm in Arizona, declined to comment on whether the new restrictions would impact its plans to partner with attorneys nationwide.California Bans Contingent Fee Sharing With ‘Alternative' FirmsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, upholding a lower court's temporary block on the mobilization. The deployment plan included troops from the Texas National Guard, aimed at supporting federal agents during recent protests in the Chicago area. However, the court allowed those already present in Illinois to remain, pending further legal developments.U.S. District Judge April Perry had earlier questioned the administration's claims that troops were necessary to protect federal personnel from violent unrest, citing a lack of clear justification. Her order blocking the deployment is set to last until at least October 23, with the possibility of extension. Similar legal challenges are unfolding elsewhere, including in Oregon, where another judge blocked troop deployments to Portland. That ruling, however, may be overturned by a different appellate court.Democratic governors in affected states have argued that the administration exaggerated threats from largely peaceful protests to justify military action. A court in Los Angeles also ruled a previous deployment illegal, though that decision is on hold pending appeal. Under U.S. law, the National Guard typically operates under state control during domestic missions, making federal involvement a contentious legal issue.Appeals court rejects Trump request to deploy National Guard in Chicago area | ReutersFederal courts in New England—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine—have emerged as strategic venues for legal challenges against President Donald Trump's policies since his return to office in January 2025. A Reuters analysis found at least 72 lawsuits targeting Trump's policies filed in these four states, with trial judges ruling against the administration in 46 out of 51 cases decided so far. These challenges include efforts to block the administration's actions on deportations, federal education cuts, changes to birthright citizenship, and fast-tracked deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan.The region's courts fall under the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has all five of its active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Litigants see these courts as favorable due to their composition—17 of 20 active trial judges in the region are also Democratic appointees. Judges like William Young in Boston and Allison Burroughs have issued high-profile rulings against Trump, with Young warning of threats to constitutional values and Burroughs urging courts to defend free speech. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island has also issued significant decisions, such as blocking a sweeping federal funding freeze.While the 1st Circuit has mostly upheld lower court rulings against Trump, the Supreme Court—dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority—has stepped in multiple times to stay or reverse those decisions. Still, the administration has not appealed every ruling, allowing some key decisions to remain in place, including those affecting mail-in ballot rules and funding for arts groups and Head Start programs. Democratic attorneys general are actively choosing New England courts for their reliability, with one noting that “you kind of know what you're getting.”New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Spiro Agnew ResignsOn October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned from office after pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to a charge of federal income tax evasion. This marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting vice president resigned due to criminal charges. Agnew, who had been under investigation for bribery, extortion, and tax fraud from his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland, struck a deal with federal prosecutors to avoid jail time.Agnew's resignation came amid the broader constitutional crisis surrounding the Nixon administration, which was already under intense scrutiny due to the unfolding Watergate scandal. While Agnew denied the bribery allegations, he admitted he failed to report $29,500 in income received in 1967. As part of the plea agreement, he was fined $10,000 and placed on three years' probation, but avoided prison.His departure triggered the use of the 25th Amendment, specifically Section 2, which allows the president to nominate a new vice president when a vacancy occurs. President Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford, then House Minority Leader, who was confirmed by both chambers of Congress. Less than a year later, Nixon himself would resign, and Ford would ascend to the presidency—making him the only U.S. president never elected to the office of president or vice president.New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on October 9, 2025, for allegedly providing false information on a mortgage application. A federal grand jury in Virginia charged her with bank fraud and making a false statement to a lending institution, accusing her of falsely claiming she would use a property in Norfolk, Virginia, as a secondary residence. The indictment alleges that by misrepresenting her intent, James secured a lower interest rate, saving around $19,000. She denies wrongdoing and called the charges a politically motivated attack by the Trump administration, which she has clashed with repeatedly.The case follows a recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and ongoing investigations into other Trump critics, including Senator Adam Schiff and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Critics, including James' attorney Abbe Lowell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, claim Trump is using the Justice Department for political retaliation. The case was brought by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a recent Trump appointee, reportedly without involvement from career prosecutors. James is expected to appear in court on October 24.The legal battle comes amid ongoing litigation between James and Trump, most notably a civil fraud case that initially led to a $454 million penalty against Trump, later overturned on appeal. James' team plans to fight the charges vigorously, suggesting her misstatements were not intentional.Letitia James, NY attorney general and Trump foe, indicted for mortgage fraud | ReutersA federal judge in Chicago has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, citing concerns that the move could escalate tensions rather than ease them. U.S. District Judge April Perry questioned the federal government's justification for sending troops to manage what it described as unrest around an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. The state had sued the Trump administration, arguing the deployment was unnecessary and politically motivated. Perry noted that federal officers' own actions had sparked the protests and warned that additional troops would “add fuel to the fire.” Her injunction will remain in place until at least October 23.This ruling follows a similar block in Portland, Oregon, though a federal appeals court in San Francisco now seems poised to overturn that decision, possibly clearing the way for future deployments. The Trump administration has defended the use of troops, claiming it's necessary to protect federal property, while Democratic leaders in affected states accuse the president of misrepresenting peaceful protests as violent uprisings.Governor JB Pritzker called the court's ruling a win for the rule of law, arguing there's no rebellion requiring a military response in Illinois. The White House, meanwhile, pledged to appeal the decision, with Trump reiterating plans to expand troop deployments to other cities, including Chicago and Memphis. Critics argue this strategy stretches the limits of presidential authority and raises legal concerns over the military's role in domestic law enforcement.US judge blocks Trump's deployment of National Guard in Illinois | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Jennifer Mascott, a conservative legal scholar and Trump ally, to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 50-47 vote, further shifting the court to the right. Her confirmation drew criticism from Democrats, particularly from Delaware senators, who objected to her lack of ties to the state traditionally associated with the vacant seat. Her only known Delaware connection is a beach house, prompting concerns about broken precedent and political loyalty.Mascott, who has clerked for Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, was on leave from her faculty position at Catholic University while working in the White House Counsel's Office. Senate Republicans praised her conservative legal background and past testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In contrast, Democrats criticized her nomination as partisan, with Senator Chuck Schumer labeling her a “sycophant” to Trump.This appointment, along with the recent confirmation of Emil Bove—a former Trump DOJ official and personal attorney—gives Republican appointees a majority on the 3rd Circuit, which hears appeals from Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.Democrats also voiced frustration over the elimination of the “blue slip” tradition, which once allowed home-state senators to block appellate nominees. Republicans ended that practice during Trump's first term, enabling confirmations like Mascott's over local opposition. On the same day, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced another Trump nominee, Rebecca Taibleson, despite objections from her home-state senator.US Senate confirms Trump nominee Mascott to federal appeals court | ReutersA Republican-controlled Senate committee approved two of President Donald Trump's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) but delayed action on a third, leaving the agency without the quorum needed to issue decisions. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted 12-11 to advance James Murphy, a retired NLRB lawyer, to the board and Crystal Carey, a labor attorney, as general counsel. However, a planned vote on Scott Mayer, Boeing's chief labor counsel, was pulled after he clashed with Senator Josh Hawley during his confirmation hearing.The NLRB has been unable to function fully since Trump's firing of Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January and the expiration of another Republican member's term. Wilcox is challenging her dismissal in court, and the Supreme Court has allowed her removal to stand pending resolution. Without at least three board members, the NLRB cannot issue rulings, stalling hundreds of cases — including many involving union elections.Trump's nominees would give Republicans control of the board for the first time since 2021. Democrats expressed concern over the independence of the nominees, noting the precedent of Wilcox's dismissal and questioning whether the new appointees could remain neutral. Both Murphy and Mayer insisted they would apply the law impartially, regardless of political pressure.Mayer faced particular scrutiny over a current strike involving Boeing workers in Missouri. Hawley criticized Boeing's executive compensation amid labor disputes, while Mayer declined to comment on the situation, citing his pending nomination. The HELP Committee also approved other Trump nominees for roles within the Department of Labor.US Senate panel approves two Trump NLRB nominees, tables a third | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi.This week's closing theme features a composer whose name is nearly synonymous with Italian opera — Giuseppe Verdi, born on or around October 10, 1813, in the small village of Le Roncole, then part of the Napoleonic French Empire. Best known for grand operas like La Traviata, Aida, and Rigoletto, Verdi's music defined the emotional and political voice of 19th-century Italy. Though his legacy rests almost entirely on the opera stage, Verdi briefly stepped into the world of chamber music with a single, striking contribution: his String Quartet in E minor, composed in 1873.He wrote it during a production delay of Aida in Naples, saying modestly it was “just a trifle” — but the work is anything but. The first movement, Allegro vivace, opens with an energetic, tightly woven interplay among the instruments, showcasing Verdi's grasp of counterpoint and formal structure, likely influenced by his admiration for German composers like Beethoven. There's a dramatic drive that feels operatic, yet the themes unfold with the clarity and discipline of a seasoned instrumentalist.It's the only surviving chamber piece Verdi completed, and it stands as a fascinating outlier in his body of work — more intimate, abstract, and inward-looking than his vocal dramas. The movement balances lyrical passages with bursts of rhythmic vitality, hinting that even without voices, Verdi could make instruments sing. As we mark the week of his birth, this selection offers a rare glimpse into the quieter, more introspective corners of a composer usually associated with sweeping arias and rousing choruses. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Martial Law Post-Great Chicago FireOn October 9, 1871, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Chicago Fire, the city's mayor, Roswell B. Mason, declared a form of martial law by handing control of the city to U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan. Though no formal martial law order was issued, Sheridan exercised sweeping authority over Chicago, including the deployment of troops and armed patrols to maintain order, protect property, and enforce curfews. The fire had devastated the city, destroying thousands of buildings and leaving over 100,000 residents homeless. Amid fears of looting and social collapse, civic leaders turned to the military rather than civil institutions to reestablish control.This decision represents a critical episode in the uneasy balance between civil liberties and emergency powers. There was no legal precedent or formal legislative act granting the mayor authority to transfer governance to a military figure, raising significant constitutional concerns. The use of military force to police civilians, absent explicit legal authorization, blurred lines between civilian and military jurisdiction. While contemporary accounts often depict Sheridan's leadership as effective, his presence underscored a mistrust in the city's own law enforcement and judicial institutions.No court review or legislative inquiry ever addressed the legality of this transfer of power, setting a troubling precedent for extrajudicial emergency actions. It also reinforced the broader 19th-century trend of informal martial law declarations, especially during moments of urban unrest or disaster. Chicago's experience in 1871 reflects how crises can be used to justify the suspension of normal legal processes, often without public accountability. This ad hoc militarization of city governance, though temporary, highlighted the fragility of civil authority in moments of panic—and how quickly constitutional norms can be cast aside.Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The indictment alleges he misled lawmakers in 2020 about authorizing an FBI employee to leak information related to an unspecified investigation—believed to concern Hillary Clinton. The case was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist with no prior prosecutorial experience, recently installed as U.S. attorney after her predecessor was removed for refusing to pursue Trump's political adversaries.The charges are seen as politically motivated, coming after Trump publicly pressured the Justice Department to act against Comey and others. Career attorneys reportedly opposed the indictment due to a lack of evidence, and prosecutors from outside the district were brought in to proceed with the case. The move has drawn sharp criticism, including from over 1,000 former DOJ officials across party lines who labeled it an attack on the rule of law.Trump has long threatened to imprison rivals, but this is the first grand jury indictment against one of them.Ex-FBI chief Comey pleads not guilty to charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersA Florida man has been arrested for allegedly setting the Pacific Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a January blaze that killed 12 people, destroyed roughly 6,000 structures, and caused an estimated $150 billion in damage. Federal investigators from the ATF, LAPD, and LAFD concluded the fire was deliberately started near a hiking trail in a state park overlooking the Palisades. The suspect faces three federal charges and will be extradited to California. Because the fire was ruled intentional and led to multiple deaths, prosecutors could pursue life imprisonment or the federal death penalty under President Trump's 2025 executive order directing harsher penalties for severe crimes.Man arrested as suspect in setting California's deadly Palisades Fire, official says | ReutersPresident Trump called for the arrest of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, both Democrats, as his administration prepared to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago over their opposition. Neither official faces criminal allegations, but both have criticized Trump's immigration policies and his use of federal troops in Democratic-led cities. Trump accused them of failing to protect ICE officers after Johnson declared Chicago an “ICE Free Zone.” Pritzker denounced Trump's remarks as authoritarian. Meanwhile, hundreds of Texas National Guard troops have gathered outside Chicago ahead of deployment, despite state lawsuits seeking to block the move. The president has also threatened to invoke federal powers to override court orders limiting troop deployments, part of a broader pattern of using federal authority against political opponents.Trump calls for jailing Democratic leaders as troops prepare for Chicago deployment | ReutersElon Musk's X Corp has reached a settlement with four former Twitter executives—including ex-CEO Parag Agrawal—who claimed they were owed $128 million in severance after being fired following Musk's 2022 takeover. The settlement's terms were not disclosed, but a federal judge delayed case deadlines to allow finalization. The executives alleged Musk falsely accused them of misconduct to avoid paying severance that included a year's salary and stock options. The deal follows a separate $500 million settlement with laid-off Twitter employees and is one of several legal disputes stemming from Musk's acquisition and mass restructuring of the company.Musk's X settles ex-Twitter executives' $128 million severance pay lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann IndictedOn October 8, 1934, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was indicted for the murder of 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., the son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The case, often referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” began in March 1932 when the child was kidnapped from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey. Despite a ransom being paid, the boy's body was found weeks later, less than five miles from the house, sparking a national outcry and a complex investigation.The break in the case came in 1934 when marked ransom money was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter living in the Bronx. A search of his home turned up over $14,000 of the ransom cash, along with tools and wood experts claimed matched the homemade ladder used in the abduction. Though Hauptmann maintained his innocence, insisting the money belonged to a now-deceased friend, the evidence was enough for a grand jury to indict him for kidnapping and murder.His trial, which began in January 1935, was a media sensation, held in Flemington, New Jersey under intense public scrutiny. The prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, handwriting analysis, and expert testimony regarding the ladder construction. The defense challenged much of the state's forensic claims, but Hauptmann was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in the electric chair in 1936, despite appeals and ongoing doubts about the strength of the case.The Hauptmann trial shaped public perceptions of forensic science, media influence, and due process, and contributed to the passage of the Federal Kidnapping Act, also known as the Lindbergh Law, which made kidnapping a federal crime when victims are taken across state lines.Former FBI Director James Comey is set to appear in federal court this Wednesday on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, viewed by many as politically motivated, is the first brought by the Trump-aligned Justice Department against one of Trump's high-profile critics. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 Senate hearing by denying he authorized FBI employees to anonymously leak information about an unspecified federal investigation, which is believed to be connected to Hillary Clinton.The charges were filed after Trump installed Lindsey Halligan—a former insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan reportedly proceeded despite career prosecutors advising against it due to lack of evidence. Two outside prosecutors were assigned to handle the case, suggesting internal pushback.Comey maintains his innocence and has demanded a trial. Legal observers and over 1,000 former DOJ officials from both parties have condemned the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack on the rule of law. The indictment comes after years of Trump publicly demanding prosecutions of his political enemies, including Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton. Comey was previously fired by Trump while leading the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—an action that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Ex-FBI chief Comey to face charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersU.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who previously blocked a Trump administration plan for mass federal layoffs, will now preside over a new lawsuit challenging potential layoffs tied to the ongoing partial government shutdown. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) successfully argued that this new case involves the same legal issues and parties as their earlier suit, warranting Illston's continued oversight.The unions argue that laying off federal workers during a shutdown is unlawful and not an “essential government service.” They're seeking to block such layoffs, warning that allowing the administration to move forward without court intervention could result in conflicting legal rulings if handled by different judges. Illston's previous ruling in May held that President Trump could not reorganize or downsize federal agencies without congressional approval, but that decision was paused by the Supreme Court in July. In response, the administration scaled back the layoffs after many workers accepted early retirement or buyouts.In the current case, the unions claim new memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully permit agencies to lay off staff during the shutdown. The Trump administration has not yet implemented the threatened firings, but has blamed Democrats for the funding lapse. The White House and DOJ have not commented on the ongoing litigation.US judge who blocked Trump's mass firings will hear case over shutdown layoffs | ReutersIn September 2025, during a meeting at the White House, Turkish officials proposed a $100 million settlement to resolve the U.S. criminal case against state-owned Halkbank, sources told Reuters. The settlement offer reportedly included a key condition: Halkbank would not have to admit guilt. The bank is facing serious charges in the U.S., including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions by funneling billions through illicit financial channels.The case, brought in 2019, has long strained U.S.-Turkey relations, which were already damaged after Turkey's purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to U.S. sanctions and its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. While the Trump-Erdogan meeting signaled warmer diplomatic ties, it's unclear how U.S. officials responded to the settlement offer, or whether discussions have continued.On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Halkbank's appeal, allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed. In response, the bank stated it was still pursuing a diplomatic resolution and emphasized ongoing talks aimed at reconciliation between the U.S. and Turkey. Erdogan has publicly denounced the charges and raised the issue during his recent visit with Trump.Prosecutors allege Halkbank transferred over $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds, disguised transactions through front companies, and fabricated documents to mask oil-for-gold trades as food shipments. Although the floated settlement amount is far lower than previous penalties levied against European banks for similar offenses, legal experts suggest a final deal, if reached, could involve a much larger payment.Turkey floated $100 million Halkbank settlement idea at White House last month, sources say | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Moves to First StreetOn October 7, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court officially began hearing cases in its permanent home on First Street NE in Washington, D.C. For nearly 150 years prior, the Court lacked a dedicated building, conducting business in borrowed or shared spaces—including the U.S. Capitol and even a basement chamber. The move to an independent structure marked a significant moment in the institutional evolution of the federal judiciary. Designed by architect Cass Gilbert in a neoclassical style, the building was conceived as a physical expression of judicial authority, dignity, and permanence. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously served as President, championed the idea, believing the judiciary deserved a stature equal to the executive and legislative branches.The building's design was deliberately grand, with symbolic elements such as the phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved above the main entrance. The construction cost approximately $9 million and took four years to complete, funded entirely by Congress. Despite its marble grandeur, some justices were skeptical of the move, including Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who reportedly referred to it as “almost bombastically pretentious.” Still, the relocation marked the start of a new era for the Court—one defined by institutional independence and enhanced public visibility.The first arguments heard in the new building concerned labor and property rights, underscoring the Court's increasing role in mediating modern economic tensions. The structure has since been the site of many landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. Over time, the Supreme Court building has become not just a seat of legal authority, but a symbol of the constitutional system itself, anchoring the judiciary firmly within the federal government's tripartite structure.Illinois filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago. The legal action follows a similar move by a federal judge in Oregon, who temporarily halted the deployment of troops to Portland. Illinois' complaint targets the federal government's decision to activate up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard—against Governor J.B. Pritzker's objections—and bring in an additional 400 troops from Texas.The state argues that the deployment is illegal and part of what it calls a broader, politically motivated campaign by Trump against Democratic-led jurisdictions. The White House has not commented on the lawsuit. This marks the latest in a series of military deployments by Trump during his second term, including the use of troops at the southern border and in anti-narcotics operations off Venezuela. National Guard units have also been sent to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and Trump has expressed willingness to send them elsewhere, even without state approval. The Illinois case raises significant constitutional questions about federal authority, state sovereignty, and the domestic use of military forces.Illinois sues to block Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago | ReutersThe union representing over 13,000 U.S. air traffic controllers has urged its members to remain on duty during the ongoing partial government shutdown, despite being required to work without pay. In a statement on Monday, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) warned that any job action or protest could be considered illegal and result in termination from federal service. The union emphasized the importance of maintaining professionalism and avoiding conduct that could damage their credibility or that of the aviation system.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and NATCA leadership held a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport to address the shutdown's impact on air travel. Newark, a major hub, is particularly sensitive to staffing disruptions. About 50,000 TSA employees are also working without pay.The current situation echoes the 2019 shutdown, when increased worker absences slowed air travel and pressured Congress to act. Airline industry groups are warning that flight efficiency could decline if staffing becomes unstable. The FAA is already facing a severe shortage of air traffic controllers—roughly 3,500 short of target—which has led to widespread mandatory overtime. Despite recent congressional approval of $12.5 billion for a five-year system upgrade, the shutdown threatens to further strain an already fragile workforce.Union urges air traffic controllers to remain on job despite shutdown | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Humana MarketPoint, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, a case that underscores a growing shift in how states approach corporate income tax sourcing. The court ruled that tax liability can be based not on where services were performed or contracted, but where they were ultimately “received”—even if indirectly, by a customer's customer. In this case, Minnesota taxed income from pharmacy benefit services provided to a Wisconsin insurer because individual plan members picked up prescriptions in Minnesota.I argue this ruling highlights a troubling lack of statutory clarity. The court interpreted Minnesota's law—which sources services to where they are “received”—as encompassing end users, not just contractual customers. That interpretation hinged on the absence of the word “directly” in the statute. As I see it, courts shouldn't be in the business of stretching ambiguous language to support expansive tax liability, especially when legislatures haven't clearly articulated such intent.What's most concerning is the unpredictability this creates. If states don't codify market-based sourcing explicitly, courts may keep filling in gaps case by case, leaving companies unable to forecast where they're subject to tax. That's a serious compliance issue for businesses with complex, multi-jurisdictional operations. I argue that if states want to prioritize economic presence over contractual reality, they must write it into law—with clear definitions and limits. Otherwise, taxpayers are left navigating a patchwork of post hoc interpretations that undermine the predictability essential to sound tax policy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Anita HillOn October 6, 1991, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, dramatically shifting the course of his confirmation process. Hill, who had previously worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged that Thomas made repeated sexually inappropriate comments during their professional relationship. Her allegations were leaked to the press after the Senate Judiciary Committee had already voted to send Thomas's nomination to the full Senate. In response, the Committee reopened the hearings, and Hill testified publicly on October 11, describing in detail the behavior she claimed to have experienced. Her testimony was televised nationally, drawing intense media coverage and sparking widespread public debate about sexual harassment, gender dynamics, and power in the workplace.The hearings were often contentious, with Hill subjected to sharp questioning from senators, many of whom expressed skepticism about her motives. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, famously calling the proceedings a “high-tech lynching” during his own testimony. Despite the controversy, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a 52-48 vote on October 15, one of the closest margins in modern confirmation history. Hill's testimony, however, had a lasting impact beyond the nomination itself.The episode galvanized public awareness of workplace sexual harassment and is often credited with sparking a surge in women seeking elected office in 1992, dubbed the “Year of the Woman.” It also led to changes in how such allegations were addressed in professional and legal contexts. The legacy of the hearings continues to influence discussions of gender and accountability in government and law.The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today with a docket that includes significant cases related to President Donald Trump's exercise of executive power. Key cases center on Trump's efforts to impose tariffs and remove certain federal officials—moves that could test the constitutional boundaries between presidential authority and congressional control. The Court has already sided with Trump in several emergency rulings this year, including a June decision that curtailed judges' ability to block presidential policies nationwide.In addition to executive power disputes, the justices will take up cases touching on contentious social issues, including the legality of a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, rights of transgender student athletes, gun control, and race-related policies. The Court's conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump appointees, is expected to play a crucial role in shaping these outcomes.Other notable cases this term involve a Texas murder conviction potentially violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and a malpractice suit that questions whether federal courts must apply state laws requiring expert affidavits in medical negligence claims. The justices will also consider a campaign finance case involving Vice President JD Vance and a law allowing lawsuits over property seized by the Cuban government.US Supreme Court opens new term, with major Trump cases in store | ReutersA federal judge in Oregon, Karin Immergut, has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's administration from deploying any National Guard troops—whether from Oregon or other states—to Portland. The order, issued on Sunday, follows an earlier ruling by the same judge that stopped Trump from sending 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In response, the administration tried to redirect troops from California and Texas, arguing that their prior federalization allowed for deployment anywhere. Judge Immergut rejected that argument, stating there was no justification for military presence given the current protest activity in Portland.Oregon officials accused the administration of legal “gamesmanship,” calling the attempt to bypass the initial order an affront to the court's intent. The ruling will remain in place until at least October 19 while broader legal challenges play out. The Pentagon had planned to send troops to support federal agencies like ICE and protect federal property. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had also called up Texas troops for deployment in multiple cities, including Chicago and Portland.National Guard units are generally controlled by state governors unless federalized, a point central to Oregon's legal argument that Trump was overreaching by seizing control of state resources. Governor Gavin Newsom of California called the deployment an abuse of power, echoing broader concerns about the erosion of state sovereignty. Judge Immergut emphasized that presidential military authority, while broad, is not unlimited and cannot override facts on the ground or constitutional limits.US judge blocks Trump from sending any National Guard troops to Portland for now | ReutersA coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups has filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a recent proclamation by President Donald Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The plaintiffs, including the United Auto Workers, the American Association of University Professors, and others, argue that Trump exceeded his legal authority by unilaterally altering a visa program created and regulated by Congress. They claim the president cannot impose such a fee without congressional approval, calling the move unconstitutional and a misuse of executive power.The H-1B visa program, widely used by tech companies and other industries to hire skilled foreign workers, currently costs employers between $2,000 and $5,000 per application. Trump's new order blocks new visa recipients from entering the U.S. unless their sponsoring employer pays the additional $100,000. The administration claims the measure is necessary to protect American jobs, prevent wage suppression, and safeguard national security.Critics of the new policy say it amounts to a “pay-to-play” system that grants exemptions only at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, opening the door to arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs also accuse government agencies of failing to follow proper administrative rulemaking procedures and warn that the excessive fee could stifle innovation and deter employers from hiring needed talent. The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions over the scope of executive authority in shaping immigration policy and regulating labor markets.Trump's $100,000 fee for H-1B worker visas challenged in lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: O.J. “Not Guilty”On October 3, 1995, a Los Angeles jury returned one of the most controversial and widely watched criminal verdicts in American history: O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. The trial, which lasted more than eight months, captivated the nation with its blend of celebrity, race, police misconduct, and media spectacle. The prosecution presented DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene, while the defense, led by Johnnie Cochran, argued that Simpson was framed by a racist LAPD, particularly Detective Mark Fuhrman.Cochran's now-famous line — “If it doesn't fit, you must acquit” — referred to a moment when Simpson tried on gloves allegedly worn during the murders, and they appeared not to fit. The defense used that moment to cast further doubt on the prosecution's case. The jury deliberated for less than four hours before acquitting Simpson, prompting strong reactions across racial and social lines.The case exposed deep divisions in American society, particularly around race and policing. It also helped usher in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and reality-style courtroom coverage, with networks like CNN and Court TV devoting extensive airtime to the trial. The not-guilty verdict did not end Simpson's legal troubles: in 1997, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages.Apple confirmed it has removed the ICEBlock app and similar tools from its App Store following pressure from the Trump administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi. ICEBlock allowed users to report and track the locations of ICE officers through crowdsourced data. Bondi stated the app endangered law enforcement officers and crossed a line by facilitating potential violence.The Department of Justice supported the move, citing safety concerns. This action followed an exposé by right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who outed the creator of a similar app, Red Dot, and accused the platforms of enabling violence against ICE agents. Loomer also claimed that a recent deadly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility involved the use of such tracking apps.Apple defended its decision, stating it aims to keep the App Store a “safe and trusted” space, and that ICEBlock violated policies by potentially enabling harm to law enforcement. The app's developer, Joshua Aaron, criticized the removal, comparing it to how apps like Apple Maps crowdsource speed trap locations. He argued that his app was protected by the First Amendment and that Apple's action was a concession to authoritarian demands.Tech Giant Apple Bows to MAGA Demands and Removes ICE Tracking AppsOpenAI filed a motion in federal court to dismiss a trade secret lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI startup, xAI. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, accuses OpenAI of deliberately poaching xAI employees to gain access to confidential information about Grok, xAI's chatbot, which the company claims surpasses ChatGPT in performance.OpenAI rejected the allegations, calling them baseless and part of Musk's “ongoing harassment” campaign against the company. In its filing, OpenAI argued that employees are free to leave xAI and work wherever they choose, and that it is within its rights to hire them. The company suggested xAI's legal actions are designed to cover up its internal struggles and inability to retain talent.This case is one of several legal battles unfolding between Musk and OpenAI. Musk has also filed a separate suit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. In turn, OpenAI has countersued Musk for harassment. Meanwhile, xAI has sued Apple, claiming it colluded with OpenAI to suppress competition—an accusation both companies deny and are also seeking to dismiss.OpenAI's legal response characterized xAI's complaint as a distraction from its own failings and a tactic to slow down competitors in the heated race for dominance in the AI industry.OpenAI asks court to dismiss trade-secret lawsuit from Musk's xAI | ReutersU.S. District Judge Michael Simon recused himself from a case challenging President Donald Trump's decision to deploy Oregon's National Guard to Portland. The Trump administration had raised concerns over public comments made by Simon's wife, Representative Suzanne Bonamici, criticizing the deployment as a “gross abuse of power.” To avoid any appearance of bias, Judge Simon opted to step aside, stating the case should remain focused on its core constitutional and legal questions.The lawsuit, filed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, seeks to block Trump's use of state National Guard troops, arguing it is illegal and driven by political motives. The complaint alleges Trump is exaggerating protest threats to justify federal overreach and seize control of state forces. The case has been reassigned to Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee.Bonamici, whose district includes much of Portland, made her critical remarks during a press conference with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. The Department of Justice cited her comments in its request for Simon's recusal, arguing they could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.A hearing is scheduled for Friday on Oregon's request for a temporary restraining order. Similar legal challenges are underway in California and Washington, D.C., where federal troop deployments have also faced pushback. A California judge previously ruled Trump's actions unlawful, but that decision is currently on hold pending appeal. The D.C. case remains unresolved.Judge recuses himself from Oregon National Guard case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.This week, we close with Franz Liszt's transcription (S. 464) of the first movement—Allegro con brio—from Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21. Originally premiered in 1800, this symphony marked Beethoven's formal debut in the genre, and even in its first movement, we hear the young composer testing the boundaries of the Classical form inherited from Haydn and Mozart. The opening chords start in the “wrong” key—a bold harmonic gesture that signaled Beethoven's intent to shake things up, even as he worked within a familiar structure.Liszt, the great 19th-century virtuoso and composer, took on the monumental task of transcribing all nine of Beethoven's symphonies for solo piano. The transcription of the First Symphony, catalogued as S. 464, is part of that sweeping project. These arrangements were not simply meant to showcase Liszt's pianistic brilliance (though they certainly do); they were a way to bring Beethoven's orchestral works into the drawing rooms and salons of Europe—before widespread orchestral performance or recording technology.In Liszt's hands, the Allegro con brio becomes a brilliant piano showpiece, retaining the symphony's rhythmic drive, thematic clarity, and structural ingenuity. He translates orchestral texture into ten fingers with remarkable fidelity, using tremolos, arpeggios, and dramatic dynamic shifts to recreate the energy of strings, winds, and brass. The transcription is virtuosic but never flashy for its own sake—it's an homage from one revolutionary to another.Beethoven's First Symphony bridges the Classical and Romantic eras, and Liszt's solo piano version builds a new bridge, connecting orchestral grandeur to the intimacy of a single performer. It's a reminder of both composers' commitment to pushing musical expression forward. As you listen, you may forget it's just one person at a piano—Liszt makes the entire orchestra sing.We leave you this week not only with Beethoven's bold opening statement to the symphonic world, but with Liszt's brilliant act of translation—a distillation of power, wit, and elegance, all under a single keyboard.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21 – the first movement. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren AppointedOn October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.Under Warren's leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court's moral authority.His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA's federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | ReutersApple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI's suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple's integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk's Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.Apple's lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk's legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI's shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk's suit over competition claims | ReutersLawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London's High Court, suggest that confidential details about William's 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants' favor on that issue.Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

This Day in Legal History: First Governmental Recognition of Same-sex RelationshipsOn October 1, 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex relationships through its Registered Partnership Act. The law allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that granted nearly all of the same legal protections and responsibilities as marriage, except for adoption rights and access to religious marriage ceremonies. The Danish parliament had passed the legislation earlier that year with a strong majority, marking a historic shift in global LGBTQ+ rights.The law was the result of more than a decade of activism by Danish LGBTQ+ rights organizations, particularly the group LBL (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske), which had been advocating for legal recognition since the 1970s. Public support in Denmark was relatively high by the late 1980s, aided by a culture of social liberalism and the country's strong welfare state. When the law took effect, eleven male couples and one female couple registered their partnerships at Copenhagen City Hall in a widely publicized ceremony.International reaction was mixed. Many human rights organizations hailed the Danish move as groundbreaking, while conservative and religious groups elsewhere condemned it. Still, Denmark's action inspired a gradual but undeniable trend. Over the next few decades, many other countries—including Norway, Sweden, and eventually the United States—adopted laws recognizing same-sex unions or full marriage equality.The Registered Partnership Act remained in place until Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, at which point existing partnerships could be converted into marriages. The 1989 law is now widely regarded as the legal foundation for modern same-sex union legislation worldwide, proving that structural legal change can begin in small, progressive nations and ripple outward.A high-stakes redistricting hearing began October 1, 2025, in El Paso, Texas, where a panel of three federal judges will decide whether the state's new congressional map—redrawn mid-decade—can be used in the 2026 midterms. At issue is whether the map was motivated by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering or permissible political considerations. Texas defends the redraw as a purely partisan move to benefit Republicans, which, while potentially unethical, may be legally protected under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), a Supreme Court ruling that bars federal courts from reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.The plaintiffs, a coalition of minority and voting rights groups, argue that the map violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination, citing a July letter from the DOJ which had warned that the 2021 map was unlawfully racially gerrymandered. Texas initially used that letter to justify the special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, but has since pivoted to a political defense, potentially undercutting its earlier rationale. The court has set a fast-paced schedule, allowing no opening statements and warning that it will not tolerate delays.Seven lawmakers are expected to testify, and the panel includes judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump. This same trio heard a race-based challenge to the 2021 map earlier in the year, which became moot after the legislature preemptively redrew the map. Experts say proving racial motivation will be difficult but critical, as plaintiffs cannot legally challenge maps solely for being politically gerrymandered.Texas' Political Aims on Trial as Redistricting Hearing BeginsThe U.S. government officially shut down on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass a funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. The standoff has quickly become a political battle, with President Donald Trump blaming Democrats for pushing a $1.5 trillion agenda and Democrats accusing Trump of sabotaging negotiations and gutting federal programs. Trump's administration is reportedly planning mass terminations of federal workers, going beyond typical furloughs, as part of its long-standing effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.This shutdown flips the usual script: Republicans now seek a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open, while Democrats are demanding healthcare-related provisions and curbs on Trump's spending discretion. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are focusing on extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, but unity within the party remains fragile. Trump has escalated tensions by sharing inflammatory, AI-generated content targeting Democratic leaders, prompting backlash and accusations of racism.Polling suggests that blame is spread, with a third of voters holding both parties responsible. Markets are already reacting to the uncertainty, and concerns are rising about delayed economic data. Some Republicans, including Trump allies, warn that the shutdown could politically backfire on the president, as it did during his 2018 border wall standoff.Trump, Democrats Grapple for Edge as Government Shutdown BeginsA federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah is not lawfully serving as Nevada's acting U.S. attorney, dealing another blow to the Trump administration's approach to appointing interim federal prosecutors. Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Chattah's appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Specifically, the Attorney General's method of designating her as a “first assistant” to qualify her for the acting role was not consistent with congressional intent under the statute.This decision echoes a similar August ruling in New Jersey, where Alina Habba was also found ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney under the same legal reasoning. Courts have rejected the idea that the Attorney General can bypass standard succession rules to install political allies into key prosecutorial roles.Though Chattah's appointment was struck down, Judge Campbell denied motions to dismiss cases she oversaw, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorneys maintain independent authority and that defendants failed to show any prejudice to their cases. Additional legal challenges are still pending, including in the Central District of California against Bill Essayli, another controversial Trump acting appointment.Nevada Acting US Attorney Chattah Disqualified by US Judge (1)A California jury has found Uber not liable in the first U.S. trial over claims that one of its drivers sexually assaulted a passenger. The plaintiff, known as Jessica C., alleged that in 2016, her Uber driver pulled off the road and assaulted her during a ride. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in implementing safety measures, it concluded that the company's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault.This civil trial, held in San Francisco Superior Court, was the first bellwether case out of over 500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California state court. Another 2,500 related cases are proceeding in federal court. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help guide broader litigation strategy or inform settlements in mass tort cases.The plaintiff's lawyers sought up to $1.2 million in compensatory damages per year of her life but did not request a specific amount in punitive damages. They argued Uber failed to take obvious safety steps, like assigning female riders to female drivers or requiring dash cams, despite knowing about widespread assault risks.Uber denied liability for the criminal acts of its drivers and pointed to improvements in its safety protocols, such as enhanced background checks, safety reports, and in-app security tools. Nonetheless, Uber remains under scrutiny. A recent congressional inquiry and ongoing criticism highlight lingering concerns about the company's handling of rider safety.Uber found not liable in first US trial over driver sexual assault claims | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Supports Women's SuffrageOn September 30, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson took the unprecedented step of addressing the U.S. Senate directly to urge passage of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. The House of Representatives had already approved the amendment earlier that year, but the measure had stalled in the Senate. Wilson's speech came during the final months of World War I, a context he used strategically—arguing that women had proven their patriotism and value to the nation through their labor, sacrifice, and civic contributions during wartime.Framing suffrage as a war measure and an issue of national unity, Wilson stated that denying women the vote was an injustice that undermined American democratic ideals. He contended that the world was watching and that the U.S. could not claim to fight for democracy abroad while denying it to half its citizens at home. The speech was notable both for its timing and for the fact that it came from a president who had previously been lukewarm on the issue.Wilson's appeal was a calculated political move, reflecting both the growing power of the women's suffrage movement and the need to maintain national morale. Though his speech failed to immediately sway enough senators—the amendment would not pass the Senate until June 1919—it marked a pivotal shift in executive support. Wilson's endorsement helped legitimize the movement and apply pressure on reluctant lawmakers.The Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited the denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex, was finally ratified in August 1920. Wilson's 1918 address thus stands as a key moment in the long legal and political battle for women's suffrage in the United States, symbolizing the growing alignment of public sentiment, executive advocacy, and legislative momentum that would eventually culminate in constitutional change.In an exclusive from Reuters, federal drug prosecutions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in decades, as the Trump administration shifts law enforcement priorities toward immigration enforcement. A Reuters analysis of nearly 2 million federal court records reveals that prosecutions for drug offenses are down 10% from the same period in 2024, with money laundering charges—often linked to high-level traffickers—dropping by 24%. These declines mark the slowest rate of federal drug enforcement activity since at least the late 1990s.The shift stems from President Trump's directive shortly after taking office to reallocate thousands of federal agents toward immigration-related efforts, including assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in daily raids. This redirection of resources has disrupted traditional drug enforcement operations, with agents reporting that long-term investigations have stalled and critical cases are going “stagnant.” Even fentanyl-related investigations have been sidelined due to agents being pulled into immigration duties.Despite promises of a tough-on-drugs approach—including calls for the death penalty for some dealers—the administration's actions have hollowed out the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and rerouted DEA and ATF agents to support deportation operations. These agents, often unfamiliar with immigration law, are now tasked with support roles such as transportation and crowd control during raids, sometimes simply for the sake of producing social media-friendly imagery.Meanwhile, prosecutions tied to drug importation and conspiracies have declined 6% and 15%, respectively, and gun charges associated with drug crimes have also fallen. Officials warn that the impact of this reprioritization could deepen over time, as investigations delayed today will not yield prosecutions for months or years. Nearly half of all federal criminal charges this year involve immigration violations, and over 700 federal prosecutors have been reassigned to immigration matters.While the White House defends the shift as a successful effort to reduce the flow of drugs by targeting violent criminals and cartels, law enforcement officials describe a chaotic, politically driven enforcement regime that sacrifices complex criminal investigations for visible, short-term wins. The resulting system raises concerns not only about public safety but about the long-term effectiveness of federal law enforcement priorities.Exclusive: Federal drug prosecutions fall to lowest level in decades as Trump shifts focus to deportations | ReutersThe Pentagon has deployed 200 Oregon National Guard troops under federal authority after President Donald Trump announced plans to send military forces into Portland, Oregon. The move, aimed at protecting federal immigration facilities from what Trump called “domestic terrorists,” immediately triggered a legal challenge from the state. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a federal lawsuit against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing that the federal deployment infringes on the state's sovereign authority over its own law enforcement and National Guard.The lawsuit describes Trump's justification as exaggerated and unsupported, noting that protests against ICE in Portland have remained relatively small and peaceful since June. It also highlights a sharp decline in violent crime in the city—homicides are reportedly down 51% compared to the same time last year—raising further questions about the necessity of military intervention.The deployment order took even top Pentagon officials by surprise, with several describing it as a “bolt from the blue.” Defense Secretary Hegseth's memo authorizing the deployment was later attached as evidence in Oregon's lawsuit. Portland officials, including Mayor Keith Wilson, were not informed of the plan in advance and reportedly learned about it via social media.Trump's rhetoric about using “full force” remains ambiguous, with no clarification on whether that includes authorization of lethal force or under what conditions it could be used. Historically, U.S. troops deployed domestically are only permitted to use force in self-defense. The sudden move has heightened tensions, particularly following a recent shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas that left one detainee dead and two others injured. Critics argue the administration's increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement risks politicizing the military and provoking unnecessary conflict in U.S. cities.Pentagon calls up 200 National Guard troops after Trump Portland announcement | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I explore a recent tariff investigation. The investigation into computer peripheral manufacturer Anker Innovations' alleged tariff evasion highlights how modern tariff enforcement has evolved into a sprawling, bureaucratic effort that diverts taxpayer resources toward compliance rather than bolstering domestic industry. Rather than serving as effective tools of economic nationalism, tariffs often end up creating work for customs officials, trade lawyers, and compliance consultants. Each adjustment to tariff classifications triggers complex administrative networks that contradict the ideal of limited government.This system's irony deepens when considering that agencies like the IRS are underfunded, even as policymakers lean more on tariffs—a less efficient and more easily manipulated revenue source. The result is a compliance-heavy environment that benefits well-resourced firms while leaving smaller importers at a disadvantage. Investigating potential violations can be costly and time-consuming, encouraging selective enforcement and fostering a procedural limbo where discretion and inefficiency thrive.The current approach, which places tariff power largely in the executive branch, introduces volatility and undermines predictability in trade policy. Companies may invest heavily in litigation over classification issues, only to see the rules change mid-process. This undermines confidence in the system and raises the risk of corruption and favoritism. I argue that returning tariff authority to Congress and reinvigorating corporate tax enforcement would make the system more equitable and effective. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

This Day in Legal History: John Jay CommissionedOn September 26, 1789, John Jay was commissioned as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the establishment of the American judiciary. Nominated by President George Washington and swiftly confirmed by the Senate, Jay took the helm of the newly formed Supreme Court just one day after the Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law. His appointment signaled the beginning of the federal judiciary as a coequal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution.Jay was already a prominent figure in American political life, having served as President of the Continental Congress, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation. As Chief Justice, he led a court that initially had little authority or docket, with its first session delayed until February 1790 due to logistical difficulties and lack of cases.Despite the Court's limited power at the time, Jay helped lay the groundwork for its future role. In Chisholm v. Georgia(1793), Jay authored an opinion asserting federal judicial authority over state governments, a controversial stance that ultimately led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. His tenure also saw diplomatic service; while still Chief Justice, he negotiated the Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794 to resolve lingering post-Revolutionary War disputes.Jay resigned in 1795 after being elected Governor of New York and declined a later offer from President John Adams to return to the bench. His brief but influential time as Chief Justice helped define the legitimacy and independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey, escalating what critics describe as President Donald Trump's campaign of retribution against political adversaries. Comey faces two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony in which he denied authorizing anonymous leaks related to an FBI investigation. The indictment claims he actually did authorize such disclosures. However, the charges are notably sparse, lacking detailed supporting facts or corroborating evidence typically included in indictments of this gravity.The case has drawn intense scrutiny within the Justice Department. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly advised against filing charges due to insufficient evidence, and the district's top prosecutor resigned last week after expressing concern about political interference. Tensions escalated when U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—formerly Trump's defense attorney—personally presented the case to the grand jury, an unusual move suggesting top-level involvement. Notably, the grand jury declined to indict Comey on a third proposed charge, highlighting doubts about the prosecution's strength.Legal experts and former officials, including Obama-era ethics advisor Norm Eisen, have condemned the indictment as politically motivated. Comey maintains his innocence and says he welcomes a trial. Members of his family, including his son-in-law and daughter, have faced professional consequences, which Comey's supporters view as further evidence of political targeting. The charges represent a sharp departure from norms intended to shield law enforcement from partisan use.Former FBI chief Comey charged as Trump ramps up campaign against critics | ReutersA federal judge in California has preliminarily approved a $1.5 billion class action settlement between authors and the AI company Anthropic, marking a major development in the legal battles over generative AI's use of copyrighted materials. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the agreement as fair during a Thursday hearing, though final approval is still pending. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson brought the lawsuit, accusing Anthropic of training its AI assistant Claude using millions of pirated books without permission.This settlement is the first in a growing wave of lawsuits targeting companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft for allegedly infringing on creators' rights through large-scale data scraping to train AI models. Although Alsup had previously ruled that some of Anthropic's training practices fell under fair use, he determined the company crossed the line by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a centralized database not strictly tied to AI training.The judge had initially hesitated to approve the deal and demanded further clarification from both sides, but now appears inclined to allow it to proceed to the notification stage for affected authors. If finalized, the agreement could signal a broader shift toward holding AI developers financially accountable for unauthorized content use. Publishing industry leaders have praised the development as a step toward curbing what they see as systemic, unchecked copyright violations in AI development. Anthropic, meanwhile, emphasized its commitment to safe and responsible AI.US judge preliminarily approves $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement | ReutersKathryn Nester, a seasoned Utah criminal defense attorney and former top federal public defender, has been appointed to represent Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Utah Valley University event on September 10. The state is seeking the death penalty against Robinson, who faces a charge of aggravated murder.Nester has a history of representing clients in high-profile and controversial cases. She previously defended Lyle Jeffs, a fugitive leader of a polygamous sect convicted of food stamp fraud, and John Earnest, the gunman in the 2019 Poway synagogue shooting, before stepping down due to a conflict of interest. She also defended a Utah doctor accused of destroying COVID-19 vaccines—a case later dropped—and is currently representing Kouri Richins, a children's author now charged with poisoning her husband.Her firm, Nester Lewis, has strong ties to Utah's federal public defense system. Her partner, Wendy Lewis, once represented Brian David Mitchell, the man convicted in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Robinson's case is expected to cost Utah County at least $750,000 for the defense alone, with over $1.3 million budgeted for the total prosecution and defense efforts.Robinson's next court appearance is scheduled for Monday. Nester has declined public comment on the case.Attorney representing Charlie Kirk's accused killer is former top public defender | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.Born on September 26, 1898, George Gershwin occupies a unique place in American music history—standing at the intersection of classical composition, jazz improvisation, and Broadway flair. Raised in Brooklyn to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, Gershwin began his musical life on the piano and quickly showed an uncanny ability to absorb and reshape the sounds of his time. Though he composed everything from operas to show tunes, it was Rhapsody in Blue, written in 1924 when he was just 25, that cemented his legacy.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman for a concert intended to bridge classical and popular music, Rhapsody in Blue was composed in a rush—famously sketched out on train rides and completed with the help of orchestrator Ferde Grofé. The piece opens with its iconic clarinet glissando, a spontaneous flourish during rehearsal that Gershwin decided to keep, and unfolds into a sweeping blend of jazz rhythms, bluesy melodies, and symphonic ambition. It captured something distinctly American—urban, restless, full of promise.Rhapsody in Blue premiered at Aeolian Hall in New York on February 12, 1924, with Gershwin himself at the piano. The audience included titans like Sergei Rachmaninoff and Jascha Heifetz, and the piece earned immediate acclaim. Though critics at the time debated whether it was truly “serious” music, it has since become a cornerstone of 20th-century composition and a symbol of American cultural identity.For Gershwin, Rhapsody in Blue was not a departure from classical form but a statement that American music—jazz, blues, Tin Pan Alley—deserved a place in the concert hall. More than a century later, it remains as fresh and vibrant as the city that inspired it.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, the first movement–enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation's highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O'Connor's appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O'Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public's view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O'Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O'Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O'Connor's presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman's voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O'Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB's website, end the agency's oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump's lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Little Rock NineOn September 23, 1957, nine African American students, later known as the Little Rock Nine, were barred from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, despite a federal court order mandating desegregation. This confrontation became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement and a key test of federal authority to enforce the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the National Guard earlier that month to prevent the students from entering the school, citing concerns about public safety. On September 23, the students attempted to enter the school through a side door. Although they briefly succeeded, a growing and increasingly violent white mob outside forced officials to remove the students for their safety. The local police were unable to contain the mob, highlighting the state's failure to comply with federal law.The national spotlight turned sharply toward Little Rock, prompting President Dwight D. Eisenhower to intervene. The next day, September 24, he federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the students' right to attend the school, which they did under armed guard on September 25.This event marked the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were used in the South to enforce civil rights. It underscored the constitutional principle of federal supremacy and the power of the federal government to uphold civil rights against state resistance.President Trump is set to sign an executive order this week confirming that a proposed deal to restructure TikTok's U.S. operations will satisfy the 2024 law requiring divestment from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. Under the arrangement, ByteDance would retain less than 20% ownership, while American investors—including Trump-aligned figures like Lachlan Murdoch, Larry Ellison, and Michael Dell—would take control of the U.S. business. The restructuring would install a U.S.-based board with national security credentials, aiming to quell longstanding fears that TikTok user data could be accessed by the Chinese government.The executive order also pauses enforcement of the divestment mandate for 120 days, buying time to finalize the deal and secure regulatory sign-offs. While the U.S. government will not take a board seat or a “golden share,” it remains unclear whether the final agreement will involve any direct financial benefit to the federal government. Still, Trump's fingerprints are all over the transaction, from its nationalistic framing to the prominent role of political allies in the investor pool. He's even credited TikTok with helping him connect to young voters—a not-so-subtle nod to the platform's political utility heading into 2026.This deal marks rare progress in U.S.-China economic talks, which have been largely stalled amid broader trade tensions. But it also reflects a larger trend: Trump's willingness to insert the federal government directly into private sector negotiations, whether by greenlighting chip exports to China or taking equity in major tech firms. Critics argue such moves undermine free-market principles and risk long-term damage to U.S. competitiveness. Supporters, however, see it as strategic economic defense.In short, Trump's TikTok solution is part national security play, part corporate reshuffling, and part political theater. Whether it holds up legally—or operationally—may matter less than the narrative: the U.S. regaining control of a culturally dominant platform while sidelining Beijing.Lachlan Murdoch, Michael Dell, Ellison involved in TikTok deal, Trump says | ReutersTrump will sign order declaring TikTok deal meets 2024 law requirements | ReutersK&L Gates is closing its Beijing office, becoming the latest U.S. law firm to retreat from China amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and a sluggish legal market. The Pittsburgh-based firm will consolidate its Beijing operations into its Shanghai office following a leadership review of global strategy and real estate. The move comes under new global managing partner Stacy Ackermann, who took the helm in July.Though K&L Gates will maintain a presence in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia, its exit from Beijing reflects a broader trend. Over the past two years, major U.S. firms like Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb, and Winston & Strawn have also shuttered offices in China due to declining deal flow and increased scrutiny of foreign businesses. While some firms continue to operate in Chinese cities, the heyday of aggressive U.S. legal expansion into China—peaking about a decade ago—appears to be over. The firm's departure underscores the mounting challenges of navigating China's legal environment in an era of strategic decoupling.K&L Gates closes Beijing office as US law firms continue China market retreat | ReutersZillow is facing a new proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of deceiving homebuyers by steering them toward its own network of affiliated agents rather than the actual listing agents. Filed in Seattle, the suit claims Zillow's platform misleads users into contacting agents who financially benefit the company—sometimes giving Zillow as much as 40% of their commissions—without disclosing this arrangement to buyers or sellers.The plaintiff, an Oregon resident, argues that these tactics violate both Washington state consumer protection laws and federal real estate laws by inflating commissions and limiting consumer choice. The suit alleges Zillow's practices result in higher home prices and a lack of transparency about who truly represents the buyer's interests. The legal team behind the suit characterizes Zillow's business model as one that exploits consumers' need for housing to boost profits.Zillow has pushed back, calling the lawsuit a misrepresentation of its operations and defending its model as pro-consumer. This case adds to a growing list of legal challenges for the real estate giant, which is already battling other lawsuits over competition and marketing practices, including one from brokerage Compass and another from Homes.com owner CoStar.New lawsuit accuses Zillow of deceiving home buyers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that as states try to modernize sales tax rules for the digital economy, they should stop framing digital offerings as either “goods” or “services” and start taxing them based on function. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) is circulating a proposal to define “automated digital products” as those sold with minimal human intervention. While well-intentioned, this definition is fuzzy and risks creating more confusion than clarity. For example, how do we categorize a chatbot that occasionally escalates to a live agent, or AI tools that require ongoing human training? These gray areas aren't new—states have spent years litigating whether software is tangible, intangible, or a service, and this could be a repeat of that same cycle.Instead of defining digital products by how much human effort goes into delivering them, we should define them by what they do. A Netflix subscription is entertainment. QuickBooks is a productivity tool. Therapy on Zoom is health care. Consumers already experience digital services this way, and tax codes should align accordingly. Function-based categories would mirror existing tax practices, like how business deductions or ticket sales are handled, and would be far easier to scale to emerging technologies.It's true that a functional model still faces edge cases—ChatGPT, for instance, could be research, productivity, or entertainment depending on use. But these are better problems to have than trying to parse human involvement in the delivery pipeline. If states want to tax digital products sensibly, they need a system that reflects how people actually use these tools, not how they're coded or deployed. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Eight Executed for Witchcraft in MassachusettsOn September 22, 1692, eight individuals—six women and two men—were executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, marking the final hangings of the infamous Salem Witch Trials. Among the condemned were Martha Corey, Mary Easty, Alice Parker, Mary Parker, Ann Pudeator, Wilmot Redd, Margaret Scott, and Samuel Wardwell. This date is significant as it represents the culmination of a months-long hysteria that began in early 1692, spurred by accusations from young girls and sanctioned by a special court convened to root out witchcraft. The trials relied heavily on "spectral evidence"—testimony that the accused's spirit had appeared to the accusers—which would later be discredited. The executions were carried out at Proctor's Ledge, near Gallows Hill.The public mood began to shift by the fall of 1692. Prominent ministers and members of the community, including Increase Mather, began speaking out against the trials, criticizing the reliance on uncorroborated testimony and the erosion of due process. Following the September 22 executions, no further hangings took place, and the special court was dissolved in October. In early 1693, Governor William Phips pardoned many of the remaining accused.The Salem Witch Trials are now viewed as a stark example of mass hysteria and judicial failure. Legal safeguards we take for granted today, such as the right to confront one's accuser and standards for admissible evidence, were notably absent. Over time, the Massachusetts government issued apologies, and the trials have become a lasting symbol of injustice.President Trump announced the appointment of his former attorney, Lindsey Halligan, as the new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The move comes amid growing pressure from Trump on Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political opponents more aggressively. In social media posts, Trump demanded action against figures such as former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing frustration over delays and lack of indictments. Halligan, who previously represented Trump in legal battles following the Mar-a-Lago classified documents search, replaces Erik Siebert, who resigned following Trump's public criticism.Trump praised Bondi's overall performance but hinted at dissatisfaction with the pace of investigations. While he continues to support her publicly, his remarks suggest growing impatience. Bondi has also faced internal criticism over her handling of high-profile issues, including the Jeffrey Epstein files. Halligan's appointment surprised some in the Justice Department, as another official, Mary "Maggie" Cleary, reportedly believed she had been selected for the post.Trump administration sources say Siebert had resisted pushing charges against James and Comey due to weak evidence, which may have led to his ouster. The Eastern District office is currently involved in politically sensitive investigations tied to Trump's previous legal conflicts and campaign inquiries.Trump Picks New Virgina Prosecutor After Scolding Bondi InactionTrump picks former attorney to be top prosecutor, as he pressures Bondi to investigate foes | ReutersGoogle is facing a major antitrust trial in Virginia, where the U.S. Department of Justice and several states are pushing to force the company to sell its ad exchange platform, AdX. The government argues that Google has unlawfully monopolized the web advertising market, particularly by tying AdX to its publisher ad server, which publishers use to manage digital ad inventory. Judge Leonie Brinkema previously ruled that Google holds monopoly power in this area and will now decide what remedies to impose following the trial.The DOJ wants Google to not only divest AdX but also open-source the auction system that determines which ads get placed when users load a webpage. Google has countered that such proposals are impractical and could destabilize the digital advertising ecosystem. The company had earlier considered selling AdX in EU negotiations but is now proposing policy changes to allow more competition on its platforms.The trial has significant implications for the broader tech industry, as part of a larger bipartisan effort to regulate major tech firms including Meta, Amazon, and Apple. Testimony is expected from media industry executives, including former officials from News Corp and DailyMail.com, who have accused Google of prioritizing its own interests in ad placements. If current remedies fail to improve competition within four years, the DOJ wants Google to also sell its publisher ad server.Google seeks to avoid ad tech breakup as antitrust trial begins | ReutersLawyers for Luigi Mangione, the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, are asking a federal judge to block the death penalty in his case. In a court filing, they argued that Mangione's due process rights were violated, pointing to a highly publicized and "dehumanizing" perp walk in which he was shown in shackles being escorted from a helicopter. They claim this media spectacle, along with public comments from officials—including U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—created a prejudicial environment from the outset of the case.Mangione has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder and interstate stalking. Thompson was fatally shot on December 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel during an investment conference. While the killing was widely condemned, public sentiment has been mixed, with some sympathizing with Mangione's frustration over rising healthcare costs. The case has also fueled broader concerns about politically motivated violence following other recent high-profile incidents.Prosecutors have until October 31 to argue in favor of pursuing the death penalty, which would be decided by a jury if Mangione is convicted. His next federal court appearance is December 5. In parallel, Mangione is facing nine state charges, though two terrorism-related counts were recently dismissed. While New York abolished the death penalty in 2004 for state crimes, it remains a legal option in federal prosecutions.Luigi Mangione's lawyers urge judge to block death penalty over insurance CEO's murder | ReutersA U.S. federal court will soon decide whether Danish energy firm Ørsted and its partner Skyborn Renewables can resume construction on the Revolution Wind offshore project, which was halted by the Trump administration in August. Located 15 miles off Rhode Island's coast, the project is designed to power 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut. Ørsted, claiming losses of $2 million per day during the stoppage, argues the administration did not follow proper procedures in issuing the stop-work order and is seeking a preliminary injunction from Judge Royce Lamberth.The Interior Department initially cited vague national security concerns through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management but later claimed Ørsted failed to comply with permit conditions. These included coordination with the U.S. Navy and NOAA to address military and scientific survey impacts. Ørsted disputes these claims, stating it has met the requirements and that the government's objections were raised only after litigation began.The Biden administration approved the project in 2023, but President Trump has moved to roll back offshore wind developments, calling them costly and unsightly. The outcome of the court's decision could impact both the future of the Revolution Wind project and the broader U.S. offshore wind sector.US court weighs Trump halt on Rhode Island offshore wind project | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe