Podcasts about legalnews

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

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

In this podcast, Jeff discusses the assassination of Charlie Kirk by yet another deranged leftist shooter. As disturbing as the shooting was, the celebrations from the left — which included professionals, teacher and health care providers — were even more troubling. Jeff discusses what needs to come next if we are to avoid sliding into the abyss as a country.

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

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to BrownOn September 12, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, firmly rejecting a challenge by the State of Arkansas to the enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education. In the wake of Brown, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, Arkansas officials sought to delay desegregation efforts in Little Rock, citing violent resistance and the need to preserve public order. The state's governor and legislature argued they were not bound by the Court's ruling.The Supreme Court rejected that claim unequivocally. In a rare decision signed by all nine justices, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the binding nature of its interpretations. It stated that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and that the Court's rulings are final and must be followed by all states, regardless of political disagreement or local unrest.The ruling was a direct rebuke to Governor Orval Faubus, who had used the Arkansas National Guard to block the entry of nine Black students into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. President Eisenhower had responded by sending federal troops to enforce the desegregation order. Cooper v. Aaron underscored the federal judiciary's power to enforce constitutional rights, even in the face of open defiance by state authorities.The Court's opinion in Cooper was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, signaling that federal law could not be nullified by state action. It also clarified that resistance to judicial decisions, especially on constitutional matters, was itself unconstitutional. By reasserting its own authority and that of the federal government, the Court helped ensure that desegregation would proceed, however slowly, across the South.Senate Republicans pushed through a rule change aimed at speeding up the confirmation of President Donald Trump's executive-branch nominees. In a 53-45 vote, the GOP majority limited the ability of Senate Democrats to slow the process, allowing groups of nominees to be confirmed together rather than individually. The change does not apply to Cabinet heads or federal judges.Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the move, saying the chamber was being bogged down by procedural delays. In contrast, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff warned the rule change weakens institutional checks on presidential power, calling it a further erosion of Senate independence. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized it as enabling a “conveyor belt of unqualified nominees.”This is the third significant alteration in 12 years to Senate rules that weaken the minority party's influence, a trend that began with Democrats in 2013 and continued under Republicans in 2017. Critics argue the Senate is drifting away from its traditional role as a stabilizing body in the legislative process. The first group of Trump nominees could see expedited confirmation as early as next week. Stephen Miran's Federal Reserve nomination will proceed under the prior rules.US Senate loosens rule to speed confirmation of some Trump nominees | ReutersA federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a policy that would have barred undocumented children from enrolling in Head Start, a federal preschool program for low-income families. Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked the authority to impose immigration-based restrictions on access to Head Start, criticizing the agency for failing to follow proper rulemaking procedures.The decision followed a similar ruling one day earlier from a federal judge in Rhode Island, which halted the policy in 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The Seattle lawsuit was brought by Head Start associations from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with two parent advocacy groups. They challenged a July directive that expanded the interpretation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start among programs limited to legal residents.Since 1998, HHS had interpreted the law as not applying to non-postsecondary education programs like Head Start. Judge Martinez stated that Congress had effectively endorsed that interpretation by not altering the law and had even broadened access to Head Start over time. Despite recent limits by the U.S. Supreme Court on nationwide injunctions, Martinez justified his decision as necessary to provide uniform relief.Trump policy barring migrants from Head Start blocked nationwide | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, accusing the company of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against riders with disabilities. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint alleges that Uber drivers have routinely denied rides to passengers who use service animals or wheelchairs, and sometimes insulted or mistreated them.The DOJ claims that Uber also imposed illegal fees on disabled riders, including cleaning charges for service animals and cancellation fees for rides that drivers refused to complete. The lawsuit details incidents involving 17 individuals, such as a 7-year-old amputee denied a ride due to his wheelchair, a veteran with a service dog who missed a flight after being refused service, and a blind man in New Jersey whose ride requests were repeatedly canceled.The government is seeking an injunction to stop further violations, mandatory improvements to Uber's policies and training, monetary damages for those affected, and a civil penalty. In response, Uber denied the allegations, stating it has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and is committed to accessibility and inclusion for riders with disabilities.US sues Uber, alleges discrimination against disabled riders | ReutersWe'll see you back here on Monday and, until then, note. We like to close out the week of shows with a featured musical piece. That will make these Friday episodes seem especially long. We hope you'll stick it out and enjoy the featured piece but, if music – specifically classical music – isn't your bag, we get it. Our mouth sounds unrelated to the week's closing music ends here.This week's closing theme is by Clara Schumann.This week's closing music features a brilliant piece by Clara Schumann, a composer, pianist, and musical force whose work was often overshadowed by the men around her—most notably her husband Robert Schumann and close friend Johannes Brahms. Yet Clara was a prodigy in her own right, performing across Europe and composing with a clarity and emotional depth that demanded attention in a male-dominated 19th-century musical world.Her Scherzo No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 14, written in 1845, is a striking example of her compositional voice—bold, technically challenging, and emotionally complex. The piece opens with stormy, rapid-fire passages that give way to more lyrical interludes, showcasing Clara's mastery of contrast and dramatic pacing. It's music that demands virtuosity but also rewards listeners with its structural elegance and passionate energy.As you listen, consider how Clara's work stood alongside—and at times surpassed—that of her more famous peers. Her Scherzo No. 2 is not just a curiosity from a historical figure, but a work of enduring artistic merit that more than earns its place in the canon.Without further ado, Clara Schumann's Scherzo No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 14, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Certiorari Granted in WindsorOn September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government's posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,Trial begins for man accused of trying to assassinate Trump, spotlighting US political violence | ReutersFive former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump's second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC's duty to safeguard merit-based civil service protections.The lawsuit aims to compel OSC to reopen investigations into the firings and reassert that probationary employees still retain legal protections from unlawful dismissals.US Special Counsel sued for dismissing fired federal workers' complaints | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, aiming to fire her before the central bank's next interest rate meeting on September 16. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that President Trump's claim—alleging Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office—likely does not meet the legal threshold to justify her dismissal. The administration's brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit did not include arguments, but signaled urgency given the upcoming monetary policy meeting.Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, filed suit in August claiming that the fraud allegations were a pretext for removing her due to her policy positions. She argues that the law governing the Federal Reserve allows a governor to be removed only “for cause,” a term not clearly defined in the statute and never previously tested in court. Cobb agreed that the case raises new and important legal questions, emphasizing the public interest in shielding the Fed from political pressure.The DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mortgage fraud, with grand jury subpoenas issued in Georgia and Michigan. The case could have broader implications for the independence of federal agencies, especially those like the Fed that have traditionally operated free from executive interference. This follows other high-profile cases in which courts have temporarily blocked Trump from firing leaders of independent agencies, including the U.S. Copyright Office.Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and criticized Chair Jerome Powell, though Cook has consistently voted with the Fed majority on rate decisions. Her continued presence at the Fed could influence upcoming policy moves.Trump administration appeals ruling blocking removal of Fed Governor Cook | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld most provisions of a New Jersey law restricting firearms in designated “sensitive places,” such as parks, hospitals, beaches, libraries, and casinos. The 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations in places traditionally considered sensitive due to their civic or public safety function.The ruling is a setback for gun rights advocates, following similar decisions by appeals courts in California, Hawaii, and New York. These rulings come in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating gun laws—requiring that modern regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm control. While Bruen expanded gun rights, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of restrictions in sensitive locations.Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for the majority, emphasized that U.S. history supports limiting firearms in specific public areas to preserve peace and safety. Judge Cindy Chung concurred, while Judge David Porter dissented, arguing the government shouldn't be able to arbitrarily declare places “sensitive” to limit gun rights.The New Jersey Attorney General praised the decision, while gun rights groups criticized it as an overly deferential interpretation of the Second Amendment.US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Sewing Machine PatentOn this day in legal history, September 10, 1846, Elias Howe was granted U.S. Patent No. 3640 for his invention of the lockstitch sewing machine. Though not the first to envision mechanical sewing, Howe's design was the first to successfully automate stitching in a way that was both efficient and commercially viable. His machine used a needle with the eye at the point and a shuttle beneath the cloth to form a lockstitch—features that would become industry standards. Despite the innovation, Howe initially struggled to find financial backers and spent time in England attempting to sell his invention, with little success.When he returned to the United States, Howe discovered that other manufacturers had begun producing similar machines. Chief among them was Isaac Singer, who had developed and begun marketing a sewing machine that closely mirrored Howe's patented design. In 1854, Howe sued Singer for patent infringement, launching one of the first high-profile intellectual property battles in American history. The case turned on whether Singer's improvements to the machine still relied on Howe's patented mechanism.The court ultimately ruled in Howe's favor, affirming that Singer's use of the lockstitch principle did indeed infringe upon Howe's patent. Howe was awarded substantial royalties from Singer and other manufacturers using similar technology, securing both recognition and financial reward for his invention. This case set a foundational precedent for the enforceability of patent rights and underscored the economic stakes of intellectual property in the Industrial Age. By the time his patent expired, Howe had amassed a considerable fortune and had firmly established the legal and commercial viability of inventorship in a rapidly mechanizing society.A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking an early legal defeat for the administration in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the Fed's independence. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration's justification—allegations of mortgage fraud committed before Cook took office—did not clearly meet the legal standard for removal. The law governing the Federal Reserve allows governors to be removed only “for cause,” a term not explicitly defined, and this is the first time its limits are being tested in court.Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, has denied all fraud allegations and is suing both Trump and the Fed, arguing the move is politically motivated due to her monetary policy views. Her legal team argues that even if the mortgage claims were accurate, they predate her Senate confirmation and therefore do not constitute grounds for removal. The White House contends that the president has broad authority to dismiss Fed governors and that this issue should not be subject to judicial review.Judge Cobb's ruling allows Cook to remain in her position while the case proceeds and emphasized that the claims did not pertain to her conduct as a sitting Board member. The Department of Justice has opened a criminal probe into the mortgage allegations, issuing subpoenas from Georgia and Michigan. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court and may redefine limits on presidential power over the central bank. Legal experts and Fed supporters view the ruling as a significant moment in affirming the institution's independence from political interference.US judge temporarily blocks Trump from removing Fed Governor Cook | ReutersTrump Can't Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for Now, Judge Says (1)The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the review of the legality of President Trump's global tariff policies, setting up a pivotal case over the limits of presidential power in trade. The Court will evaluate whether Trump unlawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law traditionally applied to sanction foreign adversaries—to justify tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and pressuring countries over issues like drug trafficking. Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped, arguing that IEEPA doesn't grant presidents broad tariff authority and that such actions violate the Constitution's assignment of trade powers to Congress.The Justice Department, appealing the rulings, claims that stripping Trump of this power would weaken the country's defenses against economic threats. In contrast, the challengers—including small businesses, a toy company, and 12 Democrat-led states—argue that only Congress can impose tariffs and that Trump's interpretation of the law is too expansive. The case invokes the Supreme Court's “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of large economic and political consequence.Oral arguments are scheduled for early November, with the Court moving unusually quickly to address the matter. Tariffs remain in place during the legal process. The decision could reshape the scope of executive authority over trade policy and have long-term effects on global markets, U.S. trade relationships, and the national economy. With trillions of dollars in duties at stake, the outcome may also impact future uses of emergency economic powers by presidents.US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has mostly upheld a California law aimed at limiting social media use by minors, siding with the state over a legal challenge brought by tech industry group NetChoice. The law, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prohibits platforms from offering so-called "addictive feeds" to users under 18 without parental consent. These feeds, powered by algorithms that tailor content to user behavior, are considered by lawmakers to pose mental health risks to children.NetChoice, whose members include major tech firms like Google, Meta, Netflix, and X (formerly Twitter), argued that the law is overly vague, unconstitutional, and violates companies' First Amendment rights. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of these claims, saying the law's applications were not broadly unconstitutional and that the issue of algorithmic expression is fact-dependent.The court did strike down one provision requiring platforms to default children's accounts to hide likes and comments, finding it was not the least restrictive means of protecting mental health. It also declined to rule on a requirement that platforms verify users' ages, since that part of the law doesn't take effect until 2027.NetChoice expressed disappointment, saying the ruling gives government more control over online speech than parents. The court returned parts of the case to a lower court for further review. The decision represents a significant legal validation of California's attempt to regulate how minors interact with digital platforms.California limits on 'addictive' social media feeds for children largely upheld | ReutersA federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena medical records of transgender minors who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled that the Department of Justice's subpoena was issued in bad faith, stating its true purpose was to intimidate and interfere with Massachusetts' legal protections for gender-affirming care. The subpoena sought a wide range of sensitive data, including identifiable patient records from the past five and a half years.The DOJ claimed the records were needed to investigate possible healthcare fraud and off-label drug promotion, but the judge found that the scope of the request far exceeded what would be relevant for such an inquiry. Joun pointed to the administration's broader political stance against gender-affirming care, including President Trump's executive order just days after taking office and the DOJ's public commitment to targeting providers of what it called “radical gender experimentation.”Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in July that over 20 subpoenas had been issued nationwide to clinics treating transgender youth, seeking not only institutional practices but also personal patient data related to puberty blockers and hormone therapies. Boston Children's Hospital challenged the subpoena, arguing it was a violation of patient privacy and state protections. Judge Joun agreed, emphasizing that Massachusetts' constitution safeguards access to gender-affirming care and that the subpoena amounted to harassment under the guise of a legal investigation.Judge blocks Trump administration's subpoena of trans kids' medical records from Boston hospital This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: A. Lincoln Admitted to BarOn September 9, 1836, Abraham Lincoln was licensed to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court, setting in motion a legal and political career that would ultimately reshape American history. At the time, Lincoln was a 27-year-old former store clerk and self-taught frontier intellectual, with no formal legal education. Instead, like many aspiring attorneys of the era, Lincoln "read law" by apprenticing under established lawyers and studying foundational legal texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Chitty's Pleadings. His relentless self-education and growing reputation for honesty earned him the nickname “Honest Abe,” long before he entered the national spotlight.Shortly after being admitted to the bar, Lincoln moved to Springfield, Illinois, where he set up a law practice. His first lawsuit came less than a month later, on October 5, 1836, marking the beginning of a legal career that would span over two decades. Lincoln took on a wide variety of cases—ranging from debt collection and land disputes to criminal defense and railroad litigation—and traveled extensively on the Illinois Eighth Judicial Circuit.His courtroom demeanor was marked by clarity, logic, and moral conviction, attributes that would later define his presidency. Practicing law not only gave Lincoln financial stability but also honed the rhetorical and analytical skills that would serve him in legislative debates and national addresses. His legal work with the Illinois Central Railroad and other corporate clients exposed him to the country's economic transformation, deepening his understanding of commerce, labor, and the law's role in shaping society.Lincoln's rise from rural obscurity to respected attorney mirrored the American ideal of self-made success, and his legal background profoundly shaped his political philosophy. It was as a lawyer and legislator that he began to articulate his opposition to slavery's expansion, using constitutional and moral arguments that would later guide his presidency and the Union's legal stance during the Civil War.His legal reasoning and insistence on the rule of law would ultimately be central to the Emancipation Proclamation, his wartime governance, and the framework for reconstructing the nation. The law gave Lincoln the tools to interpret and preserve the Constitution, even amid its greatest crisis.Lincoln's admission to the bar on this day in 1836 was not just a personal milestone—it was a foundational step toward the presidency and toward a redefinition of American liberty and union that would endure for generations.Events ripple in time like waves on a pond, and Lincoln's admission to the bar in 1836 is one such stone cast into history. Had he not secured that license—had he not taught himself law from borrowed books and legal treatises—it is likely he never would have risen to national prominence or attained the presidency. Without Lincoln's leadership in 1860, the United States may well have fractured permanently into separate nations, altering the course of the Civil War and leaving a divided continent in its wake. That division would have profoundly reshaped global affairs in the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that there was a United States powerful and unified enough to confront the Nazi war machine in 1941 traces, in part, to a frontier shop clerk's grit, discipline, and determination to study Blackstone's Commentaries by candlelight.A Florida state appeals judge who sided with Donald Trump in a high-profile defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board has been confirmed to the federal bench. On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–43 along party lines to approve Judge Ed Artau's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Artau is now the sixth Trump judicial nominee to be confirmed during the president's second term.Artau joined a panel earlier this year that allowed Trump's lawsuit to proceed after the Pulitzer Board declined to rescind a 2018 award given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a concurring opinion, Artau criticized the reporting as “now-debunked” and echoed calls to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that has long protected journalists from most defamation claims by public figures.The timing of Artau's nomination has drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who argue it raises ethical concerns. Artau reportedly began conversations about a possible federal appointment just days after Trump's 2024 victory and interviewed with the White House shortly after issuing his opinion in the Pulitzer case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the confirmation a “blatant” example of quid pro quo, while others questioned Artau's impartiality.In response, Artau defended his conduct during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, stating that ambition for higher office alone doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling on politically sensitive cases and that he holds no personal bias requiring recusal.Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAfter 21 years, one of legal academia's most influential blogs is shutting down. The TaxProf Blog, launched in 2004 by Pepperdine Law Dean Paul Caron, will cease publication by the end of September following the closure of its longtime host platform, Typepad. Caron said he isn't interested in rebuilding the site on a new platform, though he hopes to preserve the blog's extensive archive of nearly 56,000 posts.Initially focused on tax law, the blog evolved into a central hub for news and commentary on law schools, covering accreditation, rankings, faculty hiring, admissions trends, and more. It maintained its relevance even as other law professor blogs declined in the wake of Twitter's rise. Caron's regular posts made the site a must-read in the legal education world, often mixing in personal reflections and occasional commentary on religion.The closure also casts uncertainty over the broader Law Professor Blog Network, which includes around 60 niche academic blogs also hosted on Typepad. At least one, ImmigrationProf Blog, has already begun looking for a new publishing home.Reactions across the legal academy reflected the impact of the blog's departure. One law school dean likened it to daily sports reporting for legal education—a constant, trusted source of updates and debate.Groundbreaking law blog calls it quits after 21 years | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a contentious immigration case, allowing federal agents to resume aggressive raids in Southern California. The Court granted a request from the Justice Department to lift a lower court order that had restricted immigration stops based on race, language, or occupation—factors critics argue are being used to disproportionately target Latino communities. The ruling, delivered in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, permits the raids to continue while a broader legal challenge proceeds.The case stems from a July order by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found that the administration's actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment by enabling racially discriminatory stops without reasonable suspicion. Her injunction applied across much of Southern California, but is now paused by the Supreme Court's decision.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court's other two liberals, issued a sharp dissent, warning that the decision effectively declares all Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time," regardless of citizenship. She described the raids as racially motivated and unconstitutional.California Governor Gavin Newsom and civil rights groups echoed those concerns. Newsom accused the Court of legitimizing racial profiling and called Trump's enforcement actions a form of "racial terror." The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the case, including U.S. citizens, denounced the raids as part of a broader “racist deportation scheme.”The Trump administration, meanwhile, hailed the decision as a major legal victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed it as a rejection of “judicial micromanagement,” and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may be used in combination with other factors.This ruling adds to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions backing Trump's immigration agenda, including policies that limit asylum protections and revoke humanitarian legal statuses. In Los Angeles, the raids and the use of military personnel in response to protests have escalated tensions between the federal government and local authorities.US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the damages appropriate given the severity and persistence of Trump's conduct, which it called “remarkably high” in terms of reprehensibility. The ruling noted that Trump's attacks on Carroll grew more extreme as the trial neared, contributing to reputational and emotional harm.The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's repeated public denials of Carroll's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. In 2019, Trump claimed Carroll was “not my type” and said she fabricated the story to sell books—comments he echoed again in 2022, prompting a second defamation suit. A jury in 2023 had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in an earlier case, awarding Carroll $5 million. That verdict was also upheld.Trump's legal team argued that his 2019 comments were made in his official capacity as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. The court disagreed, citing a lack of legal basis to extend immunity in this context. Trump also objected to limits placed on his testimony during trial, but the appeals court upheld the trial judge's rulings as appropriate.The $83.3 million award includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Carroll's legal team expressed hope that the appeals process would soon conclude. Trump, meanwhile, framed the ruling as part of what he calls “Liberal Lawfare” amid multiple ongoing legal battles.Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes aim at the so-called "Taylor Swift Tax" in Rhode Island—an annual surtax on non-primary residences valued over $1 million. While the headline-grabbing nickname guarantees media coverage, the underlying policy is flawed, both economically and politically.Rhode Island isn't alone—Montana, Cape Cod, and Los Angeles have all attempted to capture revenue from wealthy property owners through targeted taxes on high-end real estate. But these narrowly tailored levies often distort markets, suppress transactions, and encourage avoidance rather than compliance. LA's mansion tax, for example, dramatically underperformed because property owners simply didn't sell.The appeal of taxing second homes is clear: they're luxury assets often owned by out-of-staters with little political influence. But that lack of local connection also makes them an unreliable revenue base. It's relatively easy to sell, reclassify, or relocate a vacation property, particularly for the affluent. And when policies hinge on fuzzy concepts like "primary residence," they invite loopholes and enforcement challenges—especially when properties are held by LLCs or trusts.Rhode Island's new tax could drive potential buyers to nearby Connecticut, undermining its own housing market and revenue goals. If states want to tax wealth effectively, they must resist headline-chasing and instead build durable, scalable policies: regular reassessments, vacancy levies, and infrastructure-based cost recovery. These methods avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous residency tests and create more predictable revenue streams.And because discretionary wealth is mobile, real solutions will require cooperation—harmonized assessments, multistate compacts, and shared reporting. But more fundamentally, states looking for progressive revenue should aim higher—toward income and wealth taxes—rather than tinkering at the margins with weekend homes.Rhode Island Should Shake Off ‘Taylor Swift Tax' on Second Homes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Ford Grants Nixon PardonOn September 8, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford granted a full and unconditional pardon to former President Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office, specifically those related to the Watergate scandal. The announcement came just one month after Nixon resigned in disgrace, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Ford, who had only recently assumed the presidency, delivered the pardon via a televised address, explaining that he hoped to heal the nation's wounds and end the "long national nightmare." The decision was met with swift and widespread controversy.Critics accused Ford of striking a backroom deal with Nixon—trading the presidency for a guarantee of legal immunity. The move damaged Ford's credibility and likely contributed to his loss in the 1976 presidential election. Supporters, however, argued that the pardon was necessary to move the country forward and prevent a divisive, prolonged legal spectacle. Legally, the pardon was grounded in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad clemency powers for federal offenses. Importantly, Nixon had not been formally charged at the time of the pardon, making it a preemptive act.The pardon set a precedent for the scope of presidential pardon powers, later cited in legal arguments involving other controversial figures. It also fueled lasting debates about executive accountability and the limits of legal immunity for high-ranking officials. Public opinion at the time was largely against the decision, but historical reassessment has yielded more nuanced views. Ford later received the Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for the pardon, which some historians came to see as a politically costly but morally principled decision. The moment remains a defining one in the legal and political legacy of both Nixon and Ford.Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, argued in a court filing that federal prosecutors unfairly prejudiced potential jurors by linking him to a separate mass shooting. Prosecutors had previously claimed Mangione inspired Shane Tamura, who killed four people and himself at the offices of Blackstone and the NFL. Mangione's attorneys countered that there is no evidence Tamura was influenced by either Mangione or his anti-health-insurance-industry writings. They accused the government of deliberately trying to bias jurors and undermine Mangione's right to a fair trial.The government cited Tamura in response to Mangione's request for more details on what prosecutors might argue during a potential capital sentencing phase. Prosecutors claimed that Mangione's alleged ability to inspire vigilante violence demonstrates his dangerousness and supports their pursuit of the death penalty. However, Mangione rejected any link to Tamura and called the connection politically motivated. His legal team reiterated its demand for more information on the government's death penalty theory. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will determine whether the prosecution must share additional details at this stage.Luigi Mangione Says Linking Him to Blackstone Killer Biases JuryThe Trump administration has announced plans to deport Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case, to Eswatini, a country in southern Africa with which he has no ties. Abrego is currently detained in Virginia and previously faced deportation to Uganda, but the destination was changed after he claimed fear of persecution there. A Department of Homeland Security official dismissed his claims, citing that he has alleged fear of persecution in over 20 countries.Abrego was initially deported to El Salvador in March despite a court order blocking the move, prompting criticism of the administration's handling of his case. He was later returned to the U.S. in June to face federal charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue that the prosecution is retaliatory and aimed at coercing a guilty plea. They also revealed that the government offered to send him to Costa Rica if he accepted a plea deal, or to Uganda if he refused.Abrego, who had been living in Maryland with his American wife and children, has become a symbol in the broader debate over immigration enforcement. The administration previously used deportation flights to Eswatini for people labeled too dangerous for their home countries to accept, raising further concerns about Abrego's treatment.Trump administration says migrant Abrego could be deported to Eswatini | ReutersThe Trump administration has officially ended its legal defense of a rule, created under President Biden, that banned employee noncompete agreements. These agreements prevent workers from joining competing businesses or starting their own in the same industry. On Friday, the Justice Department moved to dismiss two appeals in federal courts that challenged rulings striking down the 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule. The decision was widely expected after Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a critic of the rule, indicated earlier this year that the agency was reviewing its legality.The dropped appeals mean courts will not rule on whether the FTC has the authority to implement broad nationwide bans under its antitrust mandate. The original FTC rule had cited evidence that over 20% of U.S. workers are bound by noncompete clauses, which it argued restrict worker mobility and depress wages. However, Ferguson and other Republicans maintain that the FTC lacks the rulemaking power to impose such sweeping bans.The legal challenges were brought by a marketing firm, a real estate developer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups. During Trump's first term, his administration held that although some noncompete clauses might be illegal, the agreements as a whole were not. Meanwhile, the FTC announced a new enforcement action against a major pet cremation company, accusing it of using unlawful noncompetes, including for low-wage workers.Trump administration drops defense of ban on employee 'noncompete' agreements | ReutersThe Trump administration is preparing backup plans to continue imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rejects its current legal basis for doing so. After losing in lower courts, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1970s national security law that appellate judges ruled does not authorize tariffs. In the meantime, White House officials have been quietly exploring other legal tools for months, anticipating potential judicial pushback.Two key alternatives under consideration are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 allows the president to raise tariffs if certain imports are found to threaten national security—many of Trump's existing tariffs fall under this provision and wouldn't be directly affected by the IEEPA ruling. Section 301 permits the U.S. trade representative, under presidential direction, to take action in response to unfair trade practices. However, neither law offers the speed and flexibility that IEEPA provided, and each comes with legal and logistical hurdles.Trump's legal team and advisers remain confident that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three of his appointees, might still side with him. But regardless of the legal outcome, the administration is determined to maintain a public and political case for Trump's tariff powers, framing them as essential to national security and foreign policy goals. These legal uncertainties are complicating U.S. trade negotiations, as foreign governments remain cautious and unconvinced that the court case will significantly shift the U.S. position.The White House is exploring how to keep Trump's tariffs if the Supreme Court strikes them down This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week, we cover Google's latest courtroom headaches, the evolution of KPIs in gaming analytics, and the incoming Call of Duty live-action movie. We unpack Rec Room's layoffs, compare Roblox vs Rec Room head-to-head, and dig into Microsoft's IP bets from Perfect Dark to Halo. Plus, we debate Star Wars: The Old Republic, break down Roblox's latest monetization trends, and ask what the rise of real-money gaming in India means for the global market.00:00 Introduction and Hosts' Banter02:38 Upcoming Gaming News Highlights03:35 Cress's Personal Update05:39 Phil's Podcast Review07:16 Debate on Star Wars: The Old Republic10:32 Google's Legal News and Impact12:58 New KPIs in Gaming Analytics20:19 Call of Duty Live Action Movie Discussion29:15 Google Play's New Public Profiles31:15 Rec Room Layoffs and Analysis34:05 Capital Deployment and Venture Capital Concerns34:47 Roblox vs. Rec Room: A Comparison38:12 Perfect Dark and Microsoft's IP Strategy39:11 Halo and Hell Divers Collaboration44:29 Destiny Rising and the Mobile Shooter Market55:26 Roblox's Monetization and UGC Trends01:03:57 Real Money Gaming in India01:07:00 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

This Day in Legal History: First Continental CongressOn September 5, 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, marking a critical early step toward American independence. Delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies—Georgia being the sole exception—gathered at Carpenters' Hall to coordinate a colonial response to the "Intolerable Acts," a series of punitive measures imposed by the British Parliament in the wake of the Boston Tea Party. These acts, which included the Boston Port Act and the Massachusetts Government Act, were seen by the colonists as severe violations of their rights as Englishmen.The Congress brought together influential figures such as George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Jay. Though the colonies had differing interests and levels of loyalty to the Crown, the delegates united in their desire to assert colonial rights through collective action. They adopted the Suffolk Resolves, endorsed a boycott of British goods through the Continental Association, and agreed to reconvene the following year if their grievances were not addressed.Rather than immediately pushing for independence, the First Continental Congress aimed to restore harmony with Britain while defending colonial autonomy. It drafted a Declaration of Rights and Grievances, emphasizing allegiance to the Crown but rejecting parliamentary authority over the colonies in matters of internal governance.This Congress laid the groundwork for future intercolonial cooperation and demonstrated that the colonies could act in concert. Its organizational structure, with committees and formal resolutions, prefigured the eventual legislative model adopted under the U.S. Constitution. While King George III and Parliament ultimately ignored the Congress's petitions, the gathering significantly escalated the political crisis that would lead to the American Revolutionary War.Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said this week that, despite political polarization and President Trump's aggressive use of executive power, the U.S. is not experiencing a constitutional crisis. Whew! Speaking at New York's Lincoln Center while promoting her new book, Listening to the Law, Barrett emphasized that the Constitution is “alive and well,” and that American institutions—particularly the courts—are still functioning effectively. Her remarks come amid widespread concern over Trump's second-term policies, including sweeping immigration crackdowns, tariff impositions, and rollbacks of diversity programs, many of which have been challenged in court.Federal judges have repeatedly halted or delayed Trump's initiatives, leading to sharp criticism from the president. Earlier this year, Trump even called for the impeachment of a federal judge, raising alarms among legal scholars. Despite these tensions, Barrett asserted that a real constitutional crisis would require the collapse of the rule of law—something she doesn't see happening.Barrett also defended her controversial vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, arguing that Supreme Court decisions shouldn't be influenced by shifting public opinion. While support for abortion rights has grown in recent years, Barrett stood by the Court's direction, which has taken a decisively conservative turn since her appointment in 2020. Her comments signal confidence in the judiciary's resilience during politically charged times.Supreme Court's Barrett says US not in constitutional crisis | ReutersU.S. prosecutors are aggressively charging individuals in Washington, D.C. with assaulting or resisting federal officers under a new DOJ-led law enforcement push, but the initiative is drawing scrutiny due to its stark contrast with President Trump's earlier decision to dismiss or pardon many January 6-related assault charges. A Bloomberg Law review found at least 20 new federal cases that closely resemble charges from the Capitol riot—charges that Trump has largely wiped away. Critics argue that this inconsistency undermines prosecutorial credibility and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department.Some judges and grand juries have echoed that skepticism. In one case, a magistrate judge cited the Jan. 6 clemencies in deciding not to detain a man charged with threatening a National Guard member. Prosecutors have also struggled to secure felony indictments, including in a case where a former DOJ employee was accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal officer. These outcomes point to juror reluctance in cases they may view as politically selective.U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is leading the local effort and has acknowledged the difficulty of securing convictions. Some cases involve more serious allegations—kicking, hitting, or spitting on officers—while others stem from lower-level confrontations, including a disputed video involving immigration agents.Meanwhile, defendants and defense attorneys are raising claims of selective prosecution, citing the dismissal of hundreds of Jan. 6 assault cases still pending when Trump returned to office. One high-profile example involves Rep. LaMonica McIver, whose lawyers argue her case—stemming from a confrontation with immigration officers—is being pursued for political reasons. Prosecutors have already been forced to downgrade multiple cases from felonies to misdemeanors due to lack of support from grand juries.DOJ Crime Crackdown Clashes With Jan. 6 Cases Trump ForgaveA federal appeals court has temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling that would have restricted President Trump's use of military troops for immigration enforcement and crowd control in Los Angeles. The move preserves Trump's authority to use active-duty military and National Guard personnel in support of federal agents while the case is under appeal. The original ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, found that the administration had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a law dating back to the 1800s that limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement.Breyer's decision, which would have barred military personnel from performing police functions in California, was scheduled to take effect on September 12 but is now on hold as the 9th Circuit reviews the appeal. The legal fight stems from Trump's June deployment of over 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles during protests over federal immigration policies. Though most of the protests have since calmed, around 300 National Guard troops remain on the ground, supporting immigration and drug enforcement operations.Critics argue that Trump's use of the military in civilian law enforcement roles marks a dangerous shift in executive power. The same day the 9th Circuit paused Breyer's ruling, Washington, D.C.'s attorney general filed a lawsuit challenging similar military deployments in the capital. Trump has also signaled interest in expanding military involvement to other cities like Chicago and New Orleans.US appeals court pauses restrictions on Trump's use of troops in Los Angeles | ReutersGoogle has been hit with a $425 million jury verdict in a major privacy class action, after a last-minute law firm switch brought Cooley LLP into the case. Originally led by Willkie Farr, the defense team—headed by partners Benedict Hur and Simona Agnolucci—jumped to Cooley in June, just weeks before trial. Cooley took over the multibillion-dollar case and brought in additional lawyers to assist. The abrupt law firm change followed internal dissent at Willkie over a controversial agreement with the Trump administration requiring pro bono work aligned with White House directives.The case centered on allegations that Google collected data from nearly 100 million users despite their account settings indicating they wanted to keep their information private. After a two-week trial in San Francisco, the jury sided with the plaintiffs, led by prominent attorneys from Morgan & Morgan, Boies Schiller Flexner, and Susman Godfrey. While the plaintiffs had sought $31 billion, the jury awarded just over 1% of that amount.Google said it will appeal, claiming the jury misunderstood how its privacy settings function. The plaintiffs' legal team, however, called the verdict a clear message about unauthorized data collection. The firms behind the case have brought similar lawsuits, including one over Google's Chrome “Incognito” mode, which resulted in a settlement earlier this year that forced the company to destroy billions of data records.Google trial ends with $425 million verdict after Cooley inherits privacy case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Amy Beach.This week's closing theme features the elegant and expressive piano miniatures of Beach, one of the most important American composers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A prodigy and largely self-taught composer, Beach broke barriers as the first American woman to write a symphony performed by a major orchestra and became a central figure in the Boston musical scene. Her works span symphonic, choral, chamber, and solo piano music, all marked by lyrical intensity and harmonic richness.Composed in 1892, her Four Sketches, Op. 15 for solo piano offers a vivid, compact display of her early voice as a composer. Each short piece evokes a distinct atmosphere: In Autumn captures seasonal change with swirling colors; Phantoms conjures mysterious shadows; Dreaming drifts into quiet introspection; and Fireflies sparkles with quick, darting motion. Though brief, these character pieces are finely crafted, offering emotional depth and technical elegance.As our closing music, Beach's Sketches remind us how much can be said in miniature—and how, even in the restrictive musical culture of her time, she composed with clarity, beauty, and unmistakable individuality.Without further ado, Amy Beach's Four Sketches, Op. 15 – enjoy!  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Little Rock NineOn September 4, 1957, a constitutional crisis unfolded in Little Rock, Arkansas, when Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to block nine Black students—known as the “Little Rock Nine”—from entering Central High School. This came after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Faubus claimed the move was to prevent violence, but it was widely seen as defiance of federal desegregation orders.The legal showdown intensified the struggle between federal authority and states' rights. On September 4, the students arrived at Central High and were turned away by National Guard troops, prompting national outrage and escalating tensions over civil rights. In response, the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court, and on September 20, a federal judge ordered Faubus to remove the troops.The confrontation culminated later that month when President Dwight D. Eisenhower, invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, sent in federal troops from the 101st Airborne Division to enforce integration and protect the students. This marked one of the first times since Reconstruction that the federal government used military force to uphold civil rights rulings.This day is remembered as a pivotal moment in civil rights legal history, illustrating the federal judiciary's growing role in dismantling racial segregation and enforcing constitutional rights in the face of state resistance.President Trump's administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to urgently review a case challenging his use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs. The request comes after a federal appeals court ruled on August 29 that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law historically used to sanction enemies or freeze assets, not to impose tariffs. Trump had used IEEPA earlier this year to justify tariffs targeting trade deficits and drug trafficking from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico.In the appeal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the stakes, arguing that blocking the tariffs could endanger national security and economic stability. The administration asked the Court to decide by September 10 whether it will hear the case, hoping for arguments to be scheduled in November.Small businesses and a coalition of 12 Democrat-led states sued to block the tariffs, arguing that only Congress can impose them. The appeals court agreed, stating that IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs and warning against giving the president unchecked economic powers. The ruling also cited the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive authority unless clearly granted by Congress in matters of broad economic or political importance.The Trump administration argues that these tariffs are key tools for diplomacy and economic leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the Supreme Court to act quickly, saying the ruling undermines the president's ability to defend national interests. Other court decisions have similarly rejected Trump's tariff strategy, and at least eight related lawsuits are ongoing.Trump takes tariffs fight to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated $2.2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard University, marking a significant legal win for the school. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found the administration's actions violated Harvard's First Amendment rights, characterizing the move as ideologically motivated retaliation. The administration had claimed the funding cuts were due to Harvard's failure to adequately address antisemitism on campus, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard had tolerated hateful behavior for too long but said the administration used antisemitism as a “smokescreen” for political pressure. She barred the government from cutting current or future funding and emphasized that academic research must be protected from arbitrary government action. Harvard had argued the funding cuts came after it resisted demands to restructure governance and academic programs to fit the administration's ideological expectations.The Trump administration has targeted several Ivy League schools over similar issues, including Columbia University, which agreed in July to pay $220 million to restore lost research funding. Trump previously said he would not settle with Harvard for less than $500 million. The administration has also tried to bar international students from Harvard and challenged its accreditation.While Harvard President Alan Garber praised the ruling for affirming academic freedom, he did not comment on ongoing settlement talks. The university's faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which co-litigated the case, opposes any deal with the administration, arguing it would compromise the rights of the academic community.Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard's funding, US judge rules | ReutersHarvard $2 Billion Funding Freeze Found Illegal by US Judge (3)Newsmax has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Fox News Network, accusing them of using their dominance in right-leaning cable news to suppress competition and block Newsmax's growth. Filed in West Palm Beach, Florida, the lawsuit alleges that Fox pressured TV distributors to exclude or limit Newsmax, stalling the smaller network's expansion in the pay-TV market for nearly a decade.Newsmax claims Fox's actions deprived conservative viewers of diverse news options and calls for monetary damages and a court order to stop the alleged anti-competitive practices. CEO Christopher Ruddy stated the lawsuit aims to restore market fairness and consumer choice. Fox, in response, dismissed the suit as an attempt to mask Newsmax's market struggles, calling it headline-chasing.Founded in 1998, Newsmax entered the pay-TV space in 2014 and went public earlier in 2025. The company asserts its programming offers a non-establishment alternative to Fox and claims it now reaches over 40 million Americans. It also noted a ratings boost surrounding the 2020 election.This legal action follows Newsmax's recent $67 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about the 2020 election, and a previous confidential settlement with Smartmatic. Fox also settled with Dominion in 2023 for $787.5 million. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee.Newsmax sues Fox, claiming TV distribution deals strangled business | ReutersNewsmax Sues Fox News Claiming Conservative TV News Monopoly (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

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

This Day in Legal History: John Locke BornOn August 29, 1632, John Locke was born in Wrington, England. A foundational figure in political philosophy, Locke's ideas on government, natural rights, and property would come to shape the ideological core of liberal democracies. His “Two Treatises of Government” advanced the notion that legitimate governments are founded on the consent of the governed and exist to protect life, liberty, and property. Locke's theory of property, rooted in the idea that individuals gain ownership by mixing their labor with natural resources, would have lasting effects not only in political theory but also in legal frameworks—particularly intellectual property law.Locke argued that since individuals own their labor, they also own the results of that labor. This labor-based theory of property acquisition later served as a philosophical underpinning for intellectual property rights, especially in Anglo-American legal systems. The notion that creators have a natural right to control and benefit from their intellectual creations echoes Locke's broader views on property. His influence is visible in early American legal thought, including the U.S. Constitution's provision empowering Congress to secure authors' and inventors' exclusive rights.Locke's work also fueled the American Revolution and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, with Thomas Jefferson borrowing heavily from Locke's formulations on natural rights. Likewise, his theories permeated the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Beyond constitutional law, his legacy persists in modern debates about the balance between public access and private rights in intellectual property regimes. Locke's vision of a just legal order grounded in individual rights, voluntary association, and property remains central to contemporary legal theory.A federal judge will hold a hearing on whether to temporarily block President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her removal in court. Cook argues that Trump lacks legal grounds for firing her, alleging that the justification—claims of past mortgage fraud—is a pretext tied to her refusal to lower interest rates. The Federal Reserve Act permits governors to be removed only “for cause,” though that term is undefined and has never been tested in court. Cook denies the fraud allegations and says even if true, the conduct occurred before she took office and should not qualify as cause for removal.Trump's administration argues that the allegations are sufficient to justify her dismissal and may also claim that legal limits on removing Fed governors infringe on the president's executive authority. The outcome of this case could significantly impact the perceived independence of the Fed and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. A Biden-appointed judge, Jia Cobb, will first determine if Cook is likely to succeed on the merits and if her removal would cause irreparable harm. The decision could lead to a preliminary injunction, subject to appeal.Trump has already clashed with the Fed, particularly with Chair Jerome Powell, over interest rate policies and management decisions. Removing Cook would allow Trump to install a fourth member on the seven-seat board, potentially shifting its direction.Trump's firing of Fed Governor Cook could be blocked by US judge | ReutersThe national average score on the July 2025 Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) was the highest in over a decade, reaching 142.4—the best performance since 2013, excluding pandemic-altered years. The MBE, which accounts for half of a bar taker's score in most states, is a key component of the U.S. bar exam. The National Conference of Bar Examiners expects the slight uptick in scores to translate into modestly higher pass rates across jurisdictions.This marks the third consecutive year of improvement for July test-takers, in contrast to the February bar exam, which continues to show declining performance. February 2025 saw a record low MBE average of 130.8, partly due to California's decision to use its own bar exam for that session—a move that backfired due to widespread logistical issues. The California Supreme Court has since ordered the state to resume using the MBE starting in July.As states begin releasing July results, optimism is growing among recent law graduates. However, the disparity between February and July results highlights persistent challenges for repeat test-takers and bar exam policy shifts across jurisdictions.US national bar exam scores hit 12-year high | ReutersMajor U.S. law firms saw strong revenue and profit growth in the first half of 2025, fueled by a sharp rise in billing rates—up 9.2% on average. This surge helped offset rapidly increasing expenses, particularly those tied to attorney compensation and the adoption of artificial intelligence tools. Overhead costs excluding lawyer pay rose by 8.6%, while total expenses, including compensation, were up 9.5%. Despite heavy investment in generative AI, firms haven't realized cost savings yet, as they're still maintaining full legal staffing alongside the new technology.Top partners at elite firms, such as Milbank and Quinn Emanuel, are now charging more than $3,000 per hour, with Milbank's Neal Katyal commanding $3,250. Experts note that while AI may one day disrupt the traditional billable hour model, that shift hasn't materialized yet—echoing past predictions during earlier tech changes that never fully played out. Still, some consultants believe AI may eventually push firms toward flat-fee or project-based pricing, especially as AI becomes capable of completing tasks in minutes that previously took hours.Meanwhile, law firm expenses are also climbing due to higher real estate costs and professional liability insurance. The legal talent pipeline remains strong, with law school applicants up 18% year-over-year and recent graduates enjoying a record-high 93.4% employment rate.Law firm rates, revenues soar but costs pile up in AI era | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax's lawsuit claiming racial discrimination in response to university sanctions against her. Wax, who is white, alleged that UPenn treated her unfairly based on race when it suspended her for a year with half pay over a pattern of controversial public comments about minority groups. Judge Timothy Savage ruled that her claims were “implausible,” noting that she failed to show how her race influenced the disciplinary process or the charges brought against her.Wax argued the university disproportionately disciplines white faculty for speech-related conduct while overlooking similar actions by faculty of color. However, the court found her comparisons to other UPenn speakers flawed, as those individuals had not repeatedly made derogatory remarks about minorities. The ruling follows an earlier denial of Wax's request for a preliminary injunction, where the court found she hadn't proven that the suspension would cause her lasting professional harm.Wax has long been a polarizing figure at Penn Law. Her 2017 op-ed favoring Anglo-Protestant cultural norms and later remarks about Black and Asian students drew widespread criticism. In 2018, she was barred from teaching required first-year courses, and in 2022, a faculty complaint sought a major sanction after she suggested the U.S. would be better off with fewer Asian immigrants.Judge tosses law professor Amy Wax's bias lawsuit over UPenn sanctions | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, a work that showcases the clarity, grace, and inventiveness that define Mozart's style. Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata is one of Mozart's most beloved keyboard pieces, notable for its departure from traditional sonata form. Instead of the expected fast-paced opening movement, Mozart begins with a theme and variations—a gentle, lilting Andante grazioso that unfolds with elegance and wit.Each variation adds a new layer of texture and character, giving performers the opportunity to explore contrasting articulations, ornamentation, and moods. The charm of the movement lies in its simplicity and restraint, traits Mozart uses not as limitations but as a foundation for subtle playfulness and sophistication. The theme itself is dance-like, with a lightly flowing triple meter that invites the listener in rather than demanding attention.While the final movement of this sonata—the famous "Rondo alla Turca"—often steals the spotlight, the opening movement contains just as much ingenuity and expressive depth. It's a window into Mozart's ability to transform formal conventions into personal, lyrical statements. This sonata was likely intended for his students or amateur musicians, yet it retains the masterful balance of accessibility and complexity that only Mozart could achieve.As we close this week, the Andante grazioso reminds us that refinement doesn't require grandeur, and that musical beauty often lies in the quiet unfolding of a well-turned phrase.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, 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: Alabama Ten commandments MonumentOn August 28, 2003, the Supreme Court of Alabama removed a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse in Montgomery. The monument had been installed two years earlier by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who argued it reflected the moral foundation of U.S. law. However, its religious nature sparked immediate controversy and litigation. In Glassroth v. Moore, three attorneys sued in federal court, asserting that the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court ruled in their favor, ordering the monument's removal.Moore refused to comply with the court's order, prompting further legal and administrative actions. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, finding the monument's placement unconstitutional. When Moore continued to defy the federal ruling, the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama brought ethics charges against him. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary subsequently removed Moore from office for failing to uphold the rule of law.The case underscored the constitutional limits on religious expression by public officials and reinforced federal supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation. It also intensified national debates over the role of religion in public life and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Moore would later regain the position of Chief Justice in 2013, only to be suspended again for defying federal law, this time over same-sex marriage.You will, of course, also remember that Roy Moore–in addition to being a huge fan of the Ten Commandments–is plausibly accused of misconduct involving multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault by three women—two of whom were minors at the time. Leigh Corfman alleged Moore assaulted her when she was 14 and he was 32, and Beverly Young Nelson accused Moore of assaulting her when she was 16. Six additional women have described Moore as behaving inappropriately when they were between 14 and 22 years old. Moore has denied all allegations of misconduct, though he admitted to knowing some of the women and, at times, dating teenagers while in his 30s. Dating teenagers while in his 30s. No criminal charges were filed, so of course all of these are merely allegations, but the accusations were widely reported during his 2017 Senate campaign, which he lost in a historic upset in deeply Republican Alabama.As President Trump threatens to deploy National Guard troops and ICE agents to Chicago, city and state leaders are scrambling to prepare. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are working closely to coordinate a response, despite acknowledging that their legal options are limited. The move would follow similar deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., both cities led by Black Democratic mayors. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul is crafting a legal strategy, and immigrant advocacy groups are ramping up legal training in anticipation of increased enforcement. Community leaders worry that a federal presence could disrupt efforts to build trust in high-crime neighborhoods and further strain relationships between residents and law enforcement.Trump claims the intervention is necessary to combat crime, but critics point out that shootings and homicides in Chicago have actually declined significantly this year. Despite the progress, public perceptions of danger persist, with many residents still feeling unsafe at night. Some, including Republicans and a few city residents, support Trump's plan, citing frustration with issues like homelessness and crime. Others view it as a political stunt, especially in light of recent federal cuts to violence prevention programs.Trump has also focused on Chicago's status as a sanctuary city, which has drawn national attention amid the city's efforts to house tens of thousands of migrants. The fear of federal enforcement has spread beyond undocumented immigrants to Latino citizens and residents. Legal experts suggest any unilateral deployment of the National Guard could violate the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act. Local protest groups are preparing for nonviolent resistance, framing the potential deployment as authoritarian overreach aimed at intimidation.In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump's possible deployment of National Guard | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department staffer arrested for allegedly throwing a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during President Trump's law enforcement crackdown in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors had pursued felony assault charges, citing video evidence and statements that Dunn called the agents "fascists" and yelled, “I don't want you in my city!” before hurling the sandwich. The rejection is notable given the typically low threshold required for grand jury indictments and the prosecutorial control over such proceedings.The case has become symbolic of broader tensions surrounding the Trump administration's deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to address what it calls a crime surge in the capital—claims contradicted by police data showing a decline in violence. The grand jury's decision reflects growing prosecutorial challenges in securing high-level charges amid political pressure to appear tough on crime.Dunn, who has not entered a plea, was featured in a White House video showing his arrest, part of a broader narrative emphasizing law-and-order policies. The Justice Department has 30 days from arrest to secure an indictment and may attempt to present the case to another grand jury. A similar recent case against a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent was also downgraded to a misdemeanor after multiple failed attempts to indict.The ham sandwich indictment jokes write themselves. Grand jury declines to indict man arrested for throwing sandwich at US agent, source says | ReutersA federal judge has extended an order blocking the deportation of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case tied to President Trump's enforcement crackdown. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that Abrego must remain in the U.S. at least through October while she considers his legal challenge against a planned deportation to Uganda—a country where he has no connections. The judge also restricted ICE from moving Abrego more than 200 miles from her courthouse in Maryland, where a final hearing is set for October 6.Abrego's case drew national attention in March when he was deported to El Salvador despite a judge's order forbidding it. U.S. officials had accused him of gang affiliations, which he denies. After being imprisoned in El Salvador, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue the prosecution is retaliatory and politically motivated.Abrego had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, all of whom are U.S. citizens, before his arrest. His legal team plans to seek asylum through separate immigration proceedings and has criticized the Trump administration's handling of the case as an attempt to erode due process protections in immigration law.Judge extends block on Trump administration's efforts to deport migrant Abrego | 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: Constitutional Convention–Article IIIOn August 27, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia turned their attention to the judiciary. Debates centered on what would become Article III, particularly the scope of judicial power. The Convention approved language stating that federal judicial power would extend to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” a formulation that blended common law tradition with equitable relief. This phrase would become foundational, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Also debated was the method by which judges could be removed from office. A motion was introduced proposing that judges could be removed by the Executive if both Houses of Congress requested it. This raised immediate concerns about judicial independence. Critics argued that giving such removal power to the Executive would dangerously entangle the judiciary with the political branches. The proposal ultimately failed, with only the Connecticut delegation supporting it. The delegates chose instead to preserve the more rigorous process of impeachment as the mechanism for judicial removal. This decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence, anchoring it in the separation of powers. These discussions on August 27 set enduring boundaries around federal judicial authority and helped define the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has retained high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell to challenge President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from the central bank. Trump cited alleged mortgage fraud as grounds for her dismissal, claiming she misrepresented two homes as primary residences in 2021. Cook, appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, has denied any wrongdoing and faces no charges. Lowell, who recently launched a law firm to defend public officials targeted by Trump, announced plans to sue, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority to remove a sitting Fed governor. He characterized the removal attempt as politically motivated and baseless. Lowell's current and former clients include Hunter Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and several other prominent figures, both Democratic and Republican. His firm also represents ex-government lawyers who claim they were unlawfully dismissed by the Justice Department. Cook is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board and her removal would mark an unprecedented breach of the central bank's political independence.Fed's Lisa Cook turns to top Washington lawyer Lowell in Trump fight | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal injunction that is currently requiring it to continue foreign aid payments, despite an executive order halting such funding. In an emergency filing, the Department of Justice argued that the injunction, originally issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, interferes with the executive branch's authority over foreign policy and budgetary decisions. Trump issued the 90-day pause on foreign aid on January 20, his second inauguration day, and later took steps to dismantle USAID, including sidelining staff and considering its absorption into the State Department.Two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — challenged the funding freeze, claiming it was illegal. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the full court declined to stay the order, and Judge Ali rejected another request to do so earlier this week. The administration warned that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, it will have to spend roughly $12 billion before September 30, when the funds expire, thereby undermining its policy goals.Previously, the Supreme Court narrowly declined to pause Ali's order requiring the release of $2 billion in aid. The D.C. Circuit panel later found that only the Government Accountability Office, not private organizations, had standing to challenge the funding freeze.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to halt foreign aid payments | ReutersAnthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors who sued the AI company for training its models on over 7 million pirated books downloaded from “shadow libraries” like LibGen. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused Anthropic of copyright infringement and gained momentum after U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status in July 2025—a ruling that Anthropic said put the company under “inordinate pressure” to settle. The potential damages, estimated at up to $900 billion if the infringement was found willful, created what the company described as an existential threat.In court, Anthropic admitted the magnitude of the case made it financially unsustainable to proceed to trial, even if the legal merits were disputed. Alsup repeatedly denied the company's motions to delay or avoid trial, criticizing Anthropic for not disclosing what works it used. While he ruled that training AI on copyrighted works could qualify as fair use, the piracy claims were left for a jury to decide. Anthropic appealed the class certification and sought emergency relief, but ultimately chose to settle.Critics say the settlement underscores how current copyright law's statutory damages—up to $150,000 per willful infringement—can distort outcomes and discourage innovation. The deal is expected to be finalized by September 3. Meanwhile, Anthropic still faces other copyright lawsuits involving song lyrics and Reddit content. Legal experts suggest the company's move was partly motivated by uncertainty over how courts interpret “willful” infringement, especially with a related Supreme Court case on the horizon.Anthropic Settles Major AI Copyright Suit Brought by Authors (3)Content warning: This segment contains references to suicide, self-harm, and the death of a minor. Discretion is advised.The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state court, alleging that ChatGPT played a direct role in their son's suicide. They claim that over several months, the AI chatbot engaged in extended conversations with Adam, during which it validated his suicidal thoughts, provided instructions on lethal self-harm methods, and even helped draft a suicide note. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over user safety, especially with the release of GPT-4o in 2024, which introduced features like memory, emotional mimicry, and persistent interaction that allegedly increased risks to vulnerable users.The Raines argue that OpenAI knew these features could endanger users without strong safeguards, yet proceeded with the product rollout to boost its valuation. They seek monetary damages and a court order mandating stronger user protections, including age verification, blocking of self-harm queries, and psychological risk warnings.OpenAI expressed condolences and noted that safety mechanisms such as directing users to crisis resources are built into ChatGPT, though they acknowledged these measures can falter during prolonged conversations. The company said it is working to improve safeguards, including developing parental controls and exploring in-chat access to licensed professionals.OpenAI, Altman sued over ChatGPT's role in California teen's suicide | ReutersOpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment CertifiedOn this day in legal history, August 26, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was formally certified by Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby, granting women the right to vote nationwide. The certification marked the culmination of a nearly century-long struggle led by suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and later Alice Paul and Ida B. Wells, who fought for political inclusion through protests, civil disobedience, and persistent lobbying. The amendment's ratification by Tennessee—by a single vote—on August 18, 1920, provided the necessary 36th state approval to satisfy constitutional requirements.The Nineteenth Amendment's language is deceptively simple: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex.” But its legal impact was profound, constitutionally guaranteeing the franchise to half the population that had long been excluded. The certification did not end all voting discrimination—many women of color, particularly Black and Native American women, continued to face racist barriers to the ballot—but it was a foundational legal step toward gender equality in civic life.August 26 is now recognized as Women's Equality Day, established by Congress in 1971, to honor the legal and political significance of the Nineteenth Amendment and to commemorate the broader fight for women's rights. The legal principle enshrined in the amendment echoes in later equality jurisprudence, forming part of the constitutional backdrop to cases involving gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.The Nineteenth Amendment also represented a rare moment when a constitutional change directly expanded democratic participation, in contrast to more procedural or structural amendments. It altered not just who could vote, but how lawmakers and courts would later consider the role of gender in public policy and civil rights. The amendment continues to serve as a legal and symbolic foundation for subsequent laws and cases advancing gender equity, including Title IX and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment.On August 26, the legal history of suffrage becomes not only a story of amendment certification, but of constitutional transformation through organized legal and political struggle.U.S. Senator Ron Wyden has called on Chief Justice John Roberts to initiate an independent investigation into the federal judiciary's cybersecurity practices, following a significant breach of the court system's electronic case management system. In a letter, Wyden urged Roberts to involve the National Academy of Sciences in reviewing both the recent and previous hacks—highlighting that foreign actors, possibly including Russia, exploited the same vulnerabilities in both incidents.Wyden criticized the system as outdated, insecure, and costly, noting this was the second major breach since 2020. He emphasized that sensitive data, including information on confidential informants and sealed case files, may have been compromised. The judiciary's handling of cybersecurity, Wyden argued, has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of institutions entrusted with highly sensitive information.The senator pointed out that despite years of warnings and expert recommendations, the judiciary has lagged in updating its technology. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder recently admitted in testimony that the case management system is obsolete and needs replacement. Wyden also noted that while executive branch agencies have been using multi-factor authentication since 2015, the judiciary will not implement it until the end of 2025.Wyden has long advocated for transparency and modernization in the court system, including efforts to make the PACER database free. His latest request underscores growing bipartisan concern over national security implications tied to the federal courts' digital infrastructure.US senator calls for independent review of federal judiciary cybersecurity | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration can move forward with a provision in its recent spending bill that bars Medicaid funding from going to abortion providers in Maine. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Lance Walker—a Trump appointee—rejected a request by Maine Family Planning to block the provision, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress in July. The organization argued the law unfairly targeted them and violated their constitutional rights, but the judge declined to intervene, emphasizing the law was a product of the democratic process.Walker acknowledged that the policy might be unwise but stressed it is not the judiciary's role to override legislative choices based on policy disagreements. Maine Family Planning, the state's largest reproductive healthcare provider, warned that the ruling could force clinic closures and reductions in care, impacting around 8,000 patients annually.The case is one of two major legal challenges to the law. A separate federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the same provision as it applies to Planned Parenthood nationwide, and that ruling is under appeal. The Maine case focused on how the law would impact two of the state's main abortion providers and argued it violated equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment by singling them out.Judge Walker, however, found that Congress has the authority to direct federal funds in ways consistent with its policy goals, including discouraging abortion—a procedure that is no longer protected as a constitutional right following the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.Trump administration can withhold Medicaid funding from Maine abortion providers, judge rules | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has moved to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, alleging she made false statements on mortgage applications—an accusation she denies. The unprecedented move, announced via Truth Social, sent financial markets into a brief stir, with long-term Treasury yields rising and the dollar dipping, reflecting concerns over the Fed's independence. Cook, appointed by President Biden and confirmed in 2022, has vowed not to resign and plans legal action, arguing that Trump lacks authority to remove her without proper cause.Trump claims Cook's conduct shows “gross negligence” and undermines trust in the Fed. However, under the Federal Reserve Act, governors can only be removed “for cause,” a standard historically interpreted to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct while in office. Cook's alleged mortgage misstatements predate her time at the Fed, making the legal grounds for removal murky.This attempt follows months of Trump's public attacks on the Fed for keeping interest rates high. If successful, it would allow him to reshape the board with dovish policymakers more favorable to rate cuts. Critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and legal scholars, denounced the move as a political power grab and a threat to central bank independence.The Department of Justice may investigate Cook following a criminal referral, but no charges have been filed. Legal experts suggest the case could test the Supreme Court's recent statements on limits to presidential power over independent agencies. Meanwhile, Cook has reiterated her commitment to her role and refuses to step down amid what she calls political bullying.Trump Moves to Fire Fed's Cook, Setting Up Historic Legal FightAnd in my column this week, a story out of Utah. A small town in Utah, Wellington, is facing public backlash after proposing a 225% property tax hike—a dramatic response to years of avoiding smaller, routine tax increases. This financial crisis wasn't caused by a single year of overspending but rather by elected officials deferring necessary tax adjustments since 2017, despite rising costs for services and infrastructure. While avoiding tax hikes may have seemed politically savvy, it left the town with a nearly $400,000 budget shortfall that now demands a painful correction.The Wellington situation illustrates a broader problem: local governments often delay modest increases to avoid political consequences, only to face greater fiscal challenges later. Holding tax rates flat may feel like good governance, but it allows infrastructure to decay and expenses to balloon. By the time officials act, the required adjustment feels extreme to residents who weren't prepared for it.The solution, according to my piece, lies in normalizing small, predictable tax increases. This would help cities keep pace with inflation and infrastructure needs, without shocking taxpayers. One of my proposed reforms is land value taxation, which taxes land rather than improvements on it—encouraging development without penalizing property upgrades and offering greater economic stability.To depoliticize the process, cities could establish independent, bipartisan bodies to manage long-term tax planning. This shift from reactive crisis management to proactive fiscal planning could help avoid sudden, disruptive tax spikes like Wellington's. The underlying message: the longer tax adjustments are postponed, the more painful and politically damaging they become.Utah Town's 225% Property Tax Spike Is Lesson on Fiscal Realism This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

This Day in Legal History: Organic Act Establishes the National Park ServiceOn August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act, formally establishing the National Park Service (NPS) as a federal bureau within the Department of the Interior. This act marked a foundational moment in U.S. environmental and administrative law, as it created a centralized agency responsible for protecting and managing the country's growing number of national parks and monuments. Prior to this, national parks were overseen in a disjointed manner by various federal departments, often with limited resources or clear guidance. The Organic Act provided legal authority for the NPS to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein,” while ensuring they remained “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”This statutory language introduced a lasting legal standard—the dual mandate of conservation and public enjoyment—that has guided U.S. park policy ever since. The law empowered the federal government to enforce regulations, manage visitor access, and develop infrastructure while preserving natural and cultural resources. Over time, this act laid the groundwork for the modern administrative state's role in environmental regulation. It also reflected an early recognition that public land could and should serve both ecological and civic functions.The NPS Organic Act helped inspire future legislation, including the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It also fueled legal debates around resource extraction, tribal land claims, and federalism. With the stroke of Wilson's pen, the United States committed itself to a legal philosophy of stewardship, enshrining the idea that public lands are a shared national trust. This day in legal history commemorates the birth of a legal and cultural institution that continues to shape American land use and environmental governance.Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom advised Intel Corp. in securing an $8.9 billion government investment deal, which includes granting the U.S. a 10% equity stake in the chipmaker. The agreement, announced by President Trump, comes months after Skadden and eight other major law firms pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services in coordination with the White House. These services support causes such as veterans' advocacy, fighting antisemitism, and promoting justice system fairness. The firms reportedly entered the arrangement, in part, to avoid being targeted by executive orders that had been used against competitors.Skadden's role reflects its ongoing alignment with the administration's industrial and legal policy efforts, particularly as Intel seeks revitalization. The Federal Circuit also recently ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly dismissed one of Intel's patent invalidity arguments against a competitor, bolstering Intel's broader legal position. Separately, Kirkland & Ellis, another participating firm, has been involved in U.S. trade negotiations with Japan and Korea, facilitated by Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn. The president has indicated he may rely further on these firms for legal matters related to tariffs, coal, and defense of law enforcement. Skadden's leadership emphasized internally that the firm retains full autonomy in client and case decisions.Skadden Steers Intel in Deal With Trump to Boost ChipmakerKilmar Abrego, a 30-year-old migrant whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador had made national headlines, was detained again by U.S. immigration authorities in Baltimore just days after being released from criminal custody in Tennessee. His 2019 asylum protections had barred deportation to El Salvador due to threats from gangs, but he was nonetheless removed in March in what officials later admitted was an “administrative error.” After months in a harsh Salvadoran prison, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face criminal charges for transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty.Upon checking in with ICE in Baltimore, Abrego was arrested again and is now facing possible deportation—this time to Uganda, a country with no connection to him. U.S. officials have reportedly offered Costa Rica as a destination if he agrees to a guilty plea, but without that, Uganda remains the likely alternative, a move his legal team argues is unconstitutional and coercive. His lawyer described the tactic as the government using “Costa Rica as a carrot and Uganda as a stick.”Abrego has filed a federal lawsuit to prevent deportation without judicial review and is currently protected by a Maryland court order requiring 72-hour notice before any removal to a third country. His legal team is also seeking to dismiss the federal charges, alleging selective and retaliatory prosecution tied to his earlier challenge of the unlawful deportation. A Tennessee federal judge previously found him neither a flight risk nor a public threat, supporting his release. The case continues to spotlight the legal complexities and rights violations emerging under the Trump administration's immigration policies.Wrongly deported migrant Abrego again detained by US immigration officials | ReutersA U.S. federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from withholding federal funds from over 30 sanctuary cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and Baltimore. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge William Orrick, expands a previous injunction from April that protected 16 jurisdictions. These cities had challenged two executive orders signed by Trump earlier in the year, arguing they unlawfully threatened to strip funding unless local authorities cooperated with federal immigration enforcement.Sanctuary jurisdictions typically limit how much local police assist with federal civil immigration arrests. Judge Orrick ruled that the executive orders posed an unconstitutional, coercive threat by conditioning federal funding on compliance with federal immigration preferences. His new order extends protections to additional cities that recently joined the lawsuit. He emphasized that any further actions or executive orders pursuing the same goal are likewise blocked under his injunction.The Trump administration had already appealed the earlier ruling, and the White House has not commented on the latest expansion. Separately, California Governor Gavin Newsom is suing over Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles following protests related to federal immigration enforcement.Judge blocks Trump from withholding funds from Los Angeles, other sanctuary cities | ReutersA recent legal dispute between Apple and medical device maker Masimo is testing the boundaries of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) authority in enforcing patent-related import bans. The case began when CBP seized five Apple Watches in Chicago due to an International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order, issued after Masimo successfully argued that Apple's blood-oxygen sensor infringed its patents. However, CBP later approved Apple's software workaround—which shifts blood-oxygen processing to a paired iPhone—without notifying Masimo, prompting the company to sue.Masimo argues CBP overstepped its enforcement role by effectively ruling on a patent dispute without an adversarial process, thereby undermining the ITC's authority. The lawsuit claims the workaround still infringes under the "doctrine of equivalents," which treats minor design changes as infringing if they achieve substantially the same result. Legal experts note that CBP is not equipped to handle complex questions of indirect or contributory infringement, which could occur when a product only violates a patent when used in combination with another device.The case raises due process concerns, especially as CBP's later ruling was issued ex parte—without Masimo's input—despite an earlier inter partes process. Legal observers see this as part of a larger structural flaw in how CBP and the ITC coordinate enforcement of exclusion orders. The ITC has acknowledged the lawsuit and may intervene, signaling that the dispute could influence broader agency practices. If successful, Masimo could seek enforcement penalties from the ITC, potentially up to $100,000 per day. This litigation follows a rare legal path similar to a 2013 Microsoft case against CBP that ended in settlement.Apple Watch Import Ban Work-Around Suit Tests Customs' IP Role This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation ActOn August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law, reshaping the American welfare system in ways that continue to spark debate. Billed as a way to "end welfare as we know it," the law imposed strict work requirements on recipients and introduced a five-year lifetime limit on federal benefits, regardless of economic conditions. The legislation replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), transforming a federal entitlement into a state-administered block grant system.Supporters of the reform hailed it as a bipartisan success, encouraging employment and reducing long-term dependency. But critics argue that the law eroded the social safety net and punished the poor, particularly single mothers and children, by prioritizing ideological goals over economic realities. States were given broad discretion in how to allocate funds, leading to uneven access and accountability. Many used their new flexibility not to expand support systems but to restrict eligibility and reduce caseloads, often with little evidence of improved outcomes.The law also failed to account for structural barriers to employment—such as childcare shortages, low wages, and racial discrimination—leaving many without support when they failed to meet work requirements. Moreover, the block grant's fixed funding has not kept pace with inflation or need, effectively shrinking welfare over time. While welfare rolls dropped sharply in the years following the reform, poverty did not—suggesting that many were simply pushed out of the system rather than lifted out of hardship. The 1996 law codified a narrative of moral failing over structural inequality, framing poverty as a matter of personal irresponsibility rather than systemic dysfunction.A federal judge ordered an immediate halt to new construction at the controversial "Alligator Alcatraz" migrant detention center in Florida's Everglades. The facility, championed by Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, was barred from accepting new detainees and required to dismantle supporting infrastructure—including generators, waste systems, fencing, and lighting—within 60 days. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, sided with environmental groups who argued the project violated federal, state, and local environmental laws.The detention center, estimated to cost $450 million annually and house up to 5,000 detainees, had drawn backlash for its location in a fragile wetland ecosystem populated by endangered species. Environmental advocates and some local leaders had long criticized the plan, noting it conflicted with decades of political pledges to protect and restore the Everglades. The Department of Homeland Security had tapped FEMA funds to support the project, raising additional controversy over funding priorities.In her ruling, Judge Williams emphasized that the project ran counter to longstanding legislative commitments to environmental protection. Florida has already filed an appeal, but environmental groups hailed the decision as a critical victory. Despite mounting opposition, Trump dismissed ecological concerns and reaffirmed his intent to replicate the model nationally as part of his broader immigration crackdown.Judge orders halt to new construction at 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center | ReutersAlligator Alcatraz Expansion Blocked for Harm to Environment (1)California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a pair of redistricting bills designed to redraw congressional districts in favor of Democrats—part of an aggressive political response to a newly passed gerrymandered map in Texas. Both states are now embroiled in legal and constitutional battles, as Republicans and Democrats seek to lock in partisan advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom also set a special statewide election for November 4, asking voters to approve the new map. If passed, it could flip up to five Republican-held House seats and secure four Democratic-leaning swing districts.California's strategy sidesteps its voter-created independent redistricting commission, which has been enshrined in the state constitution since 2010 to prevent political interference. Because of that, lawmakers are now required to get voter approval to implement their plan—creating a high-stakes ballot measure, Proposition 50. Republicans and good-government advocates, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charles Munger Jr., have vowed to fight the plan in court and on the ballot. A pending GOP lawsuit argues the legislature violated the state's 30-day waiting period for new bills, pushing through the redistricting effort without proper transparency.In Texas, the Republican-controlled legislature approved a new congressional map at the urging of President Trump, hoping to maintain a narrow House majority. Voting rights groups immediately challenged the plan, claiming it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by racially diluting Black and Latino voting power. The case will be heard by a federal three-judge panel in El Paso, with a likely fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Republicans, including Governor Greg Abbott, deny any racial bias and argue the map reflects demographic shifts and Republican gains among minority voters.This escalating redistricting clash highlights the legal vulnerability of U.S. voting systems when partisan manipulation goes unchecked. Though the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering remains justiciable under the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, California Democrats are relying on voter sentiment—and Trump's unpopularity in the state—to justify a temporary abandonment of anti-gerrymandering principles.Explainer: The legal battles over redistricting in Texas and California | ReutersNewsom Signs California Redistricting Plan to Counter Texas Republicans - The New York TimesA federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, President Trump's controversial appointee as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, had no legal authority to hold the office after her temporary term expired. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann found that the Trump administration violated federal law by firing Habba's court-selected successor, Desiree Grace, and then using a series of procedural maneuvers to reinstall Habba. These included appointing her as “special attorney,” then naming her first assistant U.S. attorney to invoke the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.Brann concluded that Habba was unlawfully performing the duties of U.S. Attorney as of July 1 and that her actions from that point forward “may be declared void.” The ruling blocks her from overseeing or participating in criminal cases, and it extends to prosecutors operating under her supervision. The judge criticized the administration's strategy as an attempt to bypass Senate confirmation entirely by exploiting loopholes in temporary appointment rules, warning that this interpretation could let the executive branch install preferred prosecutors indefinitely.The Trump-appointed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, vowed to appeal, and Brann stayed his ruling pending the outcome. Still, the decision casts a shadow over prosecutions under Habba's leadership, and some courts in New Jersey have already paused proceedings. Brann also rejected the idea that firing interim appointees before their terms expire could justify continual reappointments without oversight.Defense attorneys in the case that triggered the ruling argued that the executive branch cannot sidestep a process designed to check prosecutorial power through judicial or Senate involvement. Though the judge refused to throw out defendant Cesar Pina's indictment—since the investigation began before Habba's unlawful tenure—the ruling reinforces that prosecutorial authority must be rooted in lawful appointment.Alina Habba Blocked From Handling Cases in Rebuke to Trump (3)This week's closing theme is by Claude Debussy.This week's closing theme comes from Debussy, born on August 22, 1862—an apt choice as we mark the anniversary of his birth. Debussy was a revolutionary figure in Western music, often associated with Impressionism, though he rejected the label. He sought to break from the rigid structures of the Germanic tradition, instead favoring color, atmosphere, and suggestion over clear-cut form and resolution. His music evokes shifting light, fluid motion, and emotional ambiguity—more akin to poetry or painting than to classical architecture.One of his early works, Rêverie, composed in the 1890s, offers a glimpse into the world he would come to define. The title means “daydream,” and the piece unfolds with a gentle, unhurried lyricism that floats outside of time. Though simple in construction, it is harmonically rich and emotionally resonant—hinting at the innovations to come in Clair de Lune, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, and Pelléas et Mélisande.Rêverie was one of Debussy's first pieces to gain public attention, though he later dismissed it as “a piece for salon use.” Listeners have disagreed ever since. Its introspective tone and delicate touch make it a lasting favorite among pianists and audiences alike. It feels like a whisper—never urgent, never insistent, always inviting. In that sense, it's a fitting farewell for the week: contemplative, unresolved, and open to interpretation.Without further ado, Claude Debussy's Rêverie enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: ABA FormedOn August 21, 1878, 75 lawyers convened in Saratoga Springs, New York, and formally established the American Bar Association (ABA). Their shared aim was to advance the “science of jurisprudence,” promote uniform legislation, strengthen justice administration, uphold the profession's honor, and encourage collegial interaction among lawyers. Their organizing document—the original constitution—still shapes the ABA's mission today.Over time, the ABA became the premier professional association for attorneys in the U.S., influencing national legal education, ethics, and law reform. It introduced the first national ethics code in 1908 (the Canons of Professional Ethics), which eventually evolved into today's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.While the ABA once counted about 400,000 dues-paying members, by the low‑point of 2019, it had lost approximately 56,000 members—a symptom of shifting professional norms and changing perceptions of organizational value. Membership has continued to decline, with figures dropping as low as 227,000 by 2024. In response, the ABA has implemented membership reforms and reduced dues tiers to attract and re-engage lawyers, especially those early in their careers.The American Bar Association's recent actions reflect a mixed record in the face of escalating political pressure—particularly from the Trump administration and its allies. On one hand, the ABA has forcefully resisted efforts to erode legal independence: in 2025, it filed a federal lawsuit accusing the administration of intimidating law firms engaged in politically sensitive representation, and it criticized the DOJ's move to exclude the ABA from vetting judicial nominees as a blow to transparency and professionalism. It also defended its longstanding role in law school accreditation amid efforts to strip that authority.On the other hand, the ABA's decision in August 2025 to eliminate five Board of Governors seats historically reserved for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities marks a notable concession under pressure. The newly adopted policy opens these seats to anyone with a demonstrated commitment to diversity, regardless of their own demographic identity. While proponents framed the shift as a legal safeguard against lawsuits, critics viewed it as a capitulation—especially given the broader political context, including targeted attacks on ABA diversity programs and threats to its accreditation authority. The organization has also paused enforcement of its law school diversity standards until at least 2026.The Justice Department under the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its investigation into gender-affirming care, targeting the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with a sweeping subpoena demanding detailed records—including names and Social Security numbers—of patients who received such treatments. This move is part of a broader campaign to prosecute medical providers offering care to transgender youth, following a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to aggressively pursue these cases.The hospital pushed back against the subpoena, calling it an invasive overreach into a vulnerable population's privacy. In response, DOJ took the unusual step of asking the court to unseal the litigation, a departure from standard practice in sensitive investigations where proceedings are typically kept sealed to protect investigatory integrity. The judge sided with the DOJ, opening the docket earlier this month.The subpoena was signed by Brett Shumate, the newly confirmed head of DOJ's civil division, bypassing career officials who had refused to sign similar subpoenas due to ethical and legal concerns. Internal dissent had already emerged, with former officials warning that collecting such data lacked a strong legal basis, especially since off-label prescriptions like puberty blockers are not illegal under federal law.Critics say the investigation appears more performative than prosecutorial, designed to chill gender-affirming care through public pressure rather than build viable legal cases. The Trump administration has also directed other agencies, including HHS and the FTC, to scrutinize these practices, while states like Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's actions. The outcome of the Philadelphia case, now in front of a federal judge, could shape how far the administration can go in turning gender-related health care into a legal battleground.Justice Department Expands Gender Care Probe as Hospital FightsA recent ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked growing concern among corporate legal teams that the boundaries of attorney-client privilege—especially for in-house counsel—are being narrowed in ways that could harm innovation and compliance. The district court found Apple had improperly claimed privilege over documents that mixed legal advice with business guidance, drawing a sharp rebuke that “adding a lawyer's name to a document does not create a privilege.”That finding is now being appealed, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) warning that upholding the decision could upend how legal departments operate—particularly in fast-moving sectors like AI and cybersecurity, where legal and business decisions are tightly intertwined. In-house counsel argue they need the flexibility to weigh legal risks within the real-world context of product development, market pressures, and regulatory uncertainty.At issue is the standard used to define privilege. The Ninth Circuit has previously backed the “primary purpose” test, which protects dual-purpose communications if a significant purpose was legal. But the district court's approach appeared more rigid, raising fears that companies will be discouraged from seeking or documenting legal guidance unless they rely on expensive outside counsel.Legal leaders say this shift would disproportionately impact smaller firms and startups already stretched thin. They also point to a broader ambiguity across federal circuits regarding dual-purpose communications, and argue that only a Supreme Court ruling can definitively resolve the inconsistencies.Oral arguments in the appeal are set for October 21.Apple Ruling Raises Business Fear of Legal Privileges ErodingA federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending deportation protections and work permits for over 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unsigned order permitting the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these groups while legal challenges continue. No legal reasoning was provided in the brief order.The decision lifts an earlier block by a federal district judge, who had ruled that the move was likely driven by racial animus, violating constitutional protections. The new ruling immediately ends protections for Nepali nationals, with protections for Honduran and Nicaraguan immigrants set to expire by September 8.The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling as a step toward restoring the immigration system's integrity, arguing TPS has been misused as a backdoor form of asylum. Immigrant advocates, meanwhile, condemned the lack of explanation from the court and warned of serious humanitarian consequences for those now facing deportation to unstable regions.The case remains ongoing, but for now, thousands of individuals who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years are left in legal limbo.Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says | ReutersElon Musk must face a lawsuit alleging he and his political action committee, America PAC, ran an illegal election-year lottery disguised as a $1 million-a-day giveaway. A federal judge in Texas ruled that plaintiff Jacqueline McAferty plausibly claimed Musk misled voters—particularly in battleground states—into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering what appeared to be a random chance at a $1 million prize.McAferty alleges that, in exchange for signing, voters were required to provide personal data—names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails—which she claims was exploited for political targeting. Musk argued that the program was not a lottery because recipients were chosen to “earn” the funds and serve as America PAC spokespeople. But the judge pointed to conflicting language used in promotional materials suggesting the money could be “won,” making it reasonable for voters to think it was a sweepstakes-style contest.Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, also rejected Musk's argument that voters suffered no harm, noting that expert testimony could establish the market value of political data collected during the promotion.The lawsuit, filed on Election Day 2024, underscores growing concerns over the use of high-dollar giveaways in political campaigning and how voter data is gathered and deployed in swing states. Musk and his PAC have not yet commented on the ruling.Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week: the new One Big Beautiful Bill Act revives full expensing for U.S.-based research and development, a policy designed to encourage domestic innovation and hiring. At first glance, it seems like a major win for the tech sector and high-skilled job creation. But the labor market response reveals a deeper issue: you can't stimulate demand for talent without also addressing supply. With immigration pathways constrained and no meaningful expansion of domestic training infrastructure, the policy has triggered a spike in labor costs rather than a boom in innovation.In the absence of new talent pipelines, startups and tech firms are now paying steep premiums to hire U.S.-based engineers, effectively converting the R&D tax break into a subsidy for a tight labor market. Meanwhile, immigration policy remains restrictive, and education-focused workforce solutions aren't being scaled fast enough to meet the moment. The result is a bottleneck: jobs going unfilled, innovation slowing, and companies forced to reconsider hiring or delay projects altogether.The piece argues that while R&D expensing is smart fiscal policy, it only works as part of a broader strategy that includes visa reform, immigration support for high-skilled workers, and real investments in talent development. Without those pieces in place, we're left with a politically appealing tax tweak that, in practice, fails to deliver the innovation surge it promises.Turns Out Research Tax Breaks Alone Can't Conjure Developers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity ActOn August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government's efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson's "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states' rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state's independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | ReutersA federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk's SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president's authority over the executive branch.This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB's structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court's panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | ReutersNevada's Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware's Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission's work would serve as an interim step.This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware's procedures.Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.Nevada's Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court RulesInvestors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.They've asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk's defense in both cases.Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Salem Witchcraft ExecutionsOn August 19, 1692, five individuals—George Burroughs, John Proctor, George Jacobs Sr., John Willard, and Martha Carrier—were executed by hanging in Salem, Massachusetts, after being convicted of witchcraft. These executions occurred during the height of the infamous Salem witch trials, a dark episode in colonial American history fueled by religious fervor, mass hysteria, and deeply flawed legal proceedings. George Burroughs, a former minister, recited the Lord's Prayer on the gallows—a feat believed to be impossible for a witch—which unsettled some spectators but did not halt the execution. John Proctor, a well-respected farmer, had been openly critical of the trials and was likely targeted for his outspoken skepticism.Martha Carrier was labeled “the Queen of Hell” by her accusers, a title steeped in misogyny and fear. The trials heavily relied on spectral evidence—claims of visions and dreams—which would later be deemed inadmissible in more rational courts. Governor William Phips halted the trials just two months later, in part because of growing public backlash and the implausibility of the accusations.These executions mark one of the final mass hangings of the Salem witch trials, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 people and the imprisonment of many more. Legal scholars have since examined the trials as a case study in the dangers of due process violations, mass panic, and unchecked judicial power. In the centuries that followed, the state of Massachusetts gradually acknowledged the injustice, with the last of the condemned officially exonerated only in 2001. The Salem trials remain a cautionary tale in American legal history, illustrating how fear and ideology can warp legal institutions.The White House has been sending social media teams to accompany FBI agents during arrests in Washington, D.C., as part of President Donald Trump's recent federal takeover of the city's policing efforts. According to sources briefed on the situation, the teams are capturing footage to promote the administration's crackdown on crime, raising serious concerns among legal experts. The move is considered highly unusual and potentially problematic, as it blurs the lines between law enforcement and political messaging, potentially violating Justice Department norms meant to prevent political interference in criminal investigations.One recent example involved a professionally produced video of FBI agents arresting Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ employee, which was posted to the White House's social media and has garnered millions of views. Legal experts warn that filming arrests—especially in non-public spaces—could infringe on suspects' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and complicate the legal proceedings by generating prejudicial pre-trial publicity.The White House has also reportedly embedded personnel within the FBI command post and is tracking arrest statistics, suggesting an unusually direct involvement in federal law enforcement operations. While the administration claims this is part of its transparency initiative, critics see it as political theater designed to favorably shape public perception. Experts argue that such tactics risk undermining public confidence in the FBI's independence and could erode the bureau's credibility.White House sending social media teams with FBI on some arrests in D.C., sources say | ReutersThe Trump administration appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director of the FBI, sharing the post with conservative media personality Dan Bongino. This newly created position signals a shift in leadership at the Bureau, with FBI Director Kash Patel calling Bailey an essential addition to the agency. Bailey, a war veteran and Missouri's attorney general since 2023, will resign his current role effective September 8.Bailey expressed gratitude for the appointment, emphasizing his commitment to supporting President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi's law enforcement agenda. Bondi, who welcomed Bailey's appointment, praised his legal and military background. Bailey had previously been mentioned as a potential pick for U.S. attorney general under Trump's second term but was not ultimately chosen.Bongino, now Bailey's co-deputy, recently made headlines for clashing with Bondi over the DOJ's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and had reportedly considered resigning. The appointment, first reported by Fox News Digital, has raised eyebrows given Bongino's media background and the political nature of the move.Missouri attorney general named as co-deputy director of FBI | ReutersThe American Bar Association (ABA) is attempting to revise and soften a controversial proposal that would double the number of required hands-on learning credits for law students, following strong pushback from many law school deans. The updated plan, released August 15, would raise the experiential learning requirement from six to twelve credits but introduces greater flexibility and delays implementation to at least 2032.Key changes include allowing students to earn three of those credits in their first year—previously prohibited—and permitting partial credit for traditional courses that incorporate practical elements like simulated client work or drafting exercises. These adjustments aim to address concerns about feasibility, especially for part-time students or programs with limited resources.Despite these revisions, critics remain skeptical. Many deans argue that the ABA has not shown sufficient evidence that increased experiential credits would improve legal education outcomes, and they warn the rule could increase costs and overburden students and schools. Supporters, including clinical faculty, argue that more hands-on training is essential for preparing practice-ready attorneys and believe the financial concerns are overstated.Some, like Cornell's Gautam Hans, expressed cautious optimism about the changes, while others, like Northwestern's Daniel Rodriguez, say the revisions don't go far enough to address core issues, particularly the lack of data supporting the proposed changes.ABA seeks to salvage law school hands-on learning proposal amid pushback from deans | ReutersIn an exclusive at Bloomberg Law, an SEC whistleblower alleges Paul Weiss and Reed Smith helped conceal $500 million in biotech risk. Two top law firms are accused in a whistleblower complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of hiding a legal dispute that could have jeopardized a $500 million biotech merger. The complaint, obtained exclusively by Bloomberg Law, was filed by Joel Cohen—best known for co-writing Toy Story—who claims he and his wife were defrauded out of at least $38 million by Sofie Biosciences Inc.Cohen alleges Sofie and its lawyers concealed his legal threats from disclosures during the company's majority-stake sale to private equity firm Trilantic North America. Central to the dispute is Sofie's use of a $2.5 million appraisal from Kroll LLC to value a cancer-imaging facility acquired in 2019—an amount Cohen claims was intentionally low in order to reduce his and other noteholders' payout in Series B preferred shares.The whistleblower complaint accuses Paul Weiss partner Jeffrey Marell and Reed Smith partner Michael Sanders of knowingly excluding Cohen's legal demands from merger documents, possibly violating federal securities laws. Internal emails cited in the complaint show Sofie executives feared the deal would fall apart if Cohen's claims became public.Sofie and its legal team argue Cohen waived his rights through broad releases signed during the merger and that the appraisal complied with contractual terms. However, Cohen and his wife had assigned their claims to a separate LLC, which the whistleblower says was not covered by those waivers.Two related lawsuits filed in California claim that Reed Smith represented conflicting interests and helped structure the asset financing in a way that disadvantaged noteholders. The firm denies any wrongdoing and says it never represented Cohen or the other lenders. A court ruling is expected soon on whether Cohen can access documents related to the Kroll valuation.Paul Weiss, Reed Smith Accused of Coverup by SEC WhistleblowerIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about state sales tax kickback schemes. Louisiana's 2012 “procurement processing program” was originally promoted as a way to support research and development, but instead has funneled the vast majority of collected sales tax—over 90% in some years—back to consultants and out-of-state companies. The scheme works by enticing payment processing subsidiaries to reroute sales through Louisiana, allowing the state to collect taxes on transactions that didn't actually occur within its borders. These taxes were meant to support research institutions, but in practice, virtually none of the funds have reached them. In 2023 alone, $67 million of the $73 million collected was rebated, and 2022 figures were worse.This program reflects a broader issue across many states: public incentive deals are being handed out with little to no accountability. Unlike private contracts, where each party protects its own interests and can demand repayment when promises aren't kept, public deals often lack enforceable clawback provisions. Louisiana does include a limited recapture clause in its statute—but it only ensures proper paperwork, not fulfillment of public benefits.Other states like California have taken modest steps, such as requiring disclosure of such deals, but few have adopted strong clawback mechanisms. Until public incentive agreements require concrete, verifiable results to justify tax rebates—and include provisions to recover funds when promises fall through—they risk becoming little more than tax shelters for private interests.​​Louisiana's Tax-Share Problems Prove Clawbacks Must Be Standard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment RatifiedOn August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing women the right to vote and marking a major legal milestone in the struggle for gender equality. The amendment states simply: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged… on account of sex.” Its passage capped off more than 70 years of organized activism, dating back to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Alice Paul played pivotal roles in maintaining momentum across generations, despite fierce opposition.The road to ratification was grueling. Congress passed the amendment in 1919, but it still required approval from three-fourths of the states—36 at the time. Tennessee became the critical 36th state, narrowly approving the amendment in a dramatic vote where a 24-year-old legislator, Harry T. Burn, changed his vote after receiving a letter from his mother urging him to support suffrage. That moment tipped the scales and enshrined the right to vote for women nationwide.Before the amendment, several western states had already extended suffrage to women, but many others actively suppressed it. The legal recognition of women's voting rights through constitutional amendment removed any ambiguity and forced all states to comply. The Nineteenth Amendment not only transformed the electorate but also reshaped American democracy by recognizing women as full political participants.The Trump administration is accusing a federal judge in Boston of undermining the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to block the administration from firing staff in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun had issued an injunction requiring the reinstatement of employees let go in a mass layoff, despite the Supreme Court having recently paused a broader version of that order. The Justice Department has asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene, arguing that Joun's refusal to lift the narrower injunction contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling and undermines the rule of law.The judge's decision stems from a lawsuit challenging Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's plan to lay off over 1,300 department employees, part of President Trump's broader goal of eliminating the department—something only Congress can authorize. The plaintiffs, including students and advocacy groups, focused specifically on the Office for Civil Rights, which was set to lose half its staff. They argue that lifting the injunction now would effectively reward the administration's ongoing failure to comply with the court's order, as the terminated employees have not yet been reinstated.Judge Joun, appointed by President Biden, criticized the Supreme Court's ruling as "unreasoned" and pointed to the administration's continued noncompliance. The 1st Circuit has asked the plaintiffs to respond promptly to the Justice Department's request, signaling an expedited review.Trump administration claims judge defied Supreme Court to bar Education Department firings | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is preparing for what may be his final speech at the annual Jackson Hole conference, facing a complicated economic picture that challenges his data-driven policy approach. In past years, Powell used the conference to pledge aggressive action against inflation and, later, to support the labor market. Now, with inflation still above target and signs of economic slowdown emerging, Powell must decide whether to prioritize price stability or job preservation.The Trump administration and many investors expect interest rate cuts at the Fed's September meeting, but Powell's messaging—how he frames future actions—may matter more than the decision itself. Internally, Fed officials are split: some want to move quickly to protect jobs, while others want to wait for clearer evidence that inflation won't rebound. Powell has previously styled himself after past Fed chairs like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, with Volcker's inflation-fighting resolve and Greenspan's forward-looking leniency both offering competing models.Recent economic data has sent mixed signals. Revised job growth numbers were lower than initially reported, supporting arguments for easing monetary policy, but inflation has edged up again. Trump's tariff policies add further uncertainty, though their economic impact has so far been less severe than feared. With the economy growing slowly and inflation still above the Fed's 2% target, Powell must decide whether to stay the course, cut rates cautiously, or begin a broader shift.Powell has used Jackson Hole to battle inflation and buoy jobs; he's now caught between both | ReutersNovo Nordisk's shares rose by up to 5% after receiving accelerated U.S. approval for its weight-loss drug Wegovy to treat MASH (metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis), a progressive liver disease that affects about 5% of U.S. adults. This marks the first GLP-1 drug approved for MASH and offers a significant, if temporary, advantage over competitor Eli Lilly, which is still in clinical trials for its own MASH-targeting drug, tirzepatide.The news was a welcome reversal for Novo, which recently lost over $70 billion in market value following a profit warning and leadership change. The company, once Europe's most valuable publicly traded firm due to Wegovy's success, has seen its share price drop sharply over the past year amid intensifying competition in the obesity drug market and the rise of compounded copycat drugs.Although Novo now holds a short-term lead in the liver disease market, analysts expect that exclusivity will be brief once Eli Lilly gains approval. Novo has also submitted applications in Europe and Japan, signaling its intention to secure broader global use for Wegovy beyond weight loss.Shares in Novo Nordisk rise after Wegovy gets US nod for liver disease treatment | ReutersNorton Rose's ambitious tech partnership with NMBL Technologies has ended in failure and mutual lawsuits, highlighting how difficult it is for Big Law firms to pivot from selling legal services to selling tech products. The firm's Chicago office, launched in 2022 as an “innovation hub,” aimed to introduce 150 clients to Proxy, a legal workflow tool developed by a new partner, Daniel Farris. But three years later, not a single sale was made. NMBL claims Norton Rose didn't uphold its end of the deal and stifled the rollout, while the firm says clients weren't interested and is seeking damages for the investment.The fallout underscores broader challenges law firms face as they increasingly invest in artificial intelligence and legal tech amid growing demand and rising budgets. Unlike traditional legal work, selling products requires different infrastructure and skills—such as dedicated sales teams—that most law firms lack. Despite producing marketing materials and training resources, NMBL alleges that very few Norton Rose lawyers engaged with the product and that the firm failed to meaningfully promote it.NMBL is seeking $15 million in damages, accusing the firm of using the deal merely to recruit talent, while Norton Rose wants $250,000, calling the product commercially nonviable. The firm also allegedly created a shell subsidiary, LX, to meet contract terms but never properly funded or activated it. This case illustrates the steep learning curve law firms face in transitioning to tech-based business models and the internal resistance that can derail innovation.Firm's Failed Tech Venture Foretells Big Law's AI Sales Struggle This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Starve or SellOn August 15, 1876, the United States Congress passed a coercive measure aimed at forcing the Sioux Nation to relinquish their sacred lands in the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. Known informally as the "starve or sell" bill, the legislation declared that no further federal appropriations would be made for the Sioux's food or supplies unless they ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. government. This came just two months after the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had defeated General George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a major blow to U.S. military prestige.The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Sioux in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which recognized their sovereignty over the area. But when gold was discovered there in 1874 during Custer's expedition, settlers and miners flooded the region, violating the treaty. Rather than remove the intruders, the federal government shifted blame and sought to pressure the Sioux into surrendering the land.The 1876 bill effectively weaponized hunger by conditioning life-sustaining aid on land cession. This tactic ignored treaty obligations and relied on exploiting the Sioux's vulnerability after a harsh winter and military setbacks. Despite resistance from many tribal leaders, the U.S. government eventually secured signatures under extreme duress. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Black Hills were taken illegally and ordered compensation—money the Sioux have famously refused, insisting instead on the return of the land.Russian state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the U.S. federal court system and secretly accessed sealed records for years by exploiting stolen user credentials and a vulnerability in an outdated server. The breach, which remained undisclosed until recently, involved the deliberate targeting of sealed documents tied to sensitive matters like espionage, fraud, money laundering, and foreign agents. These records, normally protected by court order, often include details about confidential informants and active investigations. Investigators believe the hackers were backed by the Russian government, though they haven't been officially named in public disclosures.The Department of Justice has confirmed that “special measures” are now being taken to protect individuals potentially exposed in the breach. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti said that while technical and procedural safeguards are being implemented broadly, the DOJ is focusing particular attention on cases where sensitive information may have been compromised. He did not provide specifics but acknowledged that the situation demands urgent and tailored responses. Judges across the country were reportedly alerted in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been affected.This breach follows an earlier major compromise in 2020, also attributed to Russian actors, involving malicious code distributed through SolarWinds software. In response to both incidents, the judiciary has ramped up its cybersecurity efforts, including implementing multifactor authentication and revising policies on how sealed documents are handled. Some courts now require such documents to be filed only in hard copy. However, officials and experts alike have criticized Congress for underfunding judicial cybersecurity infrastructure, leaving it vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated attacks.The situation raises ongoing concerns about the security of national security cases and the exposure of individuals whose cooperation with law enforcement was meant to remain confidential. Lawmakers have requested classified briefings, and President Trump, who is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acknowledged the breach but downplayed its significance.Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed FilesUS taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack | ReutersA federal trial in California is testing the legal boundaries of the U.S. military's role in domestic affairs, focusing on President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles during protests in June. California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump, arguing the deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Testimony revealed that troops, including armed units and combat vehicles, were involved in activities like detaining individuals and supporting immigration raids—actions critics argue cross into law enforcement.The Justice Department defended Trump's actions, asserting that the Constitution permits the president to deploy troops to protect federal property and personnel. They also claimed California lacks the standing to challenge the deployment in civil court, since Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute that can only be enforced through prosecution. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concern about the lack of clear limits on presidential authority in such matters and questioned whether the logic behind the Justice Department's arguments would allow indefinite military involvement in domestic policing.Military officials testified that decisions in the field—such as setting up perimeters or detaining people—were made under broad interpretations of what constitutes protecting federal interests. The case took on added urgency when, on the trial's final day, Trump ordered 800 more National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., citing high crime rates, despite statistical declines. The Justice Department has also invoked the president's immunity for official acts under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, further complicating California's legal path.Trial shows fragility of limits on US military's domestic role | ReutersThe U.S. legal sector added jobs for the fifth consecutive month in July, nearing its all-time high of 1.2 million positions set in December 2023, according to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. While this signals positive momentum, long-term growth remains modest; employment is only 1.7% higher than its May 2007 peak, showing how the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic stalled progress. Big law firms, however, have seen major gains: between 1999 and 2021, the top 200 firms nearly doubled their lawyer headcount and saw revenues grow by 172%.Still, the wider legal job market—including paralegals and administrative staff—hasn't kept pace. Technological efficiencies and AI have reduced reliance on support staff, and the lawyer-to-staff ratio has declined steadily. Some general counsels are now using AI tools instead of outside firms for tasks like summarizing cases and compiling data, suggesting further disruption is on the horizon. Meanwhile, superstar lawyers at elite firms now earn upward of $10 million a year, driven by rising billing rates and high-demand corporate work.Broader U.S. job growth lagged in July, with the BLS issuing significant downward revisions for previous months. President Trump responded by firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her without evidence of data manipulation. On the law firm side, Boies Schiller is handling high-profile litigation over Florida's immigration policies, with rates topping $875 an hour for partners. Separately, Eversheds Sutherland reported a 10% jump in global revenue, citing strong performance in its U.S. offices and a new Silicon Valley branch.US legal jobs are rising again, but gains are mixed | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors, while a legal challenge from tech industry group NetChoice moves through the courts. NetChoice, whose members include Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat, argues the law violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the law is likely unconstitutional, he stated that NetChoice hadn't met the high standard necessary to halt enforcement at this early stage.The Mississippi law, passed unanimously by the state legislature, requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify age and secure “express consent” from a parent or guardian before allowing minors to create accounts. The state can impose both civil and criminal penalties for violations. NetChoice initially won limited relief in lower court rulings, with a federal judge pausing enforcement against some of its members, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that pause without explanation.Mississippi officials welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now, calling it a chance for “thoughtful consideration” of the legal issues. Meanwhile, NetChoice sees the order as a procedural setback but remains confident about the eventual outcome, citing Kavanaugh's statement. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a state social media age-check law. Similar laws in seven other states have already been blocked by courts. Tech companies, facing increasing scrutiny over their platforms' impact on minors, insist they already provide parental controls and moderation tools.US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.On this day in 1875, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was born in London to an English mother and a Sierra Leonean father. A composer of striking originality and lyricism, Coleridge-Taylor rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, earning acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Often dubbed the “African Mahler” by American press during his tours of the U.S., he became a symbol of Black excellence in classical music at a time when such recognition was rare. He studied at the Royal College of Music under Charles Villiers Stanford, and by his early twenties, had already composed his most famous work, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, which became a staple of British choral repertoire.Coleridge-Taylor's music blended Romanticism with rhythmic vitality, often inflected with the spirituals and folk influences he encountered during his visits to the United States. He was deeply inspired by African-American musical traditions and maintained a lifelong interest in promoting racial equality through the arts. His catalogue includes choral works, chamber music, orchestral pieces, and songs—each marked by melodic richness and emotional depth.This week, we close with the fifth and final movement of his 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5—titled "Dance." Composed when he was just 18, the piece captures the youthful exuberance and technical elegance that would characterize his career. Lively, rhythmically playful, and tinged with charm, “Dance” is a fitting celebration of Coleridge-Taylor's enduring legacy and a reminder of the brilliance he achieved in his all-too-brief life.Without further ado, Samuel Coleridge Taylor's 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: East German Border SealedOn August 13, 1961, the East German government abruptly sealed the border between East and West Berlin, cutting off one of the last open crossings between the Eastern Bloc and the West. Overnight, streets were blocked, barbed wire unrolled, and armed guards posted, turning neighbors into strangers by force. For years after World War II, Berlin had been a divided city within a divided Germany, but its open border allowed thousands of East Germans to flee to the West. By 1961, East Germany's leadership, with Soviet backing, viewed the steady exodus as both an economic drain and a political embarrassment. The border closure was quickly followed by the construction of the Berlin Wall — initially a rudimentary barricade, later reinforced into a heavily guarded concrete barrier. Families were split, jobs lost, and daily life in the city transformed, as movement between the two halves became nearly impossible. West Berlin became an isolated enclave of democracy surrounded by a communist state, symbolizing Cold War tensions. The Wall also became a stage for daring escape attempts, some successful, others tragically fatal. Its legal underpinning rested on East Germany's assertion of sovereignty and border control, which the West rejected as illegitimate. International condemnation followed, but geopolitical realities left the Wall in place for nearly three decades. The border closure and Wall construction intensified the East–West standoff, influencing Cold War diplomacy, military posturing, and propaganda. The Wall finally fell on November 9, 1989, marking the beginning of German reunification. The events of August 13, 1961, remain a stark reminder of how governments can physically enforce political divisions.The American Bar Association has voted to eliminate its longstanding rule that reserved five Board of Governors seats specifically for women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ members, and people with disabilities — what can only be described as a stunning kowtowing to authoritarianism. Instead, those positions will now be open to anyone who can demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, regardless of personal demographic background. The change was approved by the ABA's House of Delegates during its annual meeting in Toronto, where members also considered, but rejected, proposals to shrink the size of both the House and the Board. Advocates for the shift argued that broadening eligibility could help the ABA sidestep potential lawsuits, while critics noted it follows years of political pressure from the Trump administration and conservative legal groups. That pressure has included threats to strip the ABA of its law school accreditation role and formal complaints alleging its diversity programs discriminate against non-minorities. The ABA has already paused its law school diversity accreditation requirement until at least 2026. Membership in the association has also sharply declined over the past decade, falling from nearly 400,000 in 2015 to about 227,000 in 2024, with leadership citing the elimination of free and low-cost memberships as one factor. Previously, eligibility for the diversity-designated seats was based strictly on identity, but the new rules rely on factors such as lived experience, involvement in relevant initiatives, and resilience in the face of obstacles. While the ABA did not cite political motives, the timing and surrounding context suggest a strategic retreat in the face of escalating ideological confrontation.ABA ends diversity requirements for governing board seats | ReutersAT&T has reached a settlement with Headwater Research, ending a wireless patent infringement lawsuit just days before trial in a Texas federal court. Headwater, founded by scientist Gregory Raleigh, claimed AT&T used its patented technology for reducing data usage and easing network congestion without permission, allegedly copying the inventions after a 2009 meeting with company employees. The suit, filed in 2023, targeted AT&T's cellular networks and devices, with the telecom giant denying infringement and challenging the patents' validity. The case was set for trial Thursday, but both parties asked the court to pause proceedings due to the settlement. Headwater has had recent success in the same court, winning $279 million from Samsung and $175 million from Verizon in separate wireless technology disputes earlier this year. Terms of the AT&T settlement were not disclosed.AT&T settles US wireless patent case before trial | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore part of the $584 million in federal grants it recently froze for UCLA, finding the move violated a prior court injunction. Judge Rita Lin, ruling from San Francisco, said the National Science Foundation's suspension of funds breached her June order that blocked the termination of multiple University of California grants. The decision affects more than a third of the frozen amount, which had been halted amid President Trump's threats to cut funding to universities over pro-Palestinian campus protests. The administration has accused UCLA and other schools of allowing antisemitism during demonstrations, while protesters — including some Jewish groups — argue the government is conflating criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza with bigotry. The funding freeze comes as UCLA faces a proposed $1 billion settlement demand from the administration, a figure the university says would be financially devastating. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have labeled the offer as extortion, raising broader concerns about free speech and academic freedom. UCLA has already settled a separate antisemitism lawsuit for over $6 million and faces litigation tied to a 2024 mob attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The administration has reached settlements with other universities, including Columbia and Brown, while talks with Harvard continue.Judge orders Trump administration to restore part of UCLA's suspended funding | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld Arkansas's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, reversing a lower court's ruling that found the law unconstitutional. In an 8-2 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent approval of a similar Tennessee law, concluding that Arkansas's restrictions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority also rejected claims that the ban infringes on parents' constitutional rights to seek medical treatment for their children, finding no historical precedent for such a right when the state deems the care inappropriate. The dissent argued the law lacked evidence to support its stated goal of protecting children and would harm transgender youth and their families. Arkansas passed the first statewide ban of its kind in 2021, overriding a veto from then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, and it has since been followed by similar laws in 25 states. The ruling represents a significant victory for Republican-led efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and comes amid a wave of federal and state litigation over such policies.US appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Japanese PM Convicted of Accepting BribesOn August 12, 1983, former Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei was convicted of accepting bribes from the American defense contractor Lockheed Corporation in one of Japan's most notorious political scandals. Tanaka, who served as prime minister from 1972 to 1974, was found guilty of taking approximately $2 million in illicit payments to facilitate the purchase of Lockheed aircraft by Japanese airlines. The scandal, part of a broader international investigation into Lockheed's bribery of foreign officials, became emblematic of the deep entanglement between corporate influence and political decision-making in postwar Japan.Tanaka's conviction marked the culmination of years of investigation, during which he retained significant political clout despite resigning as prime minister in 1974 amid allegations. His sentence included four years in prison and a fine, though he remained free on appeal for years thereafter. The Lockheed scandal not only damaged public trust in Japan's political establishment but also exposed vulnerabilities in the country's campaign finance and lobbying regulations.Tanaka's political machine, known as the “Etsuzankai,” was legendary for its ability to secure votes and wield influence through personal networks, favors, and targeted public works projects. Even after his resignation and conviction, Tanaka's allies dominated Japanese politics for much of the 1980s, demonstrating the persistence of patronage systems despite corruption scandals.Internationally, the case was a warning shot to defense contractors and multinational corporations about the legal risks of engaging in covert payments to secure contracts. For Japan, it became a touchstone in ongoing debates about transparency, accountability, and the need for stronger anti-corruption laws. Tanaka, often called “the paragon of postwar corruption,” remained a polarizing figure—admired by some for his populist economic policies and condemned by others for his abuse of public office.Federal prosecutors in Maryland have expanded their case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein, alleging he used his law firm's client trust account in 2021 to hide nearly $1 million from the IRS before purchasing a home. The revised indictment, filed August 8, claims Goldstein moved personal funds into his firm's Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account to avoid tax collection. It also adds details about earlier allegations that he misrepresented the source of $968,000 seized from him in 2018—telling a border officer it was gambling winnings, then later claiming to the IRS it was a loan, including from a foreign gambler.Prosecutors further allege Goldstein misled a litigation funder while seeking help with tax debts and a mortgage, and tried to dissuade a former firm manager from cooperating with investigators. The updated charges correct some dates, moving one alleged diversion of client fees from 2021 to 2020, and expand the time frame for certain tax evasion counts to include conduct through March 2021. These changes follow Goldstein's motion to dismiss several counts as time-barred.While the client trust account allegation is new, no new counts were added. Goldstein still faces four counts of tax evasion, ten counts of assisting false tax returns, five counts of willful failure to pay taxes, and three counts of false statements on loan applications. He is represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in United States v. Goldstein.SCOTUSblog's Goldstein Facing New Allegations in Criminal CaseThe American Bar Association's (ABA) policymaking body has passed a resolution opposing government actions that punish lawyers, firms, or organizations for representing clients or causes the government dislikes. This move comes amid heightened tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has restricted DOJ attorneys from attending ABA events, reduced the ABA's role in vetting judicial nominees, and threatened its authority to accredit law schools.The resolution warns that the rule of law is endangered if lawyers or judges face retaliation for doing their jobs. It also denounces threats to impeach judges solely for their rulings. The ABA has an active lawsuit against the administration, alleging a coordinated campaign of intimidation against major law firms—claims the DOJ has asked a court to dismiss, arguing the ABA lacks standing and evidence of harm.Trump has issued executive orders targeting firms over past clients and hires, prompting some firms to agree to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to avoid further action. Others have sued successfully to block orders that revoked security clearances and restricted access to government work. The ABA contends these tactics have discouraged public interest legal work and harmed the ability of vulnerable clients to secure representation.American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown | ReutersTaft, Stettinius & Hollister announced it will merge with Atlanta-based Morris, Manning & Martin on Dec. 31, creating a firm with more than 1,200 lawyers across 25 offices and projected revenues exceeding $1 billion. The deal will add 100 attorneys to Taft's roster and give the Cincinnati-founded firm its first Atlanta office. Taft's chair Robert Hicks described the move as part of a broader plan to become a “national middle-market super firm” and said the firm is eyeing future expansions into New York and Texas.Partners at both firms unanimously approved the merger. Morris Manning's managing partner, Simon Malko, emphasized that the combination was not driven by necessity, despite the firm recently losing lawyers to Reed Smith and Bradley Arant. Merger talks began in February, with both firms anticipating strong performance in 2025.This marks Taft's third merger of the year, following combinations with Denver-based Sherman & Howard in January and Florida litigation firm Mrachek Law in June. It also continues a wave of large law firm consolidations, including recent deals involving McDermott Will & Emery, Schulte Roth & Zabel, Kramer Levin, Herbert Smith Freehills, Shearman & Sterling, and Allen & Overy.Latest US legal industry merger to create $1 billion firm | ReutersThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that President Donald Trump's recently enacted tax and spending law will leave 10 million more Americans uninsured over the next decade. The July law, passed without Democratic support, extends earlier Trump-era tax cuts, adds temporary tax breaks, and increases certain spending, but offsets the cost by imposing new restrictions and eligibility requirements on Medicaid. Democrats criticized the measure as benefiting the wealthy at the expense of low-income households.According to the CBO, the poorest Americans will see annual incomes drop by about $1,200 due to combined tax and benefit changes, while middle-income households will gain $800 to $1,200, and the wealthiest will see increases exceeding $13,000. The agency noted these changes will disproportionately reduce resources for households at the lower end of the income spectrum while boosting those in the middle and upper tiers.10 million Americans will go uninsured due to Trump tax and spend law, CBO estimates | ReutersAnd in my column this week: Washington, DC is close to approving a $4.4 billion public financing package to bring the Washington Commanders back to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site, framing it as an investment in affordable housing and equity. Critics argue it's a familiar tax-subsidized stadium deal that guarantees a new stadium by 2030 but leaves housing delivery vague and far in the future. The legislation secures decades of tax breaks, infrastructure bonds, and zoning exemptions for the team, yet affordable housing commitments are relegated to non-binding promises in a separate term sheet. Official projections suggest 6,000 housing units, with 30% affordable, but without enforceable deadlines, construction could lag until 2040—or never materialize.Job creation claims are similarly underwhelming: 16,000 positions are projected, but 14,000 are temporary construction jobs, leaving only about 2,000 permanent roles for the $4.4 billion investment. The land involved—180 acres of public property—could instead be used for community-led development, housing trusts, or co-ops with built-in affordability requirements. Critics note that the public is bearing all the legal obligations while promised benefits remain aspirational. If the housing isn't built, the Commanders would only face paying rent on undeveloped parcels, a minimal penalty. Alternative proposals include redirecting funds currently used to pay off Nationals Park bonds toward a housing bond program, which could deliver thousands of affordable units sooner. Advocates argue any stadium approval should include firm, enforceable housing delivery benchmarks and penalties for missed deadlines to ensure public benefits aren't indefinitely deferred.One notable legal element here is the absence of binding contractual obligations for affordable housing delivery—a gap that leaves the city with limited legal recourse if the housing targets are missed, despite billions in guaranteed public subsidies. This matters because it highlights how legislative structure can predetermine the enforceability—or lack thereof—of development promises.Commanders Stadium Deal's Housing and Job Promises Are a Facade This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court's willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court's entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump's energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump's priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump's first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country's largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner's promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump's June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump's authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president's power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump's trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry's Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | ReutersThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union's president. The action is part of President Trump's broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump's March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade's census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation's continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress's role in adapting the machinery of government to the country's evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber's institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico's statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft's 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump's first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges' power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration's appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits of presidential power in defining citizenship.Fourth court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide | ReutersThe Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in much of Southern California. The Justice Department's emergency filing seeks to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who barred federal agents from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on race, ethnicity, language, or similar factors without “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence. Her temporary restraining order stemmed from a proposed class action brought by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—who alleged they were wrongly targeted, detained, or roughed up during immigration raids in Los Angeles.The plaintiffs argued these tactics violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, describing indiscriminate stops by masked, armed agents. Judge Frimpong agreed, finding the operations likely unconstitutional and blocking the use of race, ethnicity, language, workplace type, or certain locations as stand-alone reasons for suspicion. The Ninth Circuit declined to lift her order earlier this month.The challenge comes amid a major escalation in Trump's immigration enforcement push, which includes aggressive deportation targets, mass raids, and even the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines in Los Angeles—a move sharply opposed by state officials. The administration contends the restrictions hinder operations in a heavily populated region central to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to allow these limits to remain in place while the underlying constitutional challenge proceeds.Trump asks US Supreme Court to lift limits on immigration raids | ReutersMilbank announced it will pay seniority-based “special” bonuses to associates and special counsel worldwide, ranging from $6,000 to $25,000, with payments due by September 30. Milbank, of course, is among the big firms that bent to Trump's strong-arm tactics, cutting a $100 million deal and dropping diversity-based hiring rather than risk becoming his next executive-order target. The New York-founded firm used the same bonus scale last summer, signaling optimism about high activity levels through the rest of the year. Milbank, known for setting the pace in Big Law compensation, is the first major corporate firm to roll out such bonuses this summer—a move that often pressures competitors to follow suit.Special bonuses are not standard annual payouts, and last year rival firms mostly waited until year's end to match Milbank's mid-year scale, adding those amounts to their regular year-end bonuses. Milbank also led the market in November 2024 with annual bonuses up to $115,000. The firm is one of nine that reached agreements with President Trump earlier this year after his executive orders restricted certain law firms' access to federal buildings, officials, and contracting work.In a smaller but notable move, New York boutique Otterbourg recently awarded all full-time associates a $15,000 mid-year bonus, citing strong performance and contributions to the firm's success.Law firm Milbank to pay out 'special' bonuses for associates | ReutersMilbank reaches deal with Trump as divide among law firms deepens | ReutersA federal judge in North Dakota vacated the Federal Reserve's rule capping debit card “swipe fees” at 21 cents per transaction, siding with retailers who have long argued the cap is too high. The decision, which found the Fed exceeded its authority by including certain costs in the fee calculation under Regulation II, will not take effect immediately to allow time for appeal. The case was brought by Corner Post, a convenience store that claimed the Fed ignored Congress's directive to set issuer- and transaction-specific standards under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.Banks, backed by groups like the Bank Policy Institute, defended the cap as compliant with the law, while retailers and small business advocates supported Corner Post's challenge. This is Judge Daniel Traynor's second ruling in the dispute; he initially dismissed the case in 2022 as untimely, but the U.S. Supreme Court revived it in 2024, easing limits on challenges to older regulations. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is expected, with the losing side likely to seek Supreme Court review. The ruling comes as the Fed separately considers lowering the cap to 14.4 cents, a proposal still pending.US judge vacates Fed's debit card 'swipe fees' rule, but pauses order for appeal | ReutersTexas-based Fintiv sued Apple in federal court, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets to develop Apple Pay. Fintiv claims the mobile wallet's core technology originated with CorFire, a company it acquired in 2014, and that Apple learned of it during 2011–2012 meetings and nondisclosure agreements intended to explore licensing. According to the complaint, Apple instead hired away CorFire employees and used the technology without permission, launching Apple Pay in 2014 and expanding it globally.Fintiv alleges Apple has run an informal racketeering operation, using Apple Pay to collect transaction fees for major banks and credit card networks, generating billions in revenue without compensating Fintiv. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Georgia trade secret and anti-racketeering laws, including RICO. Apple is the sole defendant and has not commented.The case follows the recent dismissal of Fintiv's related patent lawsuit against Apple in Texas, which the company plans to appeal. The new lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, where CorFire was originally based.Lawsuit accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets to create Apple Pay | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín DvořákThis week's closing theme comes from a composer who knew how to weave folk spirit into the fabric of high art without losing either warmth or polish. Dvořák, born in 1841 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew from a village-trained violist into one of the most celebrated composers of the late 19th century. His music often married classical forms with the rhythms, turns, and dances of his homeland—an approach that made his work instantly recognizable and deeply human.His Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81, written in 1887, is a prime example. Dvořák had actually written an earlier piano quintet in the same key but was dissatisfied with it; rather than revise, he started fresh. The result is one of the most beloved chamber works in the repertoire. Across its four movements, the quintet blends lyrical sweep with earthy energy—romantic in scope, yet grounded in folk idiom. The opening Allegro bursts forth with an expansive theme, the piano and strings trading lines as if in animated conversation.The second movement, marked Dumka, takes its name from a Slavic song form alternating between melancholy reflection and lively dance. Here, Dvořák's gift for emotional contrast is on full display—wistful cello lines give way to playful rhythms before sinking back into introspection. The third movement is a Furiant, a fiery Czech dance bristling with syncopation and vigor, while the finale spins out buoyant melodies with an almost orchestral fullness.It is music that feels both intimate and vast, as if played in a parlor with the windows thrown open to the countryside. With this quintet, Dvořák shows how local color can speak in a universal voice—how the tunes of a homeland can travel the world without losing their soul. For our purposes, it's a reminder that endings can be celebratory, heartfelt, and just a bit homespun.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A major, Op. 81 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress's constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC's long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it's applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC's January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC's ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency's refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed with their proposed class action. These clinics claim the companies colluded in 2020 to restrict discounts on diabetes medications, harming safety-net providers and the low-income patients they serve.The court found that because the four companies control much of the diabetes drug market, coordination to limit discounts could be feasible. Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the panel, noted the allegations were plausible enough to move forward. The drugmakers have denied wrongdoing and argue their policies were developed independently to address alleged fraud in the 340B program. Sanofi and Novo Nordisk said they are reviewing the decision, while Lilly criticized the ruling and defended its practices as legal.The clinics say the drugmakers earned billions in extra profits through these policies, which allegedly undercut essential savings for providers. The case underscores the broader tension between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers over the administration of the 340B program, which requires drugmakers to offer discounts in exchange for access to federal healthcare funds.US appeals court reinstates drug-price conspiracy lawsuit against Sanofi, rival pharma companies | ReutersPepsiCo is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving more favorable pricing and discount terms to large retailers like Walmart while denying the same deals to smaller businesses. Filed in federal court in Manhattan by an Italian restaurant operator, the lawsuit claims this practice violates the Robinson-Patman Act, a rarely enforced 1936 antitrust law meant to prevent discriminatory pricing that harms competition.The suit accuses Pepsi of providing payments and allowances to Walmart that were not extended to other retailers, placing smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Although Walmart is named in the allegations, it is not a defendant in the case. The plaintiff argues that Pepsi's pricing tactics unfairly burden other merchants who must pay more for the same products.This legal action echoes a previous Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit filed against Pepsi in January under the Biden administration. However, the second Trump administration dropped the case in May, with Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson criticizing it as a politically motivated effort launched too late in the prior administration's term. The FTC has not commented on the new private lawsuit.The class action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of thousands of Pepsi purchasers nationwide. Neither Pepsi nor Walmart has publicly responded to the allegations.Pepsi accused of price discrimination in new merchant class action | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Voting Rights ActOn August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and civil rights history. The legislation aimed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, especially in the southern states where such practices were deeply entrenched. The Act outlawed literacy tests and other mechanisms that had been used for decades to suppress the Black vote. It also authorized federal oversight of voter registration and election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.The law came in the wake of sustained activism, including the Selma to Montgomery marches and the brutal attack on peaceful demonstrators in what became known as “Bloody Sunday.” Johnson, in a powerful address to Congress, tied the moral imperative of the Act to the nation's founding ideals, declaring that “it is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote.” Within months of the Act's passage, hundreds of thousands of Black Americans were registered to vote, reshaping political representation across the South.The Voting Rights Act has since been amended and interpreted by courts, with key provisions reauthorized multiple times. However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight, significantly weakening the Act's enforcement mechanism. This decision opened the door to new state laws that voting rights advocates argue disproportionately affect minority voters.Legal scholars and civil rights lawyers continue to debate the future of the Act, with efforts ongoing to restore and update its protections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains one of the most consequential civil rights statutes in American history, transforming the legal landscape of democratic participation.Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted in 2021 for aiding Jeffrey Epstein in sexually abusing minors, is opposing the U.S. government's attempt to release transcripts from the grand jury that indicted her. Her legal team argues that public disclosure could irreparably damage her reputation and complicate a potential retrial, especially as she seeks to overturn her conviction at the U.S. Supreme Court. They claim the grand jury testimony is incomplete and lacks the scrutiny of cross-examination. The Department of Justice, citing public interest, requested permission from two Manhattan judges to release the material, prompting responses from Maxwell's lawyers, Epstein's estate, and alleged victims.President Donald Trump recently pushed for the release of the documents, seeking to address criticism from both allies and opponents about the handling of the Epstein-Maxwell case. Trump's Justice Department acknowledged that a rumored Epstein client list does not exist, which disappointed some supporters. While Epstein's estate took no stance on the release, attorneys for victims advocated for limited disclosure that protects victims' identities and allows pre-review by their legal teams.The Justice Department said the grand jury testimony largely aligned with evidence presented at Maxwell's trial. Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court argues that a 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and prosecutors should have protected her as well. Additionally, she recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about potential information she may have on other individuals.Epstein partner Maxwell opposes release of her grand jury materials | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from diverting over $4 billion away from a disaster prevention grant program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, grants a preliminary injunction to stop the government from redirecting funds intended to help state and local governments prepare for natural disasters like floods and hurricanes.The lawsuit was filed by 20 predominantly Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts and Washington, arguing that FEMA lacked authority to cancel or repurpose the BRIC program without congressional consent. The judge agreed that the states faced potential irreparable harm and shouldn't have to wait until the funding was fully withdrawn to challenge the decision.FEMA, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, had labeled the program as wasteful and ineffective earlier this year, announcing plans to shut it down. However, Judge Stearns noted that such a move violated proper legal procedures and posed serious risks to public safety and infrastructure.The BRIC program was created in 2018 during Trump's first term and has since approved around $4.5 billion in funding for nearly 2,000 infrastructure projects, largely in coastal areas. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the ruling affirms the importance of federal support for community disaster preparedness.US judge blocks Trump administration from diverting disaster prevention grants | ReutersTesla and CEO Elon Musk are facing a proposed class action lawsuit from shareholders who allege they committed securities fraud by misrepresenting the safety and readiness of Tesla's self-driving technology, including the Robotaxi. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Austin, Texas, follows a June test of the Robotaxi that revealed troubling behavior such as sudden braking, wrong-lane driving, and unsafe passenger drop-offs. After the test, Tesla's stock dropped 6.1%, erasing roughly $68 billion in market value.Shareholders argue that Musk and Tesla overstated the capabilities of their autonomous driving systems, misleading investors about the company's prospects. Key statements under scrutiny include Musk's April 2025 assertion that Tesla was "laser-focused" on launching the Robotaxi in Austin and Tesla's public claims of a scalable and safe autonomous approach. The lawsuit covers shareholders who bought stock between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025.Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja and former CFO Zachary Kirkhorn are also named as defendants. The complaint arrives as Tesla confronts lagging demand for its existing EV models and public concern over Musk's leadership and political views. Meanwhile, Tesla is appealing a recent Florida jury verdict holding it partially liable for a 2019 crash involving its self-driving software, which resulted in a $243 million damages award.Tesla, Elon Musk sued by shareholders over Robotaxi claims | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced a sweeping rollback of government-funded mRNA vaccine projects, cutting 22 initiatives worth $500 million. The move affects high-profile organizations including Moderna, Emory University, and Tiba Biotech. Kennedy justified the decision by claiming mRNA vaccines have not effectively protected against upper respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 and influenza. He also indicated a policy pivot toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms” that could maintain effectiveness despite viral mutations.This decision marks a dramatic shift in federal vaccine policy under the Trump administration and reflects Kennedy's long-standing skepticism toward vaccine safety. It follows previous actions he's taken, including firing 17 CDC vaccine advisers, removing COVID-19 vaccines from recommended use in healthy children and pregnant women, and reducing contracts with Moderna and Novavax. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which oversees U.S. pandemic preparedness, is now being redirected to focus on vaccine platforms with what the agency calls “stronger safety records” and more transparency.Critically, the rationale for these cuts leans heavily on Kennedy's controversial views, which conflict with the broader scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of mRNA technology. While it is reasonable to assess long-term vaccine strategy, completely abandoning mRNA platforms — particularly after their role in containing the COVID-19 pandemic — appears ideologically driven rather than data-based. Public health experts warn this may jeopardize future preparedness and undercut decades of scientific advancement, especially when the HHS has not publicly released the data allegedly supporting its decision.RFK Jr. Pulls Back on mRNA Projects as Vaccine Shakeup Continues This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Reagan Fires Air Traffic ControllersOn August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan followed through on a warning to striking air traffic controllers by initiating the dismissal of over 11,000 of them. The controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), had walked off the job on August 3, demanding better wages, shorter hours, and improved working conditions. Reagan responded firmly, citing the fact that federal employees had taken an oath not to strike against the government. In a speech delivered the same day the strike began, he gave them 48 hours to return to work or face termination. When the deadline passed without compliance, the administration acted swiftly, beginning the process of mass firings. The move marked a defining moment in Reagan's presidency and had lasting effects on labor relations in the public sector. It also effectively broke PATCO as a union, with the government decertifying it shortly afterward. The decision underscored Reagan's commitment to law and order as well as his hardline stance against labor disruptions that affected national infrastructure. It sent a powerful signal to other unions and shifted the political climate around collective bargaining. The Federal Aviation Administration eventually rebuilt the workforce, but full staffing and operations took years to stabilize.A federal judge in San Diego has ruled that Duane Morris LLP must face most of the claims in a proposed class action accusing the firm of misclassifying certain employees as "partners" to shift tax and benefit costs onto them while denying them a share of the firm's profits. The case was brought by Meagan Garland, a former employment law partner at the firm, who alleges that Duane Morris used the "non-equity partner" designation to avoid paying payroll taxes and employee benefits like health and disability insurance.Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo rejected Duane Morris' motion to dismiss the majority of Garland's claims, though she allowed two dismissed claims to be amended. Garland also claims the firm engaged in discriminatory pay practices, alleging that women and minorities were paid less than white male colleagues. Duane Morris, founded in Philadelphia, denies any wrongdoing and contends that Garland was properly treated as a partner under the law. The lawsuit spotlights the broader issue of how law firms use partnership titles that may not reflect actual ownership or control.US law firm Duane Morris must face lawsuit over alleged partner pay scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, is reportedly convening a grand jury to investigate claims that officials from former President Barack Obama's administration fabricated intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation stems from assertions by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has alleged the intelligence community was politically weaponized. The DOJ recently formed a strike force to assess those claims, though it has not commented on the reported grand jury.President Donald Trump has amplified Gabbard's accusations, calling them vindication and reiterating his unsubstantiated claim that Obama committed treason by trying to link him to Russia. Gabbard, who declassified certain documents, claimed they reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” to sabotage Trump's campaign. Democrats have dismissed the allegations as false and politically driven.The 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and help Trump, primarily through cyber operations and disinformation. However, it found no conclusive evidence that the efforts changed the outcome. Russia has consistently denied any involvement.US DOJ to open grand jury to investigate Obama officials, source says | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Devin Nunes—former congressman and current CEO of Trump Media—against NBCUniversal over statements made by Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show. The case centered on Maddow's 2021 claim that Nunes failed to turn over a package he received from Ukrainian legislator Andrii Derkach, who was sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent. Nunes argued that Maddow knowingly misrepresented the situation, since the package had, in fact, been given to the FBI.U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel ruled that Nunes failed to show Maddow acted with "actual malice," a legal requirement for defamation claims brought by public figures. Castel said there was no evidence Maddow knew her statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. He also found no indication that her political bias drove her to fabricate the claim. Maddow and her team had relied on other sources, and weren't even named as defendants in the suit—NBCUniversal was.The judge noted that Nunes couldn't prove Maddow was aware of a Politico article stating the FBI had the package. Derkach, the sender of the package, was later charged in an unrelated money laundering case and remains at large. The lawsuit's dismissal underscores the high bar public figures face when attempting to prove defamation.Trump Media CEO Nunes loses defamation lawsuit over Rachel Maddow show | ReutersA federal judge in Mississippi, Henry Wingate, has declined to explain a prior ruling that was riddled with serious factual and procedural errors in a high-profile civil rights case. The original July 20 decision, which temporarily blocked Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools and universities, mistakenly named incorrect parties, included inaccurate facts, and cited material that may not exist. Wingate replaced the flawed ruling with a corrected version but refused the state's request for clarification or to preserve the original decision in the public record.In a brief order, Wingate acknowledged the mistakes as “clerical errors” and asserted that judges have the authority to correct such issues without further explanation. The state's attorneys haven't publicly suggested a cause for the mistakes, which surfaced the same week a judge in New Jersey retracted a separate opinion after it was found to contain fake citations likely generated by artificial intelligence. That incident reportedly involved a temporary assistant using AI without adequate oversight.The Mississippi ruling's errors have raised broader concerns about accuracy and accountability in the judiciary, especially amid increasing scrutiny over AI use in legal writing. Legal ethics experts, including Indiana University professor Charles Geyh, noted the scale of the errors in both cases as unusually severe for federal courts.US judge says he won't explain error-ridden ruling in Mississippi civil rights case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS needs to modernize its understanding of what qualifies as a charitable purpose, especially in the context of open-source software. I focus on the agency's recent decision to deny 501(c)(3) status to an open-source organization, even though its software was free, publicly licensed, and designed for use by nonprofits, schools, and public entities. The problem, I suggest, is that the IRS still relies on outdated frameworks that fail to see intangible digital goods—like code—as valid public benefits, even when they clearly serve civic or educational ends.I draw comparisons to other nonphysical outputs the IRS has deemed charitable, such as legal covenants used in historic preservation or freely distributed textbooks. If those are eligible, why not code? The IRS's reasoning—that open accessibility negates exclusivity of charitable purpose—misunderstands how open-source licensing already limits private benefit. Licenses like the GNU GPL are specifically structured to ensure that the software remains free and publicly useful, even when reused or modified.I also point out that open-source tools power major government systems, including those of the IRS itself. Recognizing code as a charitable output wouldn't require creating new law—just applying existing standards more consistently. If architectural plans or legal documents can qualify, so should code that educates, streamlines public services, or saves nonprofits from buying costly proprietary tools.Open-Source Coders Who Benefit the Public Should Be Tax-Exempt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

This Day in Legal History: Switzerland's Federal CharterOn August 1, 1291, the seeds of what would become modern Switzerland were planted with the signing of the Federal Charter, or Bundesbrief, by the cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden. This wasn't the dramatic formation of a nation-state as we think of it today—it was three rural Alpine communities making a legal pact for mutual defense and cooperation in the face of growing Habsburg pressure. The document itself is barely over 300 words long, written in Latin, and mostly focuses on conflict resolution and how not to stab each other in the back (literally and figuratively). But make no mistake, this was a radical assertion of local legal autonomy during a time when imperial rule was the norm.The Federal Charter stands as an early example of federalism—three small political entities entering into a horizontal, legally binding agreement without ceding total sovereignty to a monarch or emperor. In legal terms, it was more covenant than constitution, but its emphasis on mutual aid, lawful arbitration, and collective security laid the groundwork for Switzerland's famously decentralized structure. The signatories agreed to resist foreign judges and unlawful acts of violence, a precursor to ideas we now enshrine in due process and the rule of law.This wasn't a flashy revolution. There were no declarations of independence or fiery speeches. Just some pragmatic legalese scratched onto parchment that said, in effect, “Let's have each other's backs, settle disputes fairly, and not get bossed around by some distant duke.” Over time, this unassuming agreement evolved into the Swiss model of federalism and neutrality that still defines the nation today. It's not just legal history—it's a reminder that even minimalist governance structures can have maximal staying power.Federal judges who issued rulings against Donald Trump's policies have come forward with disturbing accounts of harassment, threats, and violent intimidation. At a “Speak Up For Justice” event, five judges—including Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell—described receiving death threats, being targets of “swatting” incidents, and even having pizzas delivered to their homes under the name of a murdered judge's son. McConnell, who blocked a major White House funding freeze earlier this year, disclosed that he received six credible death threats and over 400 hostile voicemails. One threat involved someone searching the dark web for his address, saying they wanted "Smith & Wesson to pay him a visit."Judge John Coughenour, who ruled against Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship, recounted a terrifying police raid on his home due to a false murder report. The FBI later alerted him to a bomb threat. Despite being appointed by Republican President Reagan, Coughenour criticized political attacks on the judiciary as damaging to democratic institutions. The White House called the threats unacceptable and emphasized the importance of judicial safety. On the same day as the event, the Senate confirmed Trump's nominee Gadyaces Serralta to lead the U.S. Marshals Service, who pledged to prioritize judge protection.By mid-June, 408 threats against 297 judges had been logged in the fiscal year. Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered in 2020, praised the speaking judges for breaking their silence in defense of judicial independence.US judges recount death threats, 'swatting' after rulings against Trump | ReutersAccording to exclusive reporting done by Reuters, the U.S. State Department plans to allocate up to $7.85 million to support deportation operations in Costa Rica, marking a significant expansion of American-backed regional immigration enforcement. The funds, redirected from an economic development account, will be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate with Costa Rican authorities to carry out deportations of migrants—especially those transiting through the country en route to the U.S.This arrangement resembles a 2024 Biden-era agreement with Panama, where the U.S. financed detention and deportation of migrants moving northward. The new Costa Rica program is framed as a capacity-building effort that will fund deportation logistics and training on asylum screening. Still, critics warn it could deny vulnerable populations fair access to asylum protections.The plan follows a Trump administration request earlier in the year for Costa Rica to accept 200 migrants from Africa, Asia, and Europe previously detained in the U.S. Many of them remain in Costa Rica, raising questions about long-term outcomes. Details on when deportations will begin or the final destination countries remain unclear.Officials have also acknowledged that some migrants are now traveling south through Costa Rica, fleeing northward crackdowns and the end of Biden's humanitarian parole options. The agreement does not require a direct connection between the migrant and the country to which they may be deported, a detail likely to fuel ongoing human rights concerns.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been visiting countries throughout Latin America to explore similar arrangements, suggesting this may be part of a broader regional deportation strategy under Trump's immigration policy.Exclusive: US plans to fund deportations from Costa Rica, document shows | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit closely examined whether President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign imports. The legal challenge, brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses, centers on Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law typically used for financial sanctions—to justify tariffs against countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. Judges on the panel, many of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, expressed skepticism, with one noting the law “doesn't even say tariffs.”This is the first major appellate test of Trump's tariff authority, and it comes just as a deadline approaches for new tariff hikes. Trump has used tariffs aggressively in his second term as both an economic and geopolitical tool, citing trade imbalances and foreign inaction on fentanyl as justifications. The challengers argue that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs, not the president.While the court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place during the litigation, a final ruling could have major implications. A previous lower court decision had already questioned whether IEEPA allows for tariffs tied to longstanding trade deficits. Meanwhile, tariffs have become a significant revenue source, generating over $100 billion so far this fiscal year—money the administration may need after passing new tax cuts.The case won't affect tariffs enacted under other legal provisions, like those on steel and aluminum. Trump's legal team argues that restricting presidential tariff power would hinder trade negotiations. The president has recently secured agreements with the EU and Japan, and is currently working on deals with Mexico and others to avoid further tariff hikes.US appeals court scrutinizes Trump's use of tariffs as trade deadline looms | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is a bright and confident slice of Mozart at his most charming: the Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459, first movement, Allegro. Written in 1784 during a period of remarkable productivity, this concerto is one of the six that Mozart composed that year alone—each one displaying a different facet of his evolving style. No. 19 stands out for its buoyancy and rhythmic vitality; it's elegant without being self-serious, energetic but never frantic.Mozart, still in his late twenties, was performing regularly in Vienna, dazzling audiences with works that showcased both his pianistic skill and his compositional inventiveness. This piece was likely written for one of his own concerts, tailored to suit both his technical flair and his subtle wit. The Allegro opens with a playful orchestral theme, crisp and sunny, which soon gives way to the piano's entrance—graceful, witty, and full of character.There's a conversational quality to the movement: the orchestra tosses out ideas, the piano responds, elaborates, jokes, and dances. But beneath its lightheartedness lies Mozart's usual sophistication: unexpected harmonic turns, rhythmic displacements, and crisp motivic development keep the listener alert. The movement doesn't strive for drama or tragedy—it's pure Mozartian joy, rendered in tight musical logic and unfailing charm.As a closer, it offers an ideal farewell note: upbeat, clean, and full of clarity. You leave the room a little taller, a little lighter, like the music has tidied your thoughts and restored your sense of order. Mozart's No. 19 may not be the flashiest of his concertos, but it radiates something rarer: calm confidence, musical humor, and the sense that everything—at least for a few minutes—is exactly where it should be.Without further ado, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 in F major, K. 459, first movement, the Allegro. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe