Podcasts about legalnews

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss the shooting in Minneapolis and the Venezuela issue.  This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Legal News Commentator Gregg Jarrett joins Sid to discuss why Trump's order to snatch Maduro was not illegal of unconstitutional. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: January 6 InsurrectionOn January 6, 2021, a significant and unprecedented legal and constitutional crisis unfolded in the United States. As a joint session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College results of the 2020 presidential election, a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol. The attack followed weeks of false claims about election fraud and a rally earlier that day in which Trump urged his supporters to “fight like hell.” The violent breach forced lawmakers to evacuate, delayed the certification of Joe Biden's victory, and resulted in deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage.Legally, the event triggered a cascade of consequences. Hundreds of participants were arrested and charged with offenses ranging from unlawful entry and assaulting federal officers to seditious conspiracy. High-profile members of far-right groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were prosecuted, with some leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy, a Civil War-era charge rarely used in modern times. The attack also led to Trump's second impeachment, the first time in U.S. history a president was impeached twice. He was charged with incitement of insurrection, although the Senate ultimately acquitted him.In the broader legal aftermath, January 6 prompted legislative and judicial scrutiny of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, with Congress passing reforms in 2022 to clarify the vice president's limited role in certifying election results. The attack also raised questions about the limits of First Amendment protections when political speech turns into violent action, and about the potential disqualification from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding public office.Barry Pollack, the U.S. attorney best known for securing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's release deal, is now representing Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in a high-profile U.S. narcotics case. Maduro, who was captured in a U.S. military operation along with his wife, pleaded not guilty this week in a Manhattan federal court to charges of leading a cocaine trafficking conspiracy involving guerrilla groups and drug cartels. Pollack plans to challenge the legality of Maduro's capture—calling it a “military abduction”—and is also expected to raise arguments about foreign leader immunity.These arguments face steep legal obstacles. The U.S. no longer recognizes Maduro as Venezuela's legitimate president, having rejected the results of his 2018 re-election. Furthermore, U.S. courts have historically been reluctant to dismiss cases based on how a defendant was brought to U.S. soil. Still, Pollack's involvement signals a serious defense strategy grounded in international legal questions and executive immunity claims.Pollack's experience with politically charged and internationally sensitive cases is extensive. He recently helped negotiate Assange's release from a British prison through a plea deal that allowed the WikiLeaks founder to avoid U.S. imprisonment and return to Australia. His track record also includes work on behalf of a former CIA officer and an acquitted Enron executive.Assange's lawyer Barry Pollack to fight Maduro's US narcotics charges | ReutersWith a new Republican majority appointed by President Donald Trump, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is expected to shift sharply away from pro-union policies that defined its recent Democratic era. After nearly a year of paralysis caused by Trump's unprecedented firing of Democrat Gwynne Wilcox—leaving the board without the quorum needed to issue decisions—the Senate confirmed two Republican nominees in December 2025, restoring its ability to act and giving conservatives control of the five-member board for the first time since 2021.Key Biden-era decisions are now vulnerable to rollback. These include expanded union rights such as representation without secret-ballot elections, bans on mandatory anti-union employer meetings, and broader remedies for fired workers. Critics say these moves strayed from precedent; federal courts are reviewing them, but outcomes will vary by jurisdiction unless the Supreme Court weighs in.Union election rules are also likely to change. Under Biden, the NLRB accelerated the election process and made it harder for decertification efforts to proceed—moves unions supported to counter employer delays. Republicans are expected to reverse these rules, potentially making it easier to dissolve existing unions.The board's political independence is also under scrutiny. A court recently upheld Trump's removal of Wilcox, challenging legal protections meant to shield NLRB members from dismissal without cause. If the Supreme Court supports similar arguments in upcoming cases, the NLRB's structural independence could be weakened, raising concerns about politicization and fairness in labor adjudications.Meanwhile, lawsuits by major companies like Amazon and SpaceX are targeting the board's role as both prosecutor and judge in its own cases, claiming constitutional violations. If courts side with these challengers, it could force Congress to restructure the agency—perhaps by limiting its powers or shifting cases to federal courts.NLRB poised for major policy shifts in 2026 with new Trump-appointed majority | ReutersWisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan resigned following her conviction for obstructing the arrest of a migrant in her courtroom, a case that became entangled in broader national tensions over immigration enforcement. Dugan, elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2016, was found guilty in December 2025 of helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national facing domestic violence charges, evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who were present at the courthouse. She had denied wrongdoing, claiming she followed a courthouse policy requiring staff to notify supervisors of ICE's presence.Her conviction drew sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers, with some calling for impeachment, especially as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to crack down on local interference with federal immigration policy. Dugan had been suspended from her judicial duties during the legal proceedings. Prosecutors framed the case as a warning that public officials are not above the law, highlighting the Justice Department's willingness to pursue charges against judges who obstruct federal enforcement actions.Before serving as a judge, Dugan led a local Catholic Charities chapter that provided refugee resettlement services. Her background and the nature of the charges underscored the ongoing conflict between local protections for immigrants and federal efforts to expand deportations.Wisconsin judge resigns after being convicted of obstructing migrant arrest | ReutersMy column this week is on a novel cruise tax. Hawaii's attempt to expand its transient accommodations tax to include cruise ship passengers hit a temporary roadblock when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a New Year's Eve stay, pausing enforcement of the new “green fee.” The law, which took effect January 1, aims to place cruise cabins on equal tax footing with hotels by imposing an 11% tax on the portion of a cruise fare linked to overnight stays while docked in Hawaiian ports. Hawaii argues this is a general, nondiscriminatory tax on short-term lodging rather than a fee tied to the ship itself. To bolster its legal case, the state is framing cruise cabins as equivalent to hotel rooms, and emphasizing that the tax is based on services consumed on land, not the ship's movement or port access.The cruise industry, however, contends the tax violates the Constitution's Tonnage Clause, which prohibits states from levying duties on ships for merely entering or staying in port. They've also invoked the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884, which restricts port-related charges not linked to specific services. But Hawaii's defense is that the tax is not about access or vessel status—it is a consumption tax on guests staying overnight, regardless of whether the bed is on land or in a moored ship. The policy avoids targeting ships and instead captures revenue from tourism, aligning maritime and land-based lodging under a consistent legal framework.The Department of Justice has joined the cruise industry's challenge, suggesting the issue's seriousness. If litigation continues, the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether this tax model is constitutionally sound. Still, Hawaii's approach—drafting a neutral, consumption-based tax rather than a maritime-specific charge—may serve as a blueprint for other coastal states looking to tap into cruise tourism revenue without triggering constitutional violations. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

WMAL GUEST: JOE DIGENOVA (Legal Analyst and Former U.S. Attorney to the District of Columbia) on the Latest Legal News and Maduro’s Court Appearance Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, January 5, 2026 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Federal Court Strikes Down “Balanced Treatment” Law in ArkansasOn January 5, 1982, a federal district court in Arkansas issued a landmark ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, striking down a state law that required public schools to give “balanced treatment” to both evolution and creation science. The law, known as Act 590, had been passed in 1981 and mandated that schools teach creationism—defined in the statute as a scientific model based on a literal interpretation of the Bible—alongside evolution. The law was immediately challenged by a coalition of clergy, educators, and scientists who argued that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.Judge William Overton ruled that Act 590 was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious viewpoint under the guise of science. In his decision, Overton provided a clear and influential definition of what constitutes science, stating that scientific theories must be guided by natural law, testable, and subject to falsification. He found that “creation science” failed all of these criteria and was therefore religious in nature, not scientific. The court also concluded that requiring its teaching in public schools constituted state endorsement of religion.The ruling marked one of the first major judicial rejections of efforts to include religious doctrine in public school science curricula following the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier decision in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), which struck down laws banning the teaching of evolution altogether. McLean v. Arkansas would go on to shape the legal and educational landscape in future church-state separation cases, including the pivotal 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard, which similarly invalidated a Louisiana law promoting creationism in schools.Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro appeared in a New York court after a surprise U.S. military operation captured him in Caracas. The high-stakes raid, likened to the 1989 Panama invasion, involved U.S. Special Forces breaching Maduro's security and flying him to Manhattan, where he faces drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. His wife, Cilia Flores, was also captured. Maduro is accused of running a cocaine network in collaboration with major criminal groups like Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's FARC.The capture sparked international outrage. Russia, China, Cuba, and other allies condemned the raid, while U.S. allies cautiously emphasized legality and diplomacy. The U.N. Security Council is set to review the operation's legality. Meanwhile, Venezuela's acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, shifted from initial outrage to signaling willingness for cooperation with the U.S., a notable pivot considering her past as a fiery Chavista loyalist.President Trump justified the move as a counter to drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the past nationalization of U.S. oil assets. He also made clear his aim to reopen Venezuela's oil sector to U.S. companies. However, he has sidelined Venezuela's opposition leaders, disappointing figures like María Corina Machado. Despite Maduro's removal, his political allies remain in power, and the military's loyalty appears unchanged. Venezuelans at home are wary, bracing for possible unrest.Venezuela's Maduro due in court, loyalists send message to Trump | ReutersTrump's efforts to further reshape the federal judiciary in 2026 are facing a slowdown due to a shortage of vacancies. After returning to office in 2025, Trump secured the confirmation of 26 judicial nominees—more than in the first year of his initial term. However, only 30 new judicial seats have opened since then, compared to the 108 vacancies available when he first took office in 2017. This is largely due to aggressive judicial appointments by both Trump and former President Biden over the past decade, which filled many potential retirements with younger judges.Some judges eligible for senior status—a form of semi-retirement—have opted to remain active. Experts suggest this could be due to either personal preference or distrust among conservative judges about Trump's choices for replacements. The appellate court nominations have particularly slowed, with only three judges announcing retirements in 2025. Still, Trump managed to flip the balance of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and strengthen conservative influence in district courts across states like Missouri, Florida, and Mississippi.Despite the low number of available seats—currently 49—Trump still has opportunities to make appointments, especially in Republican-led states. However, 13 of those vacancies are in states with at least one Democratic senator, triggering the “blue slip” custom, which allows senators to block judicial nominees from their states. While this tradition doesn't apply to appellate courts, it still limits district court nominations. Senate Republicans remain divided on whether to uphold the blue slip norm.Trump's ability to further reshape judiciary in 2026 hindered by few vacancies | ReutersIn 2026, U.S. law schools are facing a mix of rising interest in legal education and mounting regulatory and financial pressures. A major shift comes from President Trump's 2025 budget, which capped federal loans for professional degrees at $50,000 annually and $200,000 total. With many law schools charging over $50,000 per year (excluding living costs), incoming students may need to seek private loans, which often come with higher interest rates and stricter credit requirements. In response, some schools—like Santa Clara University—are offering across-the-board scholarships to help bridge the gap.Law school accreditation is also in flux. The American Bar Association (ABA), traditionally the primary accreditor, is facing political attacks over its diversity standards and regulatory burden. Texas is planning to develop its own law school approval system for bar eligibility, and other states like Florida and Ohio are exploring similar options. The ABA is now working to streamline its standards amid this pressure.July 2026 will also see the debut of the “NextGen UBE,” a shorter, skills-focused national bar exam that replaces some memorization with practical assessment. Some states, however, are opting out or creating their own licensing alternatives.Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is gaining traction in legal education. A growing number of law schools are integrating AI training into their curricula, and platforms like Harvey are being adopted by faculty and students alike.Despite the looming challenges, interest in law school remains strong. Applicant numbers rose 20% over the previous year, building on an 18% increase in 2024, and first-year enrollment is also trending upward.US law schools face loan limits, oversight pressures in 2026 | ReutersU.S. courts are poised to play a decisive role in shaping how copyright law applies to generative AI this year, as lawsuits from major publishers, creators, and tech companies come to a head. At issue is whether AI developers like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and others can invoke the legal doctrine of fair use when training models on copyrighted materials, or whether they must pay license fees—potentially amounting to billions.The legal landscape shifted dramatically in 2025. A class action by authors against Anthropic resulted in a $1.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind, while The New York Times, Disney, and other major rights holders filed fresh lawsuits. Judges began issuing preliminary rulings on whether AI training qualifies as transformative fair use, with conflicting outcomes. One judge called AI training “quintessentially transformative,” supporting tech companies' claims, while another warned that generative AI could harm creators by saturating the market with competing content.Several high-profile cases remain active in 2026, including those involving AI-generated music and visual art. Meanwhile, some copyright holders are choosing collaboration over litigation. Disney, for example, invested $1 billion in OpenAI and granted use of its characters, while Warner Music dropped lawsuits against AI firms to co-develop music tools. These deals hint at possible industry-wide licensing frameworks, though ongoing litigation could still dramatically reshape the economic and legal norms governing AI.AI copyright battles enter pivotal year as US courts weigh fair use | 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: Fundamental Laws of 1906On December 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II signed the “Fundamental Laws of 1906,” marking a pivotal moment in the Russian Empire's struggle between autocracy and constitutionalism. This act came in response to the Revolution of 1905, a period of mass unrest fueled by political repression, economic hardship, and a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The October Manifesto, issued two months earlier, had promised the establishment of a legislative Duma and the expansion of civil liberties. However, the Fundamental Laws, signed in December, revealed the Tsar's intention to retain ultimate authority despite these concessions.The document laid out a framework for governance, establishing a bicameral legislature with the Duma as its lower house, but Article 4 made clear that “the All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power.” This meant that, legally, any legislative progress remained subordinate to the Tsar's will. The laws also granted the Tsar control over the military, foreign policy, and the ability to dissolve the Duma at his discretion.While the Fundamental Laws introduced formal legal structures and acknowledged the existence of limited civil rights, they were largely symbolic gestures rather than meaningful reforms. Instead of curbing autocratic rule, the laws codified it, cloaking absolute monarchy in the appearance of legality. This duality deepened public dissatisfaction and political fragmentation.Rather than stabilizing the empire, the signing of the Fundamental Laws sowed further distrust in the regime and highlighted the Tsar's unwillingness to relinquish power. These contradictions contributed to the failure of the Duma system and fueled revolutionary momentum that would ultimately culminate in the revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration reached an agreement to review certain NIH grant applications that had been stalled or rejected amid a broader legal challenge over cuts to diversity-related research funding. The agreement followed a federal court ruling in Boston that found the NIH acted unlawfully when it canceled grants based on their perceived ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Though the Supreme Court later paused part of that ruling and shifted some aspects of the litigation to a court specializing in monetary claims, the review process for future NIH funding remained in legal limbo.Under the new agreement, the NIH will re-evaluate previously frozen or withdrawn grant applications, though it is not required to fund any specific proposals. Plaintiffs in the case, including researchers and several Democratic-led states, argued that the impacted studies—focusing on topics like HIV prevention, LGBTQ health, Alzheimer's, and sexual violence—serve vital public health needs.One of the plaintiffs, University of New Mexico postdoctoral researcher Nikki Maphis, said the agreement allows important scientific work to resume after what she described as an “arbitrary and destructive freeze.” The underlying NIH policy change, which cut funding for projects deemed to reflect ideological rather than scientific priorities, remains contested. A prior ruling blocking the policy is still under appeal by the Department of Health and Human Services.Trump administration agrees to review stalled NIH research grants after lawsuit | ReutersThe Trump administration's aggressive defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has pushed the agency to the brink of collapse, jeopardizing one of the few federal institutions explicitly designed to protect everyday Americans from financial harm. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has long served as a crucial recourse for people facing predatory lending, credit reporting errors, identity theft, and financial discrimination. The agency has helped return more than $21 billion to consumers since its founding. And yet, under President Trump's second term, it's being systematically dismantled—through funding cuts, legal challenges, and staffing reductions—with the administration openly declaring its intent to shut the agency down.In the absence of the CFPB, those wronged by financial institutions—like Bianca Jones, who battled a credit reporting error that nearly cost her a home, or Morgan Smith, who turned to the agency after being targeted by identity theft—may find themselves with nowhere to turn. The administration claims the CFPB promotes a political agenda, but the result is fewer protections for those already vulnerable. Rules around medical debt, overdraft fees, credit card terms, and mortgage lending have been gutted. Investigations have been shelved. Enforcement is evaporating.Critics argue that other regulators can fill the gap, but the CFPB was created because no one else was doing the job. Without it, financial institutions are more likely to abuse their power with impunity.You should ask yourself: who benefits when a consumer watchdog is taken offline? Because it certainly isn't the teachers, the single parents, the sick, or the struggling borrowers trying to make sense of a system stacked against them. It's the companies who'd rather not answer for what they do in the dark.Trump's funding cuts put America's consumer watchdog on the brink of collapse | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled that it cannot hear Amazon's constitutional challenge to the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), deepening a circuit split on the issue and increasing the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court review. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Amazon's case stemmed from a labor dispute and was therefore barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits courts from intervening in active labor disputes. Amazon had filed the lawsuit to halt an NLRB case claiming it was a joint employer of unionized drivers working for a subcontractor and therefore obligated to bargain with their union.Amazon's broader claim—that the NLRB's structure is unconstitutional because its board members and judges are protected from at-will removal—has gained traction elsewhere. The 5th Circuit, in a recent case involving Elon Musk's SpaceX, ruled that such protections are unlawful and allowed a similar challenge to proceed. But the 9th Circuit firmly disagreed, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with labor board proceedings, regardless of the constitutional claims involved.This ruling aligns with a 3rd Circuit decision and stands in direct conflict with the 5th Circuit, setting the stage for a high-stakes resolution by the Supreme Court. Importantly, the 9th Circuit's ruling doesn't completely shut the door on such challenges—employers can still raise constitutional objections in NLRB proceedings and appeal after the fact. But for now, Amazon and other companies must make their case through the channels Congress established for resolving labor disputes.US court says it can't hear Amazon's NLRB challenge, deepening circuit split | ReutersA Utah judge has granted the release of most of the transcript and audio from a closed hearing in the high-profile case involving the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The hearing, held in October, addressed courtroom safety measures for the accused, Tyler Robinson, who is charged with aggravated murder and other serious offenses. Prosecutors allege Robinson fired a single fatal shot from a rooftop during a university event where Kirk was speaking, and they intend to seek the death penalty.Judge Tony Graf ruled that only about one page of the 80-page transcript would remain redacted, primarily for safety and security reasons. He also clarified that media organizations do not need special legal status to cover the proceedings, rejecting a request that would have guaranteed them advance notice of any future attempts to close hearings.Graf has already decided that Robinson can appear in civilian clothing but must remain physically restrained in court. However, media outlets are prohibited from photographing or filming his restraints, as defense attorneys argued such images could bias potential jurors. A hearing set for February will address whether cameras will be allowed in the courtroom at all.Kirk's death, which occurred during a campus debate, triggered widespread condemnation of political violence from across the ideological spectrum.Judge grants release of redacted transcript of Charlie Kirk case hearing | ReutersAs 2025 winds down, my Bloomberg column this week is a year-end piece reflecting not just on what was written, but on which ideas still resonate because the problems they address remain unresolved. The lasting relevance of several pieces underscores how little has shifted in tax and policy debates. A July column urging states to break free from federal tax volatility feels even more urgent now, as states still cling to unstable baselines. Early in the year, hopes that efficiency rhetoric (read: DOGE) might close the tax gap faded, with political discomfort around auditing the wealthy preventing any meaningful change. April's look at the step-up in basis revealed how death, not borrowing, remains the biggest capital gains loophole—and one Congress left untouched in the 2025 tax law. A May column on IRS immigration enforcement gains new resonance as the crackdown deepens, pushing some immigrant workers further from voluntary compliance. And October's piece on Pung v. Isabella County remains live, with the Supreme Court set to decide whether fairness in tax foreclosures means market value or simply what the government collects.Each of these columns anticipated weather patterns we're now standing in—proof less of foresight and more of inertia. If 2026 brings more engagement, even without clear solutions, there's hope that next year's retrospective won't feel like a reprint with new dates.Read the 5 Most Relevant Technically Speaking Columns of 2025 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: Wounded KneeOn December 29, 1890, the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry Regiment surrounded a Lakota Sioux encampment near Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The soldiers had orders to disarm the Lakota, who had recently fled the Standing Rock Reservation following the killing of Sitting Bull. Tensions were high, and as troops attempted to confiscate weapons, a shot was fired—its origin remains unclear. What followed was a brutal onslaught in which U.S. forces opened fire on largely unarmed Lakota men, women, and children. Estimates suggest that between 250 and 300 Lakota were killed, many while fleeing or after surrendering.The Wounded Knee Massacre was the final major confrontation between Native Americans and the U.S. military during the so-called Indian Wars. It marked the culmination of decades of broken treaties and violent enforcement of federal Indian policy. Despite the civilian toll, 20 soldiers were later awarded the Medal of Honor, a decision that has since drawn sustained criticism and calls for revocation. The legal status of the massacre—framed at the time as a military engagement—has increasingly been re-evaluated through the lens of human rights law and treaty violations.The Lakota were supposed to be protected under treaties like the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, which guaranteed their land and autonomy. However, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills and growing U.S. expansionism led to the steady erosion of those promises. Wounded Knee became a symbol of that betrayal and the failure of the U.S. government to uphold its legal obligations. In 1990, on the massacre's centennial, Congress passed a resolution expressing “deep regret” but stopped short of issuing a formal apology. The massacre remains a central moment in the legal and political history of Native American rights in the United States.California announced it had dropped its lawsuit against the federal government over the Trump administration's decision to cancel over $4 billion in high-speed rail funding. The California High-Speed Rail Authority said the move reflected a lack of trust in the federal government as a reliable partner. Despite the loss of funds, the agency stated it would continue the project using mostly state resources, noting that only 18% of total expenditures have come from federal dollars. A judge had recently declined to dismiss the case, but California chose to end the legal fight regardless.The U.S. Department of Transportation supported the funding withdrawal, citing a Federal Railroad Administration report that found the rail project riddled with missed deadlines, budget issues, and unrealistic ridership forecasts. Governor Gavin Newsom previously criticized the cuts as politically motivated and driven by Trump's hostility toward California. The high-speed rail project, initially expected to cost $33 billion and be completed by 2020, is now projected to cost up to $128 billion with a completion target of 2033. So far, over 50 major structures and nearly 80 miles of guideway have been built.The state plans to attract private investors by mid-2026 and emphasized that construction will continue. Recent legislation provides $1 billion in annual state funding through 2045. Earlier in 2025, the federal government also rescinded $175 million for related projects. Despite legal and financial setbacks, the state remains committed to building the rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco.California drops lawsuit over Trump decision to pull $4 billion in high-speed rail funds | ReutersLongtime Motel 6 spokesman Tom Bodett settled a lawsuit against the motel chain after accusing it of using his name and voice without consent. Bodett, who became synonymous with the brand through his signature line, “we'll leave the light on for you,” alleged the company continued using his likeness even after their professional relationship ended. The dispute arose when Motel 6's new parent company, OYO, allegedly failed to make a $1.2 million contractual payment due in January, prompting Bodett to terminate their agreement.Despite the split, Bodett claimed his voice and name remained on Motel 6's reservation phone system, violating federal trademark law and the terms of their contract. The company denied any wrongdoing, arguing Bodett himself breached the agreement, which they said nullified their payment obligation. The lawsuit, filed in June, was resolved in Manhattan federal court, though the settlement terms remain confidential.Bodett, now 70, is a well-known author and voice actor, with credits including NPR and Ken Burns documentaries. He had been the face and voice of Motel 6 since 1986 and was responsible for creating the brand's iconic tagline. The lawsuit came after Motel 6 was acquired by India-based OYO, part of Prism (formerly Oravel Stays), in a $525 million deal from Blackstone in December 2024.Longtime Motel 6 spokesman Tom Bodett settles lawsuit against chain | ReutersFBI Director Kash Patel announced a surge in federal investigative resources to Minnesota to probe alleged fraud involving public funds. While the FBI has offered few specifics, Patel's comments followed the circulation of a viral video showing allegedly inactive daycare centers in the state receiving government subsidies. Republican officials, including U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer and Vice President JD Vance, quickly amplified the video online, calling for action and linking the issue to broader concerns about state oversight.Critics, however, argue that the investigation is politically and racially charged. The Trump administration has repeatedly pointed to Minnesota's Somali American community as the center of alleged fraud, even as immigrant-rights groups warn that the pattern of enforcement suggests targeted profiling rather than impartial justice. The FBI has not clarified whether the focus on Somali defendants is supported by broader data or if the agency is treating these cases as representative of a larger trend.Governor Tim Walz's office has not yet commented, though tensions have grown between federal and state officials over the framing and scope of the investigations. Many of those charged in recent fraud cases are of Somali descent, according to federal sources cited by CBS News, but the disproportionate attention has led to accusations that the government is conflating individual criminal acts with an entire immigrant community.The lack of transparency about evidence and investigatory methods has fueled concerns that the DOJ under Trump may be using criminal enforcement as a political tool. Given President Trump's repeated attacks on Minnesota's Somali population, observers view this surge not as neutral law enforcement, but as part of a broader strategy to vilify immigrants and score political points.FBI investigating Minnesota fraud scheme, director says | ReutersNew York Governor Kathy Hochul announced a new state law requiring social media platforms to display mental health warning labels on features such as infinite scroll, auto-play, and algorithm-driven feeds. The law targets platform elements deemed “addictive” and likely to encourage compulsive use among young users. It reflects growing concerns over the impact of social media on youth mental health and follows recent actions in other jurisdictions, including Australia's ban on social media for children under 16.Under the law, platforms that operate partly or entirely in New York must comply, even if users access the services while physically outside the state. Enforcement authority rests with the New York Attorney General, who may bring civil suits and seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. Hochul likened the labels to those found on tobacco products or plastic packaging, positioning them as a public health measure designed to inform and protect.Major companies like Meta, TikTok, Snap, and Alphabet have not yet responded publicly to the law. The move aligns with ongoing legal efforts across the U.S., including lawsuits by school districts against social media companies and recommendations from the U.S. Surgeon General for stronger safety measures and clearer warnings. Critics may question the efficacy or enforceability of such warnings, especially in a fragmented digital landscape, but New York's law signals a growing willingness by states to directly regulate platform design in the name of mental health.New York to require social media platforms to display mental health warnings | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Federal Reserve ActOn December 23, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of debate over banking reform, intensified by the financial panic of 1907. The Act aimed to provide the country with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. It established twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks overseen by a central Board in Washington, D.C., striking a balance between public oversight and private banking interests.The Federal Reserve was given key powers, including the ability to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now the dominant form of U.S. currency), regulate banks, and serve as a lender of last resort during financial crises. This marked a significant shift from the fragmented and largely unregulated banking environment of the 19th century.Critics feared it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a few, while supporters believed it brought necessary structure and national oversight. Over the decades, the Fed's role expanded, especially during the Great Depression, World War II, and more recently the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of the Fed also represented a broader legal evolution in how the federal government engaged with economic policy.A coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon to prevent the Trump administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The states argue that the administration's decision to stop requesting funds from the Federal Reserve is unlawful and undermines Congress's constitutional authority. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle the CFPB, including appointing his budget director, Russell Vought, as acting head and halting most agency operations.The CFPB was created in 2011 to safeguard consumers in the financial sector and has recovered over $21 billion for Americans. It is uniquely funded directly by the Federal Reserve rather than through Congressional appropriations. The administration claims the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB's funding to come from the Fed's combined earnings, which they argue are unavailable due to the Fed operating at a loss since 2022.The lawsuit highlights that the CFPB is legally required to process consumer complaints from states, and without funding, it cannot fulfill this duty. Plaintiffs also contend that the administration's move violates the separation of powers by interfering with a congressionally established funding mechanism. Additional lawsuits from a federal employee union and nonprofits are pending in other courts, also seeking to compel the agency to resume funding requests.Democratic-led states sue to block US consumer watchdog's defunding under Trump | ReutersA new push by the Trump administration to challenge corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) faces steep legal hurdles. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency is shifting toward what she calls a more “conservative view of civil rights,” focusing on potential discrimination against white men. Lucas has announced plans to investigate corporate DEI policies and pursue enforcement where race- or sex-based decisions are suspected.However, legal experts emphasize that proving such claims is difficult. Discrimination cases require clear evidence that someone was denied a job or benefit specifically because of their race or sex, not just because they were part of a changing applicant pool. Critics argue that the administration's narrative misunderstands the legal and practical realities of workplace diversity, which is often designed to prevent discrimination, not perpetuate it.Despite aggressive executive orders targeting DEI, many companies are maintaining or quietly adjusting their programs to remain compliant. Legal audits and program rebranding are common, especially in industries like automotive. DEI advocates point out that the business case for inclusion remains strong, as companies see diverse teams as essential to long-term success.Ultimately, while the administration's rhetoric may galvanize parts of its base, experts say turning that rhetoric into enforceable legal action will be difficult under existing anti-discrimination laws.Trump's anti-corporate DEI campaign faces high legal hurdles | ReutersMercedes-Benz has agreed to pay $120 million to settle environmental and consumer protection claims brought by multiple U.S. states over its use of emissions-cheating software in certain diesel vehicles. The settlement resolves the remaining U.S. legal actions tied to the broader Dieselgate scandal, which has affected several automakers. The claims focused on Mercedes' BlueTEC diesel models, which were previously marketed as especially clean and advanced.As part of the agreement, Mercedes will continue retrofitting affected vehicles with approved emissions software. These additional updates are expected to cost the company tens of millions more. However, the company stated that its financial results won't be impacted, as it had already set aside sufficient funds to cover the settlement and associated costs.Mercedes reaches $120 million settlement with US states over emissions scandal | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the IRS has a rare opportunity to repair its deeply flawed Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), which has become so punitive and complex that it actively discourages taxpayers from coming forward. While the program is supposed to help bring people back into compliance, its current structure demands that taxpayers essentially confess to wrongdoing—sometimes criminal—in a sworn statement, without any assurance the IRS will even consider their disclosure.Recent proposed reforms introduce a more structured penalty system and eliminate the notorious “willfulness checkbox” from Form 14457, a small but significant change that previously forced taxpayers to admit to criminal conduct just to apply. Still, the process remains risky. The IRS continues to require extensive narratives of past noncompliance, and for taxpayers with crypto assets, the demands are even greater: wallet addresses, transaction hashes, and mixer use must all be disclosed upfront. That level of technical and legal exposure could deter even well-meaning taxpayers.I argue the IRS must go further. It should offer flexible payment options—like installment agreements or offers in compromise—and abandon its rigid “pay-in-full” approach. It should also adopt a tiered penalty framework that accounts for intent, scale, and the evolving complexity of assets like cryptocurrency. Finally, the IRS needs to delay the most invasive digital asset reporting until after a taxpayer has been preliminarily accepted into the program, rather than forcing exhaustive disclosures at the outset.Without deeper changes, the VDP risks continuing as a trapdoor rather than a lifeline—one that punishes honesty and rewards silence. The current moment of public review is the best chance to realign the program with its original purpose: restoring compliance, not burying it.The IRS Has a Chance to Fix Its Voluntary Disclosure Program 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: Bernhard GoetzOn this day in legal history, December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot and wounded four young Black men—Troy Canty, Barry Allen, Darrell Cabey, and James Ramseur—on a New York City subway train. Goetz, who was white, claimed the men had attempted to rob him and that he acted in self-defense. The case quickly became a national sensation, exposing deep racial fault lines in public discourse and in the justice system. Supporters hailed Goetz as a vigilante hero responding to unchecked urban crime, while critics denounced his actions as racially motivated violence that reinforced systemic bias.Goetz fled the scene but turned himself in nine days later. During the investigation, he told police that he had intended to kill the men and expressed explicitly racist sentiments, calling them “savages.” Despite this, a grand jury initially refused to indict him for attempted murder, charging him only with criminal possession of a weapon. After public outcry, a second grand jury indicted him on multiple counts, including attempted murder and assault. In his 1987 trial, however, Goetz was acquitted of all charges except for illegal firearms possession.The verdict underscored how race and fear influenced perceptions of self-defense and victimhood. The jury accepted Goetz's narrative of fear despite his own admission of intent and inflammatory language. The case highlighted the elasticity of self-defense laws, especially when invoked by white defendants against Black victims. It also foreshadowed later debates in high-profile cases where racial bias intersected with claims of justified force. Goetz ultimately served just over eight months in jail. Darrell Cabey, left paralyzed by the shooting, later won a $43 million civil judgment against him—a sum Goetz claimed he could never pay. The case remains a stark example of how legal standards of justification can mask broader social inequities.President Trump is preparing to expand immigration enforcement in 2026 with a significant boost in funding and more aggressive tactics, including a renewed focus on workplace raids. Despite growing political backlash, Trump plans to hire thousands of new agents, expand detention centers, and partner with private companies to track undocumented immigrants. His administration has already deployed federal agents to major cities, sparking protests over the use of tear gas, extrajudicial tactics, and the detention of U.S. citizens.ICE and Border Patrol are set to receive $170 billion through 2029, a massive increase over their current annual budgets. Miami recently elected its first Democratic mayor in decades, with voters citing Trump's immigration policies as a motivating factor. While Trump continues to frame his crackdown as targeting criminals, government data shows a large portion of recent ICE arrests have involved individuals with no criminal record beyond immigration violations.Trump has also moved to strip temporary protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants and aims to deport one million people annually, although he's likely to fall short of that target. Legal immigrants haven't been spared either—some have been detained during green card interviews or had their naturalization ceremonies interrupted. The administration's new workplace-focused approach could strain the economy, especially in industries reliant on immigrant labor, raising concerns about inflation and employer backlash.Critics argue the crackdown undermines due process and civil liberties, militarizes communities, and disproportionately targets people of color. As enforcement expands, business groups may be forced to respond more vocally, especially if employer raids disrupt operations. Trump's overall approval on immigration has dropped sharply since March, suggesting growing public discomfort with the scope and style of enforcement.Trump set to expand immigration crackdown in 2026 despite brewing backlash | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on over $3 billion in federal grants that support housing and services for homeless individuals. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) planned changes to the Continuum of Care program likely violated the McKinney-Vento Act, which mandates a focus on stable, permanent housing for vulnerable populations.The lawsuit was brought by 20 mostly Democratic-led states, Washington, D.C., and a coalition of nonprofits and local governments. Plaintiffs argued that HUD's proposed changes would endanger the housing of around 170,000 people, including families, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence—particularly concerning as winter sets in. McElroy, a Trump appointee, emphasized the public interest in upholding lawful agency action and maintaining stability for at-risk groups.The Trump administration had sought to move away from the long-standing “housing-first” model, which provides housing without preconditions like sobriety or employment, and instead proposed work requirements and transitional housing. HUD also attempted to ban funding for services related to diversity, gender identity, and abortion, while aligning programs with its immigration enforcement efforts.Critics viewed the move as a politically motivated attempt to reshape federal homelessness policy, while the judge noted HUD's last-minute changes to its own policy appeared strategic and disruptive to legal proceedings. Despite the ruling, HUD stated it remains committed to reforming the program “in accordance with the law.”US judge blocks Trump administration from altering homelessness funding conditions | ReutersDavid O'Keefe, a retired Manhattan prosecutor, has filed a federal lawsuit against New York City and Brookfield Properties, claiming he was unlawfully arrested while protesting outside the Manhattan offices of the law firm Skadden Arps. The protest took place in April 2025 in a privately owned public space (POPS), where O'Keefe staged a solo demonstration criticizing Skadden's agreement to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for initiatives backed by President Donald Trump. He alleged the firm's involvement threatened the rule of law.According to the complaint, O'Keefe was arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave the plaza, detained for 90 minutes, and later had the charge dismissed. His lawsuit seeks not only damages but also a court ruling affirming that First Amendment rights apply in POPS—publicly accessible spaces maintained by private owners in exchange for zoning benefits. His legal team argues the arrest violated his constitutional rights and aims to clarify protections for protest in such hybrid public-private areas.Skadden is not named as a defendant and has not commented. The firm was one of several major law firms that agreed to work with the Trump administration following the president's efforts to pressure the legal industry over prior political affiliations and diversity practices. A photo included in the suit shows O'Keefe holding a sign labeling Skadden “Trump's $100 million lap dog.”Ex-prosecutor sues over arrest while protesting law firm Skadden's deal with Trump | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Entrapment as DefenseOn December 19, 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sorrells v. United States, a case that reshaped how American courts evaluate government conduct in criminal investigations. The case involved a Prohibition-era prosecution in which a federal agent repeatedly pressured the defendant to obtain illegal liquor. The Court held that criminal convictions should not stand when the government induces a crime that the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit. This decision formally recognized entrapment as a valid defense under federal law.Rather than focusing only on the defendant's actions, the Court emphasized the importance of limiting improper law enforcement tactics. The majority opinion reasoned that Congress could not have intended criminal statutes to be enforced through deception that manufactures crime. As a result, courts were instructed to examine whether the criminal intent originated with the government or the accused. The ruling reflected growing concern about aggressive policing methods during Prohibition. Over time, Sorrells became a foundational case cited whenever defendants challenge undercover operations. The decision also highlighted the judiciary's role in supervising executive conduct in criminal prosecutions.The Trump administration has suspended the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program—commonly known as the green card lottery—following two high-profile campus attacks. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the move, stating that the suspect in the fatal shootings of a Brown University student and an MIT professor had entered the U.S. through the program. The shooter, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, a 48-year-old Portuguese national and former Brown student, was found dead in an apparent suicide. Noem said the pause is necessary to prevent further harm from what she called a “disastrous program.”The lottery program, which grants up to 50,000 green cards annually, has long been a target of Trump's immigration agenda, which links violent incidents to immigration policy failures. This suspension follows earlier actions by the administration, including visa restrictions after a separate shooting by an Afghan national and a proposal to impose a $100,000 application fee for H-1B work visas, which are heavily used in the tech industry.Trump's broader immigration crackdown also includes enhanced social media vetting for tourists, expanded ICE operations in major cities, and the development of large-scale immigration detention centers known as “mega centers.” These moves align with Trump's campaign promises to tighten border controls and execute large-scale deportations.Trump Suspends US Green Card Lottery After Brown, MIT AttacksTrump administration officials are scrambling to meet a Friday deadline to release a large cache of documents related to the Justice Department's investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. The release was mandated by a recently passed law, supported by both parties in Congress, following months of political pressure and public frustration over the administration's resistance to transparency. Though President Trump initially opposed the legislation, he reversed course shortly before the vote amid growing dissent from his own supporters.The new law permits the Justice Department to withhold certain details, including victims' identities and information tied to ongoing investigations. Attorneys in the department's National Security Division have been racing to redact sensitive data, raising internal concerns about the risk of mistakes, especially regarding private information. The tight timeline has disrupted other DOJ casework since Thanksgiving.Trump's handling of the Epstein matter has dented his support among Republicans, with only 44% approving of his actions, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll. This contrasts sharply with his broader 82% approval within the party. Critics argue that Trump's past friendship with Epstein and his failure to follow through on a 2024 campaign promise to declassify the records have fueled suspicions of a cover-up. While Trump has denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes and has not been accused of wrongdoing, past email disclosures have added to the controversy.As more emails emerge—some implying Trump's involvement, others suggesting no direct misconduct—the administration has tried to redirect attention toward figures like Bill Clinton and JPMorgan. But with midterms approaching, the Epstein file release may remain a political liability.Trump administration officials race to meet Friday deadline for Epstein files | ReutersWisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding for aiding a migrant in avoiding an immigration arrest at the courthouse, marking a significant legal win for the Trump administration's intensified immigration enforcement efforts. The jury acquitted Dugan on a lesser charge of concealing a person from arrest but convicted her on the more serious obstruction count. The case is part of a broader Justice Department campaign targeting local officials accused of interfering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.Prosecutors alleged that in 2023, Dugan helped Mexican national Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who faced domestic violence charges, avoid a planned ICE arrest by rerouting him and his lawyer through a restricted exit after confronting ICE agents stationed near her courtroom. Dugan, a former head of Catholic Charities and longtime legal aid attorney, argued she was following internal court policies meant to manage ICE activity in courthouses, especially after prior arrests caused confusion and concern.Flores-Ruiz was ultimately arrested outside the courthouse after a brief chase. The Justice Department framed the case as a message that even judges are not above the law when it comes to obstructing federal immigration enforcement. Critics, however, view courthouse arrests as damaging to the legal system's integrity, potentially deterring vulnerable individuals from seeking legal protection.Judge found guilty of obstructing arrest in Trump immigration crackdown | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week, I take down yet another One Big Beautiful Bill Act tax “reform” that, upon closer examination, isn't as great a deal as it may first seem.Starting in 2025, a new federal tax deduction allows taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on qualifying new car loans—but only under strict conditions. The car must be newly purchased (not leased or used), assembled in the U.S., and not used for business purposes. The deduction phases out for individuals earning over $100,000 and joint filers over $200,000, narrowing its reach to a slim demographic of middle- to upper-middle-income earners. While promoted as consumer relief amid high car prices and interest rates, critics argue it's a veiled subsidy for automakers, not a meaningful economic benefit for struggling Americans.The policy resembles the mortgage interest deduction, which has long been criticized for inflating home prices and disproportionately benefiting wealthier borrowers. Similarly, this car loan deduction doesn't lower car costs—it subsidizes borrowing, pushing consumers toward pricier new vehicles and encouraging debt accumulation. The IRS will also gain new data from lenders, who must now report annual interest paid, further expanding government oversight.Despite the flashy $10,000 cap, few borrowers will come close to that threshold. A typical new car loan might yield only a $600 annual tax benefit—negligible compared to high monthly payments and rapid depreciation. Rather than meaningful relief, the policy appears to be more of a political gesture, using tax code tweaks to create the illusion of support while primarily serving industry interests.‘No Tax On Car Loan Interest'—Tax Reform Or Facade?This week's closing theme is by Louis-Nicolas Clérambault.This week's closing theme comes from Clérambault, a French Baroque composer born on December 19, 1676, whose music captures the elegance and structure of early 18th-century Paris. Clérambault is best known today for his sacred cantatas and his refined works for keyboard and chamber ensemble. He spent much of his career as an organist, serving at prominent Paris churches and developing a style that balanced expressive melody with formal clarity. His music reflects the French taste for ornamentation while remaining grounded and disciplined.The piece featured here is Suite du premier ton: V. Basse et Dessus de Trompette, presented in a complete performance. This movement highlights the contrast between a strong bass line and a bright, trumpet-like upper voice, a hallmark of French Baroque color and texture. Rather than showcasing virtuosity for its own sake, the music emphasizes balance and conversation between parts. The result is confident and ceremonial, yet never overstated.As a closing theme, this work offers a sense of order and resolution, bringing the week to a measured and dignified close. Clérambault's writing reminds us that Baroque music was as much about structure and purpose as it was about beauty. His music endures because it is clear, expressive, and carefully crafted. Ending the week with this piece is a quiet nod to tradition, discipline, and lasting musical craft.Without further ado, Louis-Nicolas Clérambault's Suite du premier ton: V. Basse et Dessus de Trompette–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: Trump ImpeachedOn December 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump, marking the third presidential impeachment in American history. The impeachment followed a months-long investigation centered on Trump's dealings with Ukraine. House Democrats alleged that the president abused the powers of his office by pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival. A second article charged Trump with obstruction of Congress for directing executive branch officials not to comply with House subpoenas. The votes largely split along party lines, reflecting deep political polarization.Impeachment itself did not remove Trump from office, but instead formally accused him of constitutional wrongdoing. Under the Constitution, the House holds the sole power of impeachment, functioning similarly to a grand jury. Once impeached, the process shifted to the Senate, which is responsible for conducting a trial. Chief Justice John Roberts later presided over the Senate proceedings, as required when a president is tried. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in February 2020, falling short of the two-thirds vote needed for conviction. Despite the acquittal, the impeachment reinforced Congress's oversight authority over the executive branch. The episode also highlighted ongoing debates about the limits of presidential power and the role of impeachment as a constitutional check.A federal appeals court in Washington reversed an earlier ruling that would have allowed the Trump administration to move forward with mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Sitting as a full bench, the court blocked plans to cut as much as 90% of the agency's workforce and agreed to rehear the administration's appeal of a lower court order that had paused efforts to dismantle the bureau. As a result, the administration remains temporarily barred from gutting the agency while litigation continues. The legal fight has stretched on for months, during which the CFPB has been largely sidelined. Congress originally created the CFPB after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices by banks, lenders, and other financial companies. Its mission includes enforcing federal consumer financial laws and preventing the kinds of predatory conduct that helped trigger the financial collapse. Supporters of the agency, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, praised the ruling as necessary to shield families from financial harm.Critics within the Trump administration have argued the CFPB is politically motivated (as protecting consumers from predatory financial practices is political, apparently) and should be eliminated, though they have also claimed in court that some version of the agency would remain. Complicating matters further, the CFPB faces a funding dispute over whether it can draw money from the Federal Reserve, raising concerns that it could run out of operating funds.US appeals court tosses decision allowing Trump mass firings at consumer bureau | ReutersFull DC Circuit Will Review Trump's Bid to Dismantle CFPB (2)A group of leading medical organizations asked a federal judge to allow their lawsuit challenging vaccine policy changes under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to move forward. The groups argue that recent actions by Kennedy and the Department of Health and Human Services will reduce vaccination rates and endanger public health. They point to a directive removing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and children without advance notice or explanation. The lawsuit also challenges Kennedy's decision to dismiss 17 experts from a CDC advisory panel and replace them with members more aligned with his views. That reconstituted panel later voted to scale back broad vaccine recommendations, including limiting COVID-19 shots to shared decision-making with doctors and eliminating universal recommendations for certain childhood vaccines.The plaintiffs claim the panel was unlawfully reshaped in violation of federal law requiring advisory committees to be balanced and free from improper influence. Government lawyers argue the medical groups lack standing because the CDC's guidance merely advises consultation with doctors and does not directly harm them. The plaintiffs counter that they have been injured by having to divert resources to help doctors navigate confusing and abrupt policy shifts. The judge indicated skepticism toward the government's standing argument, particularly in light of statements suggesting doctors could face liability for deviating from CDC guidance. A ruling on whether the case can proceed is expected before a scheduled January hearing.US medical groups urge judge to allow challenge to Kennedy-backed vaccine policies to proceed | ReutersA federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., to remain in place while legal challenges continue. A three-judge panel said the administration was likely to succeed in defending the deployment, temporarily blocking a lower court order that would have ended it. The ruling gives Trump an interim victory as he claims broad authority to use troops for domestic law enforcement. The deployment began earlier in the year and expanded after two Guard members were shot near the White House. The judges emphasized that Washington, D.C.'s unique status—because it is not a state—strengthens presidential authority there. District officials who sued to stop the deployment said the decision is preliminary and does not resolve the underlying legal questions. The White House praised the ruling as confirmation of the president's lawful powers and credited the deployment with improving public safety. The case comes amid broader disputes over Trump's efforts to deploy troops in several major cities despite objections from local and state leaders. Lower courts have generally been skeptical of those efforts, rejecting claims that protests against federal immigration enforcement qualify as rebellions. The Supreme Court is widely expected to weigh in on the scope of presidential power in this area.US appeals court says Trump's National Guard deployment in DC may continue | ReutersTrump's DC Troop Deployment Gets Extension From US Appeals CourtA federal judge allowed President Donald Trump to continue work on a proposed White House ballroom, rejecting an emergency request from preservation advocates to immediately halt the project. The judge ruled that the National Trust failed to show imminent, irreparable harm that would justify stopping construction at this early stage. However, he cautioned that the government may be required to reverse certain underground work if it ends up locking in a specific design. The project involves replacing the demolished East Wing with a large ballroom that would be significantly bigger than prior White House renovations. Trump has described the ballroom as a privately funded project and recently increased its estimated cost. Preservationists argue the administration moved forward without required public input and bypassed federal planning and design review processes. The government countered that the design is still in flux and that above-ground construction will not begin for several months. Relying on those representations, the judge found no immediate risk of irreversible aesthetic damage. He scheduled another hearing to reconsider whether the project should be paused as the lawsuit continues. For now, construction may proceed while the court reviews whether the administration complied with historic preservation and planning laws.Judge allows Trump's ballroom project to proceed for now | 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: Project Blue Book EndsOn this day in legal history, December 17, 1969, the U.S. Air Force officially terminated Project Blue Book, its two-decade-long investigation into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Launched in 1952 during a peak in UFO sightings and Cold War anxiety, Project Blue Book reviewed over 12,000 reports of aerial phenomena. The Air Force concluded that most sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, aircraft, or hoaxes, and found no evidence of extraterrestrial activity or threats to national security. With its closure, the government effectively stepped back from public-facing UFO investigations, although some believe military interest continued behind closed doors.Legally, the end of Project Blue Book catalyzed decades of litigation and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as citizens, journalists, and researchers sought access to government-held UFO data. The skeptical legal view has often emphasized that classified information typically relates to military technology or surveillance programs, not alien spacecraft. Despite popular culture's fixation on extraterrestrials, courts have routinely deferred to executive branch claims of national security in resisting full transparency.While the project's conclusion did not trigger direct legislation, it helped shape a legal culture around government secrecy, classification standards, and the public's right to know. It also fueled persistent legal tension between conspiratorial narratives and evidentiary standards. As UFOs—now reframed as “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAPs)—have resurfaced in congressional hearings in recent years, Blue Book remains a touchstone for the limits of disclosure and the enduring gap between public curiosity and provable claims.Skepticism remains warranted: decades later, no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim of extraterrestrial contact—despite tens of thousands of pages released and re-litigated under FOIA.U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston expressed openness to again striking down a Trump policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that permit deportation to countries other than a migrant's country of origin, often with as little as six hours' notice. Judge Murphy had previously issued an injunction in April to halt such deportations, arguing they violated due process, but the Supreme Court paused that order in June via its “shadow docket” without providing detailed reasoning.Despite acknowledging the likely involvement of the Supreme Court again, Murphy indicated that he may still rule on the merits of the case, though any decision would likely be temporarily stayed. The lawsuit, a class action, targets a DHS memo from March and guidance from July that permits deportations based on “credible” diplomatic assurances. Plaintiffs argue these policies fall short of constitutional protections, while the Justice Department insists migrants already have opportunities to raise objections during proceedings. The judge criticized the lack of clarity from the Supreme Court's earlier intervention and emphasized the importance of due process in removal proceedings.US judge open to again striking down Trump policy on third-country deportations | ReutersA Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge has argued that constitutional rights do not extend to immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully, a position he laid out in a partial dissent in a Second Amendment case. Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar agreed with upholding a federal ban on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants but rejected the majority's reasoning. Instead, he argued the case should have been resolved by declaring that only U.S. citizens are included in “the people” protected by the Constitution. Thapar relied heavily on the Constitution's preamble and an originalist reading of history, asserting that the Founders never intended constitutional protections to apply to non-citizens, especially those unlawfully present.The majority opinion rejected that framing, pointing to Supreme Court precedent recognizing that non-citizens who develop substantial connections to the country may invoke constitutional rights. Thapar went further, suggesting that even the First and Fourth Amendments were not originally meant to protect non-citizens. The case arose from a challenge by a Guatemalan national convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms, but Thapar's reasoning reached far beyond gun regulation. His dissent echoes arguments long advanced by the Trump administration and aligns with his status as a former Trump Supreme Court shortlist candidate.From my perspective, this is a racist, xenophobic, and profoundly ahistorical take that threatens to usher in a shameful new era of American jurisprudence. It reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law or a wanton, careerist obsequiousness to Trumpism, delivered with the unmistakable tone of someone auditioning for a Supreme Court seat while extolling the flavor of boot. Judge Thapar is an embarrassment to the bench.Judge Thapar's theory represents a fundamental shift away from the traditional understanding of constitutional rights as inherent and inalienable—that is, rights present in every individual that the government is bound to respect, not rights it doles out at its discretion. By asserting that non-citizens, especially those here unlawfully, are not part of “the people” and therefore not entitled to constitutional protections, Thapar effectively treats these rights as government-bestowed privileges rather than limits on state power–that should frighten citizens, as well.But if rights are inherent, as our legal tradition holds, and yet non-citizens don't possess them, the implication is clear: they are being denied not because of legal status, but because of a presumed inferiority. That's not a theory of constitutional law—it's a supremacist framework gussied up in originalist language.Trump-appointed judge argues US Constitution's rights do not extend to non-citizens | Reuters3-D animator Eric Ryder filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in California federal court against Disney and director James Cameron, alleging that the 2022 film Avatar: The Way of Water copied substantial elements from his science fiction story KRZ. Ryder claims he collaborated with Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment in the late 1990s on developing a film based on KRZ, and that key features of Avatar 2—including anthropomorphic beings, a vast oceanic world, and an exploitative Earth corporation mining a moon called Europa—mirror those from his work.Ryder previously sued over the first Avatar film in 2011, but that case was dismissed when a California state court ruled Cameron had created Avatar before Ryder submitted his material. Ryder insists this new case is not an attempt to relitigate the past, but rather to address new alleged acts of copying specific to The Way of Water, such as the central plot point involving an animal-based substance that extends human life, which he says did not appear in the original Avatar.Ryder is seeking at least $500 million in damages and a court order to block the release of the upcoming Avatar 3: Fire and Ash. His lawyer described the alleged copying as “blatant and egregious.” Disney and Lightstorm have not yet commented publicly on the lawsuit.Disney, James Cameron sued for copyright infringement over ‘Avatar' | 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: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court's approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State's minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court's posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court's conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt's controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it's a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida's unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC's position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump's legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled streaming service—and possibly distributed in North America through licensing deals with Canadian firm Blue Ant Media.Legal experts say Trump faces a high bar in U.S. courts under First Amendment standards. He must prove not only that the edited content was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The BBC may argue that the content was substantially accurate and did not materially harm Trump's reputation. Other networks, including CBS and ABC, previously settled defamation claims with Trump after his 2024 election victory.Trump seeks up to $10 billion in damages from BBC over editing of January 6 speech | ReutersU.S. law school enrollment surged 8% in 2025, reaching a 13-year high with 42,817 first-year students, according to new data from the American Bar Association. The increase follows an 18% rise in law school applicants and continues a multi-year upward trend, fueled by a mix of economic uncertainty, political intensity, and a growing interest in legal careers. The sluggish job market for college graduates, coupled with the centrality of legal issues during Donald Trump's second presidential term, has contributed to renewed interest in law degrees.A significant number of prospective students also cited personal and social motivations. A survey of 15,000 LSAT takers found rising interest in using law degrees to “help others” and “advocate for social justice,” with both reasons seeing double-digit percentage increases over last year. The pool of LSAT test-takers has grown as well, signaling likely continued enrollment growth in 2026.Some elite law schools, including Harvard, enrolled their largest first-year classes in over a decade. However, the long-term outlook remains uncertain. Legal employment has been strong in recent years, with the class of 2024 posting record job placement, but experts warn that advances in artificial intelligence could reduce demand for new associates—particularly at large firms offering high salaries. Smaller sectors like government and public interest law may struggle to absorb excess graduates if hiring slows.US job market, politics fuel 8% surge in law school enrollment | ReutersDonald Trump's controversial plan to build a $300 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds is facing its first legal challenge in federal court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and several federal agencies, alleging that the demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom violated multiple preservation laws and bypassed required reviews. The group is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt ongoing construction, citing irreversible damage to the historic structure.Since returning to office in January, Trump has made high-profile aesthetic changes to the White House, including installing gold accents in the Oval Office and converting the Rose Garden lawn into a patio modeled after Mar-a-Lago. But the scale and visibility of the ballroom project has drawn particularly intense criticism, especially as heavy machinery was seen dismantling the 120-year-old East Wing.The lawsuit argues that no president, including Trump, has the unilateral authority to alter protected parts of the White House without following procedures involving public input and reviews by agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.The administration defended the project as lawful, citing historical precedent and presidential authority to modify the executive residence. It emphasized that above-ground construction was not scheduled to begin until April, rendering emergency relief unnecessary. Still, the National Trust contends that public consultation and proper approvals are not optional and must be upheld regardless of the project's timeline or presidential status.Trump's $300 million White House ballroom makeover faces day in court | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must extend the deadline for states to implement new immigration-related restrictions on food aid benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in Oregon, came in response to a lawsuit brought by 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The states argued they were not given adequate time or clarity to comply with the new rules, which were tied to President Donald Trump's domestic policy legislation passed in July.The USDA had initially set a November 1 deadline for states to comply with the restrictions, which limit SNAP benefits to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. However, the guidance issued on October 31 created confusion by implying that some lawful residents—such as those who entered the U.S. as asylees or refugees—were ineligible, contrary to what the law allowed. The USDA later revised the guidance, but still maintained the November 1 deadline.Judge Kasubhai extended the grace period for compliance until April 9, finding the original deadline arbitrary and harmful to state budgets. He noted that the USDA's sudden guidance rollout undermined states' ability to respond and eroded trust in federal-state cooperation. The ruling blocks the USDA from penalizing states that don't meet the earlier deadline while the lawsuit proceeds.USDA must give states more time to implement new food aid restrictions, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Bill of Rights RatifiedOn December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was officially ratified, marking a foundational moment in American legal history. With Virginia becoming the crucial eleventh state to approve the measure, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution achieved the three-fourths majority required for adoption. These amendments were crafted in response to fears that the newly formed federal government might trample on individual freedoms, a concern strongly voiced by the Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification debates. Drafted primarily by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was intended to secure essential civil liberties and limit government power.The amendments enshrine core protections such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also provide important rights to those accused of crimes, including the right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. At the time, these provisions applied only to the federal government, but their scope was later expanded through the Incorporation Doctrine using the Fourteenth Amendment.The ratification of the Bill of Rights represented a political compromise but ultimately became a defining element of American constitutional identity. Over the centuries, courts have invoked these amendments in countless rulings, from free speech cases to gun rights and due process protections. The Bill of Rights not only shapes modern legal debates but also remains a symbol of the nation's enduring commitment to individual liberty and the rule of law. Its ratification on this day in 1791 continues to influence how justice is understood and delivered in the United States.Judge Hannah Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is on trial for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest in her courtroom, a case seen as a test of Donald Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement policies. Federal prosecutors accuse Dugan of helping a Mexican migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade arrest by redirecting ICE agents and escorting the defendant through a non-public exit after his hearing. Dugan, who has been suspended from the bench, has pleaded not guilty to charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings.Prosecutors claim she acted corruptly and misled law enforcement, allegedly showing anger when she learned of ICE's presence and insisting a judicial warrant was needed. Dugan's defense argues she acted in good faith, following courthouse policy designed to handle ICE encounters after previous controversial arrests. The trial highlights growing legal and political tensions around courthouse arrests, which critics say intimidate immigrants and undermine trust in the legal system. The outcome could influence how far judges and local officials can go in pushing back against federal immigration actions.Wisconsin judge faces trial for stopping courtroom arrest of migrant in Trump crackdown | ReutersCalifornia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting over $33 million in federal grants intended for commercial vehicle safety programs. The U.S. Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Sean Duffy, justified the funding termination by claiming California failed to properly enforce English proficiency requirements for truck drivers. California argues its standards align with federal rules and called the decision unlawful and harmful to public safety and the economy.The lawsuit comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to crack down on non-English-speaking and non-U.S. citizen truck drivers. This includes halting commercial driver visas and threatening similar funding cuts in states like New York and Minnesota. The administration has also targeted Democrat-led states for other transportation-related penalties. In California's case, the withheld funds were designated for safety inspections, audits, traffic enforcement, and education programs.California contends that its licensed drivers are involved in significantly fewer fatal crashes than the national average, challenging the administration's justification. The legal dispute reflects escalating tensions between federal agencies and Democratic states over immigration and transportation enforcement.California sues Trump administration over terminated transportation grants | ReutersA federal judge ruled that evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former attorney for ex-FBI Director James Comey, was wrongfully retained by prosecutors, presenting a hurdle for any new charges against Comey. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the Department of Justice to return the files but allowed a sealed copy to remain with the court should prosecutors later obtain a valid warrant. Richman had filed a lawsuit claiming the DOJ had improperly held onto materials seized during an investigation that ended in 2021 without charges.While the judge found the DOJ's actions amounted to an unreasonable seizure, she declined to prevent the department from pursuing future leads based on the information already reviewed. The seized files had been used earlier this year to support an indictment against Comey, accusing him of making false statements and obstructing Congress over his 2020 testimony.That indictment, along with one against New York Attorney General Letitia James, was dismissed last month after it was found the prosecutor involved had been unlawfully appointed. The judge's ruling now complicates the DOJ's ability to revive its case against Comey, a frequent critic of Donald Trump and a central figure in past investigations into Trump's conduct.Judge says Comey evidence was wrongfully retained, creating hurdle for new charges | ReutersA California jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women who claimed its talc-based baby powder caused their ovarian cancer. The jury awarded $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband, finding the company failed to warn consumers despite allegedly knowing of the product's risks for decades. Both women testified that they used the powder for over 40 years and have undergone extensive cancer treatments since their diagnoses in 2014 and 2018.J&J denies the product causes cancer and plans to appeal the verdict, calling it an “aberrant” outcome. The company points out that no major U.S. health agency has definitively linked talc to ovarian cancer and argues that plaintiffs' claims rely solely on legal arguments rather than scientific consensus.This is the first talc trial to move forward since J&J's latest bankruptcy attempt, aimed at resolving over 67,000 similar lawsuits, was rejected by the courts. The company previously stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020. While it has faced some large verdicts—including a $4.69 billion award in a past case—it has also won dismissals and reductions on appeal. In addition to ovarian cancer claims, J&J is also facing suits linking its talc products to mesothelioma, with some recent verdicts exceeding $900 million.Jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women in latest talc trial | 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: Bush v. GoreOn December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Bush v. Gore, effectively ending the Florida recount and resolving the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The per curiam opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for ordering a manual recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to inconsistent standards across counties. The Court also ruled that there was not enough time to implement a constitutionally valid recount before the deadline for certifying electors.The decision was one of the most controversial in the Court's history. It was split 5-4 along ideological lines, with the majority—led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor—arguing that allowing the recount to continue would irreparably harm Bush. The dissent, written by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter, criticized the majority for intervening in a state election process and undermining public confidence in judicial neutrality.The ruling effectively awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush, giving him 271 electoral votes—one more than needed to win the presidency—despite losing the national popular vote to Al Gore. The case remains a flashpoint in debates over judicial activism, the politicization of the courts, and the role of federal courts in state election matters. It also raised enduring questions about election integrity and the limits of judicial power in resolving political disputes.The watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Commerce and Justice Departments, demanding records of legal arrangements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms. The group had submitted eight Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in October seeking details about agreements in which the firms pledged to provide nearly $940 million in pro bono or discounted legal services to the federal government. After receiving inadequate responses, the group took legal action to compel the release of any related contracts, communications, or internal legal analyses.The agreements were announced by Trump earlier in the year on social media, shortly after he issued executive orders targeting law firms for their previous political and diversity-related work. American Oversight is particularly concerned about whether the deals were transparent and whether they might have influenced government policy or enforcement decisions. Several firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps—were reported to have been involved in trade matters or other projects with the administration. None of the firms or the agencies responded to requests for comment.This lawsuit follows a similar legal action by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which alleged in October that related federal record requests had been improperly denied. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also asked several of the firms to explain their government work, but the firms declined, citing client confidentiality and discretion in matter selection.Trump administration sued for records of law firm deals | ReutersA federal judge blocked a renewed attempt by immigration authorities to detain Kilmar Abrego, just one day after his court-ordered release from ICE custody in Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had previously ordered Abrego's temporary release, but an immigration judge quickly issued a new directive requiring him to report back to detention by the following morning. In response, Abrego's attorneys filed an emergency request to stop the re-detention, which Xinis granted.In her ruling, Judge Xinis emphasized that judicial decisions must be respected and cannot be reversed hastily without due process. Abrego's case has drawn national attention, serving as a high-profile example of what critics view as the Trump administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics. Originally deported in March to El Salvador under disputed circumstances, Abrego was returned to the U.S. in June to face charges related to human smuggling.Supporters argue his case reflects serious due process violations, while administration officials have maintained he poses a public safety risk. The legal tug-of-war over Abrego's detention has become emblematic of broader legal and political conflicts surrounding immigration enforcement and civil liberties under the Trump administration.Judge blocks new effort to detain Kilmar Abrego | ReutersA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it attempted to terminate a FEMA program designed to help states prepare for natural disasters. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns sided with a coalition of 20 mostly Democratic-led states, finding that the administration overstepped its authority by trying to cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and redirect its funds elsewhere without congressional approval.The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, had labeled the program wasteful and politically driven when it moved to end it in April. Judge Stearns rejected that rationale, emphasizing that Congress—not the executive branch—has the power to decide how federal funds are spent. He previously issued an order in August blocking FEMA from diverting more than $4 billion in BRIC funding. In this latest decision, he ordered the program reinstated and required FEMA to take immediate steps to undo its termination.Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling, stating it would save lives by preserving funding for critical infrastructure improvements meant to prevent disaster-related harm. The Department of Homeland Security, in contrast, denied that it had ended BRIC and accused the court of siding with a politicized narrative, claiming the program had been misused by the Biden administration.Since its launch, BRIC has approved over $4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 disaster mitigation projects, many located in vulnerable coastal states. The lawsuit, led by states like Washington and Massachusetts, argued that canceling the program delayed or canceled hundreds of vital community projects aimed at reducing disaster risk.Trump administration unlawfully canceled disaster prevention program, US judge rules | ReutersPresident Trump announced an executive order threatening to withhold federal broadband funding from states with AI regulations deemed obstructive to national technological dominance. The order targets state-level laws that the administration argues create a fragmented, burdensome environment for AI innovation, particularly for startups. Trump emphasized the need for a single, centralized regulatory system, positioning the U.S. to compete more aggressively with China in the AI sector.The order authorizes the Commerce Department to review state AI laws and restrict access to the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment fund for non-compliant states. It also criticizes anti-discrimination measures in states like Colorado, claiming such laws inject “ideological bias” into AI development. While the administration supports certain safeguards, such as child protection, it aims to dismantle what it sees as excessive oversight.Critics argue the move undermines state authority and risks public safety. Representative Don Beyer warned the order violates the 10th Amendment and discourages meaningful congressional action. State leaders from both parties have defended their right to regulate AI, citing the federal government's inaction on tech legislation. States like New York, California, and Florida have already enacted laws addressing AI's risks, from data transparency to deepfake bans.Trump threatens funding for states over AI regulations | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Abigail Leahey and her classmates.This week, we are proud to present a performance of singular clarity, youthful ambition, and the product of more than a little bit of dedicated practice: The First Scale March, recorded live on December 10th at a school Winter Concert. Its thematic simplicity belies its pedagogical complexity: it is equal parts warm-up and war cry. The holidays are upon us.The featured artist, Abigail, is one of several violins. She was born in New Jersey in 2014 and has been defying expectations and delighting her family ever since. A gifted writer, illustrator, softball player, and—crucially—violinist, she began studying the instrument in earnest in early 2025. In a bold display of ambidextrous courage, she agreed to learn the instrument right-handed.Abigail's musical sensibility combines the raw urgency of a student recital with the unmistakable rhythmic intensity of a group trying very hard to play the same tempo at the same time. Her phrasing evokes a deep respect for the discipline of practice; she has come a long way—and is still going.We are honored to showcase this piece as a representative work from a performer at the dawn of her musical journey, backed by a supporting cast of equally determined string players. With hearts full and bows raised, they march forward—one note at a time. 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: Madoff ArrestedOn December 11, 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested by federal agents and charged with securities fraud, marking the start of one of the most consequential white-collar crime cases in American legal history. Madoff, a former NASDAQ chairman and respected figure in the investment world, confessed to running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors—individuals, charities, and institutional clients—out of an estimated $65 billion. The legal scheme unraveled when Madoff admitted to his sons that the business was “one big lie,” prompting them to alert authorities. Prosecutors swiftly brought charges under multiple statutes, including securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, perjury, and false statements.The Department of Justice pursued criminal charges while the SEC, heavily criticized for prior inaction, launched civil enforcement actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Madoff waived indictment and pleaded guilty on March 12, 2009, to 11 felony counts without a plea deal. He was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison—the statutory maximum—and ordered to forfeit $170.8 billion, reflecting the full scope of the fraud. The case catalyzed intense scrutiny of the SEC's oversight failures and led to internal reforms within the agency, including new whistleblower protections and enhanced enforcement procedures.In the bankruptcy proceedings under SIPA (Securities Investor Protection Act), trustee Irving Picard was appointed to recover funds for victims, using clawback lawsuits under fraudulent transfer laws to retrieve ill-gotten gains from those who had profited—wittingly or not. The legal theories underpinning those suits, including the application of actual and constructive fraud standards, sparked complex litigation that continues to shape bankruptcy and securities jurisprudence. Madoff's arrest also prompted Congress to review gaps in financial regulation, laying groundwork for reforms later codified in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.Jury selection began in the federal trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping a Mexican migrant avoid arrest by U.S. immigration agents. The case, brought by the Trump administration's Justice Department, charges Dugan with concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings, alleging she deliberately diverted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and allowed the migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to exit through a non-public courthouse door following a domestic violence hearing.Federal prosecutors argue that Dugan acted corruptly, citing her visible anger upon learning that ICE agents were present and her claim that a judicial warrant was required for the arrest—an assertion prosecutors say was false. Flores-Ruiz was ultimately arrested outside the courthouse after a brief chase.Dugan's defense contends that she was navigating unclear rules around courthouse immigration enforcement and had sought guidance from court leadership days earlier. Her legal team maintains she was not trying to obstruct justice but rather to understand what rules applied.The case illustrates the broader tension between local judicial discretion and federal immigration enforcement under Trump's expanded deportation policies, which have included more aggressive operations in local courthouses. Critics argue such tactics deter immigrants from accessing courts and undermine public confidence in the legal system.Dugan, a judge since 2016 and formerly head of Catholic Charities in Milwaukee, has been suspended from the bench pending the outcome of the trial. Her prosecution echoes an earlier Trump-era case against a Massachusetts judge accused of similar conduct—charges that were later dropped during the Biden administration.Wisconsin judge on trial as Trump administration targets immigration enforcement resistance | ReutersThe Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department to block its decision to feature President Donald Trump's image on the 2026 America the Beautiful national parks annual pass. The group argues the move violates the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act of 2004, which requires the pass to display the winning photograph from a public contest depicting natural scenery or wildlife in a national park or forest.This year's winning photo—a landscape of Glacier National Park—was allegedly discarded in favor of a close-up image of Trump, posed beside George Washington, without any new contest or congressional approval. The lawsuit calls the switch an unlawful act of self-promotion and criticizes it as an attempt to turn a public symbol into a personal branding tool.Adding to the controversy, the lawsuit claims that the Glacier photo was demoted to a new $250 pass for foreign visitors, part of Trump's newly introduced “America-first” admissions system. The updated pricing structure and design were part of a broader Interior Department announcement touting “modernization” of park access.The lawsuit also highlights changes to the free admission calendar, noting that Trump's birthday (June 14) was added as a holiday, while existing free days honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and Juneteenth were eliminated. These shifts coincide with Trump's efforts to slash the national parks budget and workforce while raising fees for international visitors.Lawsuit seeks to keep Trump's face off of national parks annual pass | ReutersIn a piece for Forbes this week I unpacked the misleading claim that Social Security is no longer taxed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Despite bold headlines and political messaging to the contrary, Social Security remains taxable, just as it has been since 1983. What the bill actually includes is an expanded senior-specific deduction—$6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples—that may reduce taxable income, but doesn't isolate or exempt Social Security from taxation in any way.The structure of Social Security taxation—where up to 85% of benefits can be taxed for higher-income seniors—remains untouched. What changed is that some seniors, depending on income and deductions, might now end up paying less tax, including on Social Security, not because the income is tax-exempt, but because the overall taxable income has been reduced. This is a fungible deduction, applicable to any income source, not a targeted policy shift.The White House's messaging reframes a broad-based, temporary deduction as a specific, permanent tax relief for seniors, creating confusion. While some retirees may see a tax reduction, the underlying rules that govern when and how Social Security is taxed have not changed, and inflation-adjusted thresholds that pull more seniors into taxability remain. The deduction itself expires in 2028, unlike other OBBBA provisions that benefit wealthier taxpayers and corporations.The element worth highlighting is the difference between a deduction and an exemption, and how political messaging often blurs this. Deductions reduce taxable income; exemptions remove specific income from taxation entirely. In this case, branding a general deduction as a Social Security exemption is both legally inaccurate and politically strategic—obscuring the truth behind a familiar and emotionally charged issue.The Truth About ‘No Tax On Social Security'The estate of an 83-year-old woman filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their chatbot, ChatGPT, played a central role in a tragic murder-suicide in Connecticut. The suit claims that Stein-Erik Soelberg, a 56-year-old man experiencing delusions, had been interacting for months with GPT-4o, which allegedly validated and intensified his paranoid beliefs, ultimately leading him to kill his mother, Suzanne Adams, before taking his own life.The complaint, filed in California Superior Court, accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of product liability, negligence, and wrongful death, arguing that the chatbot systematically encouraged Soelberg's psychosis—affirming fantasies about divine missions, assassination attempts, and even identifying his mother as an operative. The plaintiffs argue that Microsoft shares liability because it benefited directly from the deployment of GPT-4o and played a role in bringing the model to market.This is the first known lawsuit to link ChatGPT to a homicide, though it follows a growing number of legal actions that claim the AI system has fostered delusions and contributed to suicides. OpenAI denies wrongdoing, emphasizing efforts to improve mental health safeguards and noting that newer models have significantly reduced inappropriate responses in emotionally sensitive conversations.The suit also names OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as a defendant and cites Soelberg's social media posts as evidence of his deteriorating mental state and dependence on the chatbot. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and a court order to compel OpenAI to implement stronger safety measures. The law firm behind the case, Edelson PC, is also representing a similar lawsuit involving a California teenager's suicide allegedly linked to ChatGPT.OpenAI, Microsoft Sued Over Murder-Suicide Blamed on ChatGPT 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: Gregory v. ChicagoOn this day in legal history, December 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gregory v. City of Chicago, a case involving the arrest of civil rights demonstrators under a local disorderly conduct ordinance. The demonstrators, led by comedian and activist Dick Gregory, had peacefully marched from Chicago's City Hall to the home of Mayor Richard J. Daley to protest school segregation. Though the march itself remained nonviolent, an unruly crowd of onlookers gathered, prompting police to demand that the demonstrators disperse. When they refused, Gregory and others were arrested and later convicted of disorderly conduct.The key legal issue before the Court was whether the demonstrators' First Amendment rights had been violated when they were punished for the hostile reactions of bystanders. In a per curiam opinion issued the following year, the Court reversed the convictions, holding that the peaceful demonstrators could not be held criminally liable for the disruptive behavior of others. Justice Black, concurring, emphasized that the First Amendment protects peaceful expression even in the face of public opposition or discomfort.The case is a critical reaffirmation of the “heckler's veto” doctrine — the principle that the government cannot suppress speech simply because it provokes a hostile reaction. It underscored the constitutional duty to protect unpopular or provocative speech, especially in the context of civil rights protests. The Court's decision also reinforced the due process requirement that criminal statutes must be applied in a way that is not arbitrary or overbroad.Gregory v. City of Chicago remains a foundational case in First Amendment jurisprudence and protest law, balancing public order concerns against the fundamental rights of assembly and expression.The Trump administration's proposed repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) definition of “harm” could significantly weaken protections for imperiled species in federally managed forests, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The change would limit the ESA's scope to cover only direct physical injury to species, excluding habitat destruction from regulation. Environmental groups argue this could devastate species like the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, both of which depend on old-growth forests increasingly targeted for logging under recent federal mandates. Legal experts warn that without habitat protections, ESA enforcement becomes largely ineffective, as species cannot survive without suitable environments. The rollback is expected to reduce permitting requirements for developers and extractive industries, a move welcomed by business groups but opposed by conservationists.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initially defined “harm” in 1981 to include habitat degradation, but now argues that interpretation overextends the ESA's intent. Logging has already surged in owl and murrelet habitats, especially in Oregon, with timber sales up 20% in 2025. Population declines among spotted owls—down 70% since 1990—are linked to habitat loss and competition from invasive barred owls. Critics of the repeal emphasize that previous conservation plans, like the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, successfully slowed species decline by curbing old-growth logging. Industry groups argue the ESA has been “weaponized” to block necessary forest management and wildfire prevention. Meanwhile, lawsuits are brewing on both sides: environmentalists are expected to challenge the rollback, while timber interests seek to overturn broader habitat protections.Trump's Changes to What Harms Species Adds Risk in Logging AreasThe U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case involving Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama death row inmate whose death sentence was overturned after a federal court found him intellectually disabled. The dispute centers on how courts should interpret multiple IQ scores and other evidence when determining whether someone meets the legal criteria for intellectual disability. This analysis is critical because, in 2002's Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.Smith, now 55, was sentenced to death for the 1997 killing of Durk Van Dam during a robbery. His IQ scores have ranged from 72 to 78, but the lower court applied the standard margin of error, concluding his true score could fall below 70. The court also found substantial, lifelong deficits in adaptive functioning, including challenges in social skills, independent living, and academics. These findings led the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the decision to set aside his death sentence.Alabama officials argue the courts erred by evaluating Smith's IQ scores collectively rather than individually. The Supreme Court previously asked the 11th Circuit to clarify its reasoning, and the court responded that it used a holistic approach, incorporating expert testimony and broader evidence of disability. Now back before the Supreme Court, the case could refine or reshape how courts nationwide assess intellectual disability in capital cases. A ruling is expected by June.US Supreme Court to weigh death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling | ReutersJack Smith, the former special counsel who led federal prosecutions against Donald Trump, is launching a new law firm alongside three other high-profile former prosecutors: Tim Heaphy, David Harbach, and Thomas Windom. All four attorneys have extensive backgrounds in public service and were involved in major investigations into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents. The new firm, expected to begin operations in January, will offer full-service legal work, including litigation and investigations, with a mission rooted in integrity and zealous advocacy.Heaphy, who previously served as the lead investigator for the House committee probing the January 6th Capitol attack, is leaving his position at Willkie Farr & Gallagher to help found the firm. That firm had drawn criticism for its dealings with Trump but has defended its actions. The Justice Department and members of the new firm declined to comment on the launch.Smith had dropped the Trump prosecutions following Trump's 2024 election win, citing the DOJ's policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Trump's administration has since condemned those cases, firing multiple DOJ and FBI officials and claiming political bias. Smith maintains the investigations were legitimate and nonpartisan. He is expected to testify behind closed doors before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee next week.Trump prosecutor Jack Smith to launch firm with ex-Justice Department lawyers | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has announced new federal charges against Victoria Eduardovna Dubranova, a Ukrainian national accused of aiding Russian-aligned cyberattack groups targeting critical infrastructure. The latest indictment, filed in Los Angeles, links Dubranova to the group NoName057(16), which prosecutors say has carried out hundreds of cyberattacks globally, many aimed at essential services like food and water systems. These alleged actions are said to pose serious national security risks.Dubranova had already been extradited to the U.S. earlier in 2025 to face charges related to another Russian-backed hacking group known as CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn (CARR). She now faces conspiracy charges in both cases and has pleaded not guilty. Trials are scheduled for February 2026 (NoName) and April 2026 (CARR). Prosecutors allege both groups receive financial backing from the Russian government, though the Russian embassy has not commented on the case.The Justice Department emphasized that it will continue to pursue cyber threats tied to state-sponsored or proxy actors. The U.S. State Department is offering up to $10 million for information on NoName operatives and up to $2 million for tips on CARR affiliates.Justice Department unveils new charges in alleged Russia-backed cyberattacks | 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 Intervenes in 2000 Presidential ElectionOn this day in legal history, December 9, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in the presidential election with a pivotal order in Bush v. Gore. The Court issued a 5-4 decision to halt the manual recount of ballots in Florida, which had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court due to the razor-thin margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The justices cited potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause, expressing concern that differing standards across counties for evaluating ballots could lead to unequal treatment of voters.The per curiam order did not decide the case outright but signaled deep skepticism about the recount process, effectively pausing it while the Court considered broader constitutional questions. This stay was the first significant sign that the nation's highest court might ultimately decide the outcome of the 2000 election. Three days later, the Court would issue its final ruling, effectively awarding Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush and securing his presidency.The December 9 order was controversial not only for its impact on the election but for its constitutional implications. Critics argued the Court had overstepped by interfering in a state-managed election process, while supporters claimed it was necessary to ensure legal consistency and fairness. The episode raised enduring questions about the judiciary's role in democratic governance and electoral integrity.The Court's use of the Equal Protection Clause in this context was novel and has rarely been invoked in similar cases since. The justices themselves noted that the ruling was limited to the specific circumstances of the 2000 election. Nevertheless, the decision left a lasting mark on American law and politics, serving as a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can intersect with high-stakes political conflict.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to federal campaign finance limits in a case involving Vice President JD Vance and two Republican political committees. The case targets restrictions on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates they support, with plaintiffs arguing that these limits violate the First Amendment's free speech protections. The legal challenge stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed while Vance was running for Senate in Ohio.At issue are “coordinated party expenditure limits” under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which differentiates between independent spending (unlimited) and coordinated spending (restricted). The challengers argue that the current rules unconstitutionally restrict political speech by capping how much support a party can directly offer its candidates. In contrast, Roman Martinez, appointed by the Court to defend the law after the Trump-aligned FEC declined to do so, argues that without these limits, parties could act as loopholes for donors to evade individual contribution caps—raising corruption risks.A lower court upheld the law, citing a 2001 Supreme Court precedent, but the challengers now argue that subsequent changes in campaign finance law—especially since Citizens United—warrant a reassessment. Three Democratic campaign committees have joined the case to defend the law, represented by attorney Marc Elias. The outcome could significantly reshape the balance between campaign finance regulation and political speech, especially in high-stakes federal elections.US Supreme Court weighs challenge to campaign spending curbs in JD Vance case | ReutersMassachusetts is taking legal action to block Kalshi, a prediction-market platform, from allowing residents to bet on sports outcomes, arguing the company is operating as an unlicensed gambling business. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is seeking a preliminary injunction in state court to stop Kalshi's operations in Massachusetts, marking the first time a U.S. state has pursued a court order against the platform. At least nine other states have issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, but none have yet gone this far.Kalshi offers users the ability to buy “event contracts” on the outcomes of various occurrences—including sporting events—through a platform regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The company maintains that its activities are legal under federal law, claiming its contracts are financial derivatives (swaps), not wagers, and thus fall outside the scope of state gambling laws.Massachusetts disagrees, alleging that Kalshi is effectively offering sports betting to users, including individuals as young as 18—below the state's legal betting age of 21. The case highlights a growing tension between federal financial regulation and state-level gambling laws. Kalshi's position has already faced judicial setbacks: federal judges in Nevada and Maryland have ruled that state gambling laws apply to Kalshi's operations, though those decisions are under appeal. Meanwhile, the company has pending legal challenges against other states, including New York and Connecticut.Massachusetts seeks to block Kalshi from operating sports-prediction market | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Loudoun County School Board in Virginia, challenging its policy that allows transgender students to use locker rooms aligned with their gender identity. The DOJ claims the policy violates the constitutional rights of religious students who object to “gender ideology,” framing the case as a denial of equal protection rooted in religious freedom concerns. This lawsuit is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to roll back transgender-inclusive policies in schools, sports, and the military.The Loudoun County school board has maintained its gender policy despite federal pressure, citing prior court rulings supporting the rights of transgender students to use facilities aligned with their identity. Critics, including state officials, claim the school has retaliated against students and parents who objected to the policy, particularly in cases involving locker room complaints.The case represents a new front in an escalating legal and political campaign to police gender expression and access, using constitutional arguments around religion and sex-based rights to challenge trans inclusion in public spaces. This comes amid a broader moral panic over gender identity, echoing the structure and rhetoric of the 1980s satanic panic—but with even more tangible consequences, especially for already marginalized transgender youth. While the panic of that earlier era was rooted in fabricated threats, today's version is targeting real people, shaping policies that affect their education, safety, and public presence.US Justice Department sues Virginia school board over transgender use of locker rooms | ReutersIn my latest column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Texas' new sales tax sourcing rules expose the shaky logic behind decades of municipal incentives for fulfillment centers—and offer a timely reason to abandon the practice altogether. The recent revision to Rule 3.334 by the Texas Comptroller clarifies that a location must actively receive customer orders—not merely fulfill them—to count as a “place of business” for local tax purposes. That change has triggered a lawsuit from the City of Coppell and other Texas municipalities, who now stand to lose out on lucrative sales tax revenue tied to online commerce routed through local warehouses.But regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, I believe the real issue is the flawed economic development model these cities have been relying on. For years, under Chapter 380 agreements, municipalities handed out infrastructure upgrades and tax rebates to lure backend logistics operations with promises of rising sales tax revenue. Yet these facilities, often low-wage, temporary, and increasingly automated, were never a strong foundation for community growth. Their value was always tied to creative interpretations of tax code language—not meaningful employment or local investment.Now that the tax arbitrage game is falling apart, municipalities should see this as an opportunity to rethink their approach. I argue for redirecting public resources toward workforce development, technical training, and support for regionally rooted industries—investments that actually build capacity, not just capture transactional flows. If a city's financial health depends on how an e-commerce order is defined in the tax code, that's not economic development—it's dependence.Texas Sales Tax Sourcing Fight Is More Reason to Drop Incentives 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 the 7 AM hour, Larry O’Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: GUEST: Joe diGenova on Latest Legal News LATEST LEGAL NEWS: Trump Legal Battles Update GUEST: Kevin Kline on Pearl Harbor's 84th Anniversary Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, December 8, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | 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: 21st Amendment RatifiedOn December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending the era of national Prohibition. This amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, which had banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors since 1920. Prohibition, championed by temperance movements and moral reformers, was initially seen as a solution to social problems such as crime and poverty. However, over the following decade, it led instead to a surge in organized crime, illegal speakeasies, and widespread disregard for the law.The Twenty-first Amendment is unique in American legal history—it is the only amendment to repeal a previous amendment. It is also the only amendment ratified through state conventions rather than by state legislatures, a strategic move to bypass potential legislative gridlock. Utah became the 36th state to ratify the amendment, securing the three-fourths majority needed for adoption.The repeal of Prohibition returned control over alcohol regulation to the states, many of which continued restrictions at the local level. The amendment's passage marked a shift toward a more pragmatic and less moralistic approach to federal lawmaking. It also highlighted the limits of federal power to regulate personal behavior and underscored the complexities of enforcing unpopular laws.In the broader context of constitutional law, the Twenty-first Amendment demonstrated the capacity of the Constitution to adapt and self-correct. It remains a pivotal example of how constitutional amendments can respond to changing public sentiment and unintended legal consequences.A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue deploying National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., halting a lower court ruling that would have required the troops to withdraw by December 11. The temporary order from the D.C. Circuit Court does not address the underlying legality of the deployment but permits it to proceed while litigation continues. The deployment, which began in August, intensified after a November 26 shooting near the White House left two National Guard members injured—one fatally. Trump responded by sending 500 additional troops and renewing his call to halt immigration from what he called “third-world countries,” after a 29-year-old Afghan national was charged in the attack.D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the administration in September, arguing Trump unlawfully took over local policing authority and violated federal restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. A federal judge initially sided with Schwalb, calling the deployment likely unlawful, but delayed enforcement of her ruling to allow time for appeal. The Trump administration maintains it can deploy troops to D.C. without local approval, citing the city's unique federal status. Meanwhile, similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities have sparked lawsuits and accusations that Trump is using federal force for political purposes. Lower courts have largely ruled against these moves, and the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the legality of the Chicago deployment soon.Appeals court allows Trump National Guard deployment in DC to continue | ReutersTom Goldstein, a prominent Washington attorney and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is fighting to sell his $3 million home in D.C.'s Wesley Heights to fund his defense against 22 financial crime charges, including tax evasion. Prosecutors allege that Goldstein, who has made millions as a poker player, misrepresented his financial situation to obtain loans, including one used to purchase the property. A Maryland federal judge barred the sale, ruling the house is likely connected to the alleged crimes. Goldstein has appealed, arguing that blocking the sale violates his Sixth Amendment right to use untainted assets for legal defense, and insists the home is not tied to the alleged misconduct.The appeal is before the 4th Circuit, where Goldstein—representing himself—says he's accumulated millions in legal fees. Prosecutors maintain the house is tainted because Goldstein omitted over $15 million in debt from the mortgage application. The home is also collateral for Goldstein's appearance bond, due to his being labeled a flight risk. One of Goldstein's key financial backers, litigation funder Parabellum Capital, is a witness in the case but not accused of wrongdoing. Legal experts say his effort to sell the house faces steep odds given the property's legal entanglements and standard federal practices regarding tainted assets.Tom Goldstein fights to sell home as tax trial looms | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, rejecting prosecutors' second attempt to bring criminal charges against her, according to sources familiar with the matter. The Justice Department had sought to revive a case involving allegations of bank fraud and false statements related to a mortgage, after the initial indictment was dismissed in November due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Despite the setback, prosecutors reportedly plan to seek a new indictment.James, a Democrat and prominent critic of Donald Trump, was accused of misrepresenting financial information to obtain favorable mortgage terms on a Virginia property. She pleaded not guilty to the original charges. The failed indictment effort comes amid broader DOJ efforts targeting Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey and ex-national security adviser John Bolton—cases that have also faced legal hurdles.Grand jury rejections are rare, as prosecutors usually face a low threshold of probable cause to proceed. James is now the highest-profile figure to have such a case rejected during Trump's second term. The president has publicly attacked James for leading a civil fraud lawsuit against him, which resulted in a massive financial penalty, later reduced on appeal but with Trump still found liable for fraud.Grand jury rejects second criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, sources say | ReutersLawyers representing authors and publishers in a $1.5 billion copyright settlement with AI company Anthropic have requested $300 million in legal fees, amounting to 20% of the total settlement. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the fee request comes after Anthropic agreed in October to settle claims it used pirated books to train its AI models, including its commercial product Claude. As part of the agreement, Anthropic will pay over $3,000 per infringed work, destroy the infringing datasets, and certify they are not part of its commercial systems.The legal team, led by Susman Godfrey and Lieff Cabraser, argued that the fee is “conservative” by class action standards, citing more than 26,000 hours of high-risk work. The settlement, which received preliminary approval in September, is being described as the largest reported copyright class action resolution to date. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing and retains the right to contest the fee amount.Authors have until January 15 to opt out of the class action and pursue individual claims. A final fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge William Alsup is scheduled for April, where objections from class members and fee disputes will be reviewed.Authors' lawyers in $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement seek $300 million | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.On December 5, 1791, the world lost one of its greatest musical minds: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Just 35 years old at the time of his death, Mozart left behind an astonishing body of work that shaped the course of Western classical music. His death, shrouded in speculation and mystery, came while he was in the midst of composing what would become one of his most profound and haunting works—the Requiem in D minor, K. 626. The Lacrymosa movement, in particular, captures the emotional gravity of that moment, as if echoing his own impending end.Although Mozart did not live to finish the Requiem, the fragments he left behind were completed by his student Franz Xaver Süssmayr, guided by sketches and oral instruction. The Lacrymosa, with its solemn melodies and aching harmonies, stands as one of the most emotionally resonant sections of the work. Franz Liszt later transcribed it for solo piano, creating a version that retains its choral intensity while adding a layer of intimate, virtuosic expressiveness.Listening to Liszt's transcription of the Lacrymosa is like hearing Mozart's farewell whispered through the keys of a piano—stark, mournful, and deeply human. December 5, then, is not only the date of Mozart's passing but also a reminder of the enduring beauty he left behind, etched into every phrase of the Requiem. His music, especially in this piece, speaks across centuries to the depths of loss and the hope of transcendence.Without further ado, Mozart's Requiem in D. minor – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss the double-tap controversy roiling the Trump administration, updates on the lawfare front, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: SkidmoreOn December 4, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a case interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were firefighters employed by a private company who sought overtime pay for time spent waiting on the employer's premises, even when not actively fighting fires. The Court ruled that such “waiting time” could qualify as compensable work depending on the circumstances — a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a rigid rule. More significantly, the Court declined to treat the Department of Labor's interpretation of the FLSA as binding. Instead, Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, articulated what became known as “Skidmore deference,” explaining that agency interpretations are entitled to respect based on their “power to persuade,” not their authority.This approach emphasized judicial independence while still valuing agency expertise, setting a flexible standard for reviewing administrative interpretations. For decades, Skidmore shaped the way courts evaluated regulatory guidance, particularly where statutes were silent or ambiguous. That changed in 1984, when the Court decided Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, introducing a more deferential, two-step test that often required courts to uphold reasonable agency interpretations. Chevron effectively sidelined Skidmore, making agency interpretations more binding than persuasive.That more restrained approach to agency interpretation—Skidmore's “power to persuade”—quietly persisted in the background during the decades-long dominance of Chevron deference. But on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court formally overruled Chevron, declaring that courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, even when those statutes are ambiguous. The Court emphasized that the Administrative Procedure Act assigns to the judiciary—not agencies—the duty to “decide all relevant questions of law” and interpret statutory provisions without default deference to agency views. In doing so, the Court explicitly endorsed the Skidmore model of respect rather than deference, reaffirming that agency interpretations may still inform judicial decisions, but only to the extent they are persuasive. So, 80 years after Skidmore was decided, its modest, judge-centered vision of statutory interpretation has once again become the law of the land.A group of former federal employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Trump administration unlawfully removed them from their jobs due to their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plaintiffs claim the dismissals were politically motivated and violated their First Amendment rights as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.According to the complaint, the reductions in force went beyond typical administrative turnover, instead constituting a deliberate effort to punish perceived political opponents. The plaintiffs argue they were targeted because they held, or were believed to have held, roles connected to DEI initiatives, which President Trump vocally opposed. The lawsuit points to executive orders that allegedly discriminated against women, people of color, and nonbinary individuals.Defendants named include the White House, Justice Department, CIA, Defense Department, Federal Reserve, Labor Department, and Treasury. The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement, back pay, restoration of seniority, and attorneys' fees.Trump, Agencies Hit With Ex-Federal Workers' Political Bias SuitUnder President Trump's second administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is on track for its lowest number of earnings fraud and auditor liability enforcement actions since the Reagan era. So far in 2025, only 20 such cases have been filed—far below the historical average of 79 per year since Trump's first term began in 2017. The decline is attributed to leadership changes, a 43-day government shutdown, shifting agency priorities, and a shrinking SEC staff due to retirements and buyouts.SEC Chair Paul Atkins has emphasized targeting only the most harmful and deliberate frauds, deprioritizing minor or technical violations. Enforcement has also slowed due to procedural constraints, including legal challenges limiting the use of in-house judges and forcing more cases into federal court. Despite the drop in formal actions, former officials and commission watchers caution that investigations continue behind the scenes and could yield future penalties.The agency did finalize some notable settlements early in the year, including $19 million from American Electric Power and $8 million from GrubMarket. However, enforcement activity has since dropped steeply, marking the largest first-year decline following a presidential inauguration since the 1980s.SEC's Earnings Fraud, Auditor Liability Cases Plunge Under TrumpU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will stop processing green cards and related immigration benefits for individuals from 19 countries named in a June Trump administration travel ban. This expanded restriction follows a separate decision by the State Department to suspend visa processing for Afghan nationals after a deadly shooting involving two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.The new USCIS policy affects several types of applications, including those for permanent residency, green card replacements, travel documents, and requests by permanent residents to maintain status while abroad. The halt applies regardless of when the applicant entered the U.S. The agency cited national security concerns as the reason for the changes and indicated all affected individuals may face renewed interviews or screenings.The travel ban currently includes countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, and others, with reports suggesting the administration plans to expand the list to about 30 nations. The memo emphasized that individuals from these “high-risk countries of concern” who arrived in the U.S. after January 20, 2021, are subject to re-evaluation.Trump Travel Ban Limits Extend to Green Cards, Other Benefits This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Morgan v. VirginiaOn December 3, 1946, the NAACP filed the pivotal case Morgan v. Virginia, challenging state-enforced segregation on interstate buses. The case arose after Irene Morgan, a Black woman, refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from Virginia to Maryland in 1944. Arrested and fined under Virginia law, Morgan appealed her conviction with the support of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black Supreme Court Justice, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.The legal argument hinged on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress—not individual states—the power to regulate interstate commerce. Marshall argued that Virginia's segregation law placed an undue burden on interstate travel and was thus unconstitutional. In a 7–1 decision issued in June 1946, the Court agreed, holding that states could not impose segregation on interstate passengers.Though the ruling did not end segregation on all public transportation, it was a critical legal breakthrough. It limited the reach of Jim Crow laws and marked one of the earliest Supreme Court victories for the civil rights movement. The decision also served as a foundation for future rulings, including Boynton v. Virginia (1960), and inspired direct action like the Freedom Rides of the early 1960s.Morgan v. Virginia helped establish a constitutional framework for challenging racially discriminatory laws under federal authority. It demonstrated the NAACP's strategy of incremental legal challenges and the importance of judicial victories in the broader civil rights struggle.A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a law that would strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and similar organizations in 22 states. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the provision, part of the Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, likely violates the Constitution's Spending Clause by retroactively imposing ambiguous conditions on state Medicaid participation. The law bars Medicaid funding for nonprofit reproductive health providers that offer abortions and received over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023.Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the law's enforcement in the states that sued, including California, New York, and Connecticut, along with the District of Columbia. However, she stayed her ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration time to appeal. The judge warned that enforcing the law would increase healthcare costs and reduce access to preventive services like birth control and screenings.Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling, calling the law unconstitutional and harmful. The organization reported that at least 20 health centers have closed since the law began taking effect in September. States argued the law forced an unexpected change to Medicaid operations and undermined their authority to choose eligible healthcare providers.US judge blocks Trump from cutting Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood in 22 states | ReutersThe Trump administration has dismissed at least seven immigration judges from New York City's immigration court, located at 26 Federal Plaza, a central site for immigration enforcement and protests. This move is part of a broader pattern under President Trump's second term, with over 100 immigration judges reportedly removed nationwide since January, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Critics say these firings are worsening backlogs at a time when arrests and deportations are increasing.Immigration judges operate under the Department of Justice, not the independent federal judiciary, and are considered inferior officers who can be dismissed by the president or attorney general. The Justice Department declined to comment on the terminations. Among those fired was Amiena Khan, the court's assistant chief immigration judge and former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, who had previously opposed efforts to dismantle the judges' union.Khan and six other judges, all women, had their names removed from the court's staff directory, with five appointed by Democratic administrations and two during Trump's first term. These dismissals follow similar firings in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere. One former judge in Ohio has filed a lawsuit, alleging her termination was due to discrimination based on sex, national origin, and political beliefs.Trump administration fires numerous New York immigration judges | ReutersRahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect in a deadly Washington, D.C. ambush that killed one National Guard member and critically injured another, pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance. He participated remotely from a hospital bed and was ordered held without bond due to the violent nature of the attack, which occurred just blocks from the White House. The judge cited the “sheer terror” of the incident in denying release.Prosecutors allege that Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, traveled from Washington state to D.C. with the intent to carry out the shooting. He reportedly opened fire while shouting “Allahu akbar,” fatally shooting 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom and injuring 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe, both West Virginia National Guard members deployed to aid law enforcement. Lakanwal was subdued by military personnel and a Secret Service officer after being shot.He faces four charges, including first-degree murder and assault with intent to kill while armed. Lakanwal's defense highlighted his lack of criminal history, but prosecutors emphasized the premeditated nature of his actions. His immigration status has drawn political attention—he entered the U.S. under a resettlement program launched during the Biden administration and was granted asylum under Trump, making the case a focal point in renewed debates over immigration policy.Washington shooting suspect pleads not guilty to murder, ordered detained | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Brown AssassinatedOn December 2, 1859, abolitionist John Brown was executed by hanging in Charles Town, Virginia (now West Virginia), following his conviction for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection. Brown had led a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry in October, attempting to seize weapons and incite a large-scale slave uprising. His plan failed, with most of his men either killed or captured, and Brown himself wounded and arrested by U.S. Marines under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee. The legal proceedings against him were swift: Brown was indicted within days, tried in state court, and sentenced to death less than a month after the raid.His execution was a national event, drawing immense media coverage and polarized public reaction. In the North, many abolitionists hailed him as a martyr who sacrificed his life to end the moral atrocity of slavery. In the South, he was widely viewed as a terrorist whose actions confirmed fears of Northern aggression and interference. Brown's trial and punishment underscored the deepening legal and moral divide between free and slave states, particularly regarding states' rights, federalism, and the use of violence to oppose injustice. The charges of treason and insurrection also raised complex constitutional questions, since Brown was prosecuted under state, not federal, law — despite attacking a federal facility. His case set the stage for intensifying legal and political disputes over the limits of protest, the legitimacy of armed resistance, and the definition of loyalty to the state.Brown's final words, predicting that “the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood,” would prove prescient less than two years later when the Civil War began.A federal appeals court has ruled that Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to Donald Trump, was unlawfully appointed as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's finding that the Trump administration violated federal appointments law in installing Habba without Senate confirmation or proper legal authority. This decision disqualifies her from overseeing federal cases in the state, potentially disrupting numerous active prosecutions.The case was brought by defense attorneys who argued that the Justice Department used procedural workarounds to improperly extend Habba's tenure after New Jersey's district judges declined to reauthorize her. In response, DOJ fired her court-appointed successor and tried to reassign Habba under a different title, which the court rejected. The ruling is significant because it's the first appellate decision pushing back on Trump-era efforts to place loyalists in key legal roles without Senate oversight.Habba, who had no prior prosecutorial experience, previously represented Trump in high-profile civil litigation, including the defamation case involving E. Jean Carroll. During her controversial tenure, she was criticized for politicized statements and for filing charges against a Democratic congresswoman. Similar appointment disputes are playing out in other states, and this decision sets a strong precedent against bypassing constitutional and statutory nomination processes. The administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.Court disqualifies Trump ally Habba as top New Jersey federal prosecutor | ReutersHSBC has announced a multi-year partnership with French start-up Mistral AI to integrate generative AI tools across its global operations. The bank plans to self-host Mistral's commercial AI models and future upgrades, combining its own tech infrastructure with Mistral's cutting-edge AI capabilities. The collaboration aims to boost automation, productivity, and customer service, with use cases spanning financial analysis, multilingual translation, risk assessment, and personalized client interactions.By adopting Mistral's tools, HSBC expects to significantly reduce time spent on routine, document-heavy tasks, such as those in credit and financing teams. Already active in AI applications like fraud detection and compliance, the bank sees this deal as a way to accelerate innovation cycles and roll out new features more efficiently. The move comes amid a broader industry trend as banks seek to scale generative AI solutions, while addressing ongoing concerns around data privacy. HSBC emphasized that all deployments will comply with its responsible AI governance standards to ensure transparency and protection.HSBC taps French start-up Mistral to supercharge generative-AI rollout | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has commuted the prison sentence of David Gentile, the former CEO of GPB Capital Holdings, who was convicted under the Biden administration for his role in what prosecutors called a Ponzi scheme. Gentile had been serving a seven-year sentence after being found guilty of securities fraud in 2024. The DOJ argued that GPB misled investors by using new investor funds to pay returns, rather than profits from legitimate operations.However, in announcing the commutation, a White House official pushed back on the prosecution's claims, arguing that investors had been clearly informed about the firm's payment practices and that prosecutors failed to directly link fraudulent misrepresentations to Gentile during trial. The official also alleged misconduct, claiming the government elicited and failed to correct false testimony.The commutation comes amid heightened political scrutiny of financial fraud prosecutions and continues Trump's trend of intervening in controversial white-collar cases. The Department of Justice has not yet responded to the decision.Trump frees former GPB Capital CEO after Biden admin's Ponzi scheme sentence | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week is about … the penny. The official end of penny production may seem trivial, but it's creating real legal headaches for retailers and tax administrators alike. Without the one-cent coin, states are facing ambiguity about how to round sales tax totals for cash transactions—should it happen before or after tax, and who absorbs the rounding loss? These questions go largely unanswered, and in the absence of clear rules, businesses are improvising, which risks inconsistent compliance and enforcement challenges. There's also a legal tension where cash transactions require rounding but card payments do not—potentially running afoul of laws banning payment-method discrimination or even the Internet Tax Freedom Act.Streamlined Sales Tax rules add more complexity, limiting when and how rounding can occur and cautioning against systems that enrich the state at consumers' expense. I argue that instead of patchwork fixes, this moment should push states to modernize their sales tax systems with mandatory e-invoicing and real-time reporting. This would standardize how tax is calculated and rounded, reduce compliance uncertainty, and shrink the window for fraud. Paired with something like a receipt lottery—used successfully in countries like Brazil and China—states could turn customers into compliance allies by rewarding them for scanning and validating receipts.Ultimately, automating rounding decisions and reporting in point-of-sale systems would lift the burden off retailers and give governments cleaner data with lower enforcement costs. The penny may be dead, but this is a rare chance to bring sales tax enforcement into the 21st century. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

This Day in Legal History: Free Speech at the MoviesOn this day in legal history, November 25, 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, holding that motion pictures were not protected under the First Amendment. The case arose when Ohio enacted a law requiring films to be approved by a censorship board before public exhibition. Mutual Film Corporation challenged the statute, arguing it infringed upon free speech and press freedoms. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, declaring that movies were a business enterprise, not a medium of public expression deserving constitutional protection. The Court emphasized that films could be used for evil and lacked the inherent public value of newspapers or books.This ruling gave states and cities wide discretion to censor films, leading to the rise of local and state censorship boards that controlled what audiences could legally view. It also provided a legal foundation for the Motion Picture Production Code, or Hays Code, a system of industry self-censorship that dominated Hollywood for decades. For nearly 40 years, this decision limited the creative scope of filmmakers and allowed governments to suppress films based on moral, religious, or political grounds.It wasn't until Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson in 1952 that the Supreme Court reversed course, striking down New York's ban on a film deemed “sacrilegious” and recognizing movies as a significant medium for the communication of ideas. The reversal marked a turning point for First Amendment jurisprudence and artistic freedom. But on November 25, 1915, the legal system closed the door on film as protected speech—setting the stage for a long legal battle over cinema's place in American constitutional law.The U.S. Department of Justice's misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes was dismissed. The rare complaint accused Reyes of bias in her handling of a case challenging President Donald Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan ruled in September that judicial misconduct proceedings were not the proper venue to raise such concerns, suggesting instead that the DOJ could have filed for Reyes' recusal if it believed she was unfit to preside.The complaint, filed in February before Reyes ruled on the case, alleged she had shown hostility during hearings by expressing disbelief, questioning a lawyer's religion, and engaging in behavior the DOJ claimed compromised the dignity of the courtroom. The Justice Department claimed her conduct showed potential bias. In March, Reyes blocked Trump's executive order, though her ruling is currently on hold pending appeal. The complaint was one of only two such filings by the DOJ amid broader tensions between Trump's administration and the judiciary. Neither Reyes nor the DOJ commented on the dismissal.US DOJ's misconduct complaint against judge in transgender military ban case gets tossed | ReutersA federal judge dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that the prosecutor who brought the charges lacked lawful authority. The judge concluded that Lindsey Halligan, appointed by the Trump administration as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was installed in violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause and federal law governing interim U.S. attorney appointments. Because her appointment was invalid, every step she took—including securing indictments—was deemed an unlawful exercise of executive power and therefore had to be vacated. The judge rejected the Justice Department's argument that the attorney general could repeatedly make interim appointments without Senate confirmation, noting that doing so would sidestep the constitutionally required process. Attempts by Attorney General Pam Bondi to retroactively validate Halligan's actions—such as re-appointing her as a special attorney and “ratifying” the indictments—were also found ineffective.Under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal statute, U.S. Attorneys must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When a vacancy arises, the Attorney General may make an interim appointment, but that appointment is limited by law to 120 days. If a permanent U.S. Attorney is not confirmed within that time, the district court may appoint a replacement to serve until the vacancy is officially filled. This process is designed to ensure both accountability and separation of powers, preventing the executive branch from indefinitely bypassing Senate oversight by cycling through temporary appointments. Repeated or back-to-back interim appointments without Senate confirmation undermine this framework, raising constitutional concerns about legitimacy and legality.The cases were dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door open to new prosecutions, though the expired statute of limitations appears to bar refiling against Comey. Defense lawyers had additionally characterized the charges as politically driven, but the court did not need to reach those claims because the appointment defect alone required dismissal. The ruling underscores that prosecutions must be brought by properly appointed officials, and that structural constitutional violations invalidate downstream actions—even in high-profile or politically charged cases.US judge tosses cases against ex-FBI chief Comey, New York AG James | ReutersA federal judge has denied Arkansas health worker Joy Gray's request for immediate reinstatement after she was fired over social media comments made following the murder of conservative figure Charlie Kirk. Gray sought a preliminary injunction requiring the Arkansas Department of Health to rehire her, continue paying her, or provide a “name-clearing hearing” to protect her reputation. However, U.S. District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky ruled that Gray failed to demonstrate the kind of irreparable harm necessary to justify emergency relief, emphasizing that job loss—even from a government position—does not automatically meet that legal standard. He cited controlling precedent, noting Gray did not show she couldn't be adequately compensated by monetary damages if she ultimately wins her case.The judge also rejected her claim that the department's actions were currently chilling her speech, pointing out that the firing was a past event and not part of an ongoing restriction. Additionally, her request for a name-clearing hearing was unlikely to succeed, as the court found no stigmatizing statements in the department's response. Rudofsky was careful to clarify that this ruling does not determine the outcome of Gray's broader First Amendment retaliation claim, which may involve more complex legal questions as the case proceeds.State Worker Fired for Kirk Posts Can't Revive Job During Trial This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss Trump's designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organization, the proposed Ukraine peace plan, and much more. This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Lee Harvey Oswald ShotOn November 24, 1963, two days after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the nation watched in shock as Lee Harvey Oswald—the alleged assassin—was gunned down on live television. The shooter, Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, entered the basement of the Dallas police headquarters and fatally shot Oswald as he was being transferred to the county jail. The killing unfolded in front of journalists, cameras, and law enforcement, searing itself into the American consciousness and further fueling public distrust in official accounts of the assassination.Though Ruby claimed his act was motivated by grief and a desire to spare Jacqueline Kennedy the ordeal of a trial, his actions raised immediate concerns about the adequacy of security in high-profile cases. Oswald's death eliminated any opportunity for a public trial, which would have offered a transparent legal accounting of the events in Dallas. Ruby was later convicted of murder, though his conviction was overturned on appeal before he died of cancer in 1967.The legal ramifications of Oswald's televised murder were broad and lasting. It led to reforms in detainee protection, prompted scrutiny over media access in sensitive law enforcement operations, and spotlighted the vulnerability of chain of custody and judicial process in emotionally charged cases. The event also highlighted the need for careful separation between law enforcement procedures and the media spectacle surrounding them. Ruby's case prompted legal scholars to revisit the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and the public's right to observe proceedings.This legal flashpoint helped set the stage for subsequent debates about pretrial publicity, venue changes, and judicial instructions to mitigate media influence on juries. It also foreshadowed a new era where courtroom access and high-profile criminal justice collided in an age of mass media.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a press freedom case between the Associated Press (AP) and President Donald Trump's administration. The case centers on whether the White House violated constitutional protections by restricting AP's access to presidential events after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of the long-recognized “Gulf of Mexico.”In April, a federal judge—appointed by Trump—granted a preliminary injunction in AP's favor, requiring the administration to restore the agency's full access. However, the appeals court later paused that ruling while it considers the government's challenge. The Trump administration argues that news organizations do not have a constitutional right to “special access” to areas like the Oval Office.AP's lawsuit, filed in February, claims the restrictions are retaliatory and violate the First and Fifth Amendments. The case has drawn attention for its potential implications beyond journalism, touching on the broader question of whether the government can punish speech that conflicts with its messaging. The administration has defended its actions as part of a general press policy rather than targeted retaliation.The conflict escalated after Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf, which AP chose not to adopt due to its editorial standards. The White House then limited the agency's access and removed AP and Reuters from the regular press pool. AP has framed the case as critical to preventing government coercion of the press.US appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office | ReutersNewly unsealed court filings allege that Meta Platforms shut down internal research after discovering evidence that Facebook use caused measurable harm to users' mental health. In a 2020 internal study, dubbed “Project Mercury,” Meta partnered with Nielsen to examine the effects of Facebook deactivation. Users who left the platform for a week reported lower levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison—results the company allegedly found troubling enough to halt further study and dismiss as tainted by public bias.Despite internal acknowledgment that the findings were valid, Meta did not publish the results and later told Congress it could not quantify harm from its products. The lawsuit—filed by U.S. school districts against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google—claims the platforms concealed known risks from users, parents, and educators. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta's safety features were deliberately underdeveloped, and that high thresholds for user removal allowed exploitative behavior to persist unchecked.Among the more serious accusations: Meta allegedly deprioritized child safety concerns in favor of platform growth, suppressed internal safety testing, and allowed human trafficking accounts to remain active until repeated violations were flagged—up to 17 times. Plaintiffs say Meta and other companies also tried to buy favorable public positioning by sponsoring child advocacy groups, such as TikTok's internal brag about its influence over the National PTA.Meta has denied the allegations, calling them misleading and based on selective quotes. The company says it has robust teen safety measures and that accounts involved in trafficking are now removed upon first report. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for January in federal court.Meta buried ‘causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege | ReutersThe Trump administration is moving forward with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and relocate its functions across six other federal agencies, including Labor and Health and Human Services. According to multiple sources familiar with the effort, senior officials and department directors have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), an uncommon move for a civilian agency without a national security mandate. These agreements are reportedly being used to limit information sharing as the reorganization proceeds behind closed doors.Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the restructuring this week, framing it as a way to “end federal micromanagement” while still supporting education through other agencies. Some staff have already transitioned to new posts, and more are expected to relocate by January. However, specifics on the timeline and scope of the overhaul remain vague, even to congressional oversight committees and education advocates.Critics argue the administration is sidelining Congress and the public in what they call an opaque and potentially destabilizing shift. Senator Patty Murray called the effort “sabotage,” citing the lack of transparency and collaboration. Meanwhile, McMahon has reportedly met with lawmakers and urged Congress to formalize the changes through legislation, though no formal bill has yet been introduced.US Education Department requiring non-disclosure agreements in Trump reorganization, sources say | ReutersIn a deep-dive investigation, FOIAball uncovered how UCLA Athletics appears to have routed large sums of money intended for football player NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals through a tax-exempt charity—Shelter 37, run by the co-founder of the school's official NIL collective, Bruins for Life. This maneuver may have allowed donors to receive tax deductions for contributions that ultimately compensated athletes, despite recent IRS rulings stating such collectives do not qualify for charitable status.Emails obtained through public records show that UCLA development staff actively coached donors to send checks to Shelter 37 while explicitly designating those funds for Bruins for Life, the school's NIL program. These emails often discussed timing, amounts, and communication with the charity's leadership to ensure the money was redirected as intended. In several cases, UCLA staff reassured donors that contributions through donor-advised funds (DAFs)—normally restricted from supporting private benefit—could be routed to Shelter 37 and still benefit athletes.After the IRS began denying charitable status to NIL collectives in 2023 due to private benefit concerns, most programs shifted to non-deductible donations. But UCLA's workaround relied on Shelter 37's 501(c)(3) status to continue offering donors deductions, despite Shelter 37's own filings showing the vast majority of its funds in 2024—$3.6 million of $4.8 million—were raised for UCLA football NIL purposes. By contrast, it spent only $200 on scholarships for at-risk youth, its purported mission.Legal experts, including yours truly, told FOIAball that this could constitute fraudulent behavior, noting that charities must exercise control over their funds and serve the public interest—not act as pass-throughs for private benefit. UCLA officials, when asked for comment, did not address the specifics. Meanwhile, Shelter 37's president denied improper coordination but acknowledged the charity paid players to appear at events, an arrangement experts say still violates nonprofit law if the real intent is athlete compensation.How UCLA used a friendly charity to get tax-free NIL money This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi BurningOn November 21, 1964, a federal grand jury convened in Meridian, Mississippi, and indicted 19 men in connection with the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—three civil rights workers abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan during Freedom Summer. The brutal killings had shocked the nation, but Mississippi officials refused to pursue murder charges, prompting the federal government to step in. Lacking jurisdiction over homicide, federal prosecutors turned to a rarely used provision of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1870, charging the defendants with conspiracy to violate the victims' civil rights.This legal maneuver led to United States v. Price (1967), a pivotal Supreme Court case that affirmed the federal government's authority to prosecute state actors and private citizens working in concert to deprive others of constitutional rights. The Court unanimously held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be enforced through criminal prosecution when state officials or their proxies engaged in unlawful conduct.At trial, seven of the defendants, including a deputy sheriff, were convicted—though none received more than ten years in prison. Several of the most notorious perpetrators, including Edgar Ray Killen, evaded justice for decades. Still, the case marked one of the first successful federal efforts to hold white supremacists accountable for racial violence in the Jim Crow South.The Mississippi Burning case revealed both the limits of federal power—since murder charges were off-limits—and its emerging role as a necessary backstop when local justice systems failed. It signaled a new willingness by the Department of Justice to engage in civil rights enforcement, even in the face of deep local hostility. The grand jury's action on this day helped set legal and moral precedent for future federal interventions in civil rights cases.Google is making a final argument in federal court to avoid a forced breakup of its advertising technology business, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wraps up its antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema already ruled in April that Google maintains two illegal monopolies in the ad tech space. Now the court is weighing remedies, with the DOJ and several states pushing for the sale of Google's AdX exchange, a key platform where digital ads are auctioned in real time.During an 11-day trial that began in September, the DOJ argued that only a forced divestiture would effectively curb Google's anticompetitive conduct. In response, Google contended that breaking up its ad business would be technically disruptive and harmful to customers. The company also emphasized that it would comply with less drastic remedies.The trial represents one of the most serious legal threats to Google's ad empire to date. While Google has largely avoided major penalties in previous antitrust actions, this case—and others still pending against Meta, Amazon, and Apple—could mark a turning point in federal enforcement against Big Tech.Google has pledged to appeal any adverse ruling, including Judge Brinkema's earlier decision and a separate finding in Washington that declared Google's dominance in online search and advertising unlawful. In that case, Google was not forced to sell its Chrome browser but was ordered to share more data with competitors.The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications for the structure of the digital ad industry and the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.Google aims to dodge breakup of ad business as antitrust trial wraps | ReutersAs the federal government considers limiting state regulation of artificial intelligence, many U.S. states are moving in the opposite direction—introducing legislation to curb algorithmic pricing practices that may be inflating costs for consumers. These laws target the growing use of software that sets prices based on personal data, such as location, browsing history, and past purchases. Critics argue this enables businesses to charge consumers what they're perceived to be willing to pay, not a fair market rate.Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, now advising New York City's incoming administration, is helping shape efforts to leverage state authority to combat such practices. Laws already passed in New York and California prohibit algorithmic collusion in rental markets, and 19 other states are considering similar bills to restrict price-setting based on competitor data.The issue has attracted bipartisan concern. Utah Republican Tyler Clancy plans to introduce legislation aimed at giving consumers more control over the data companies collect and use to personalize prices. Advocacy groups like Consumer Reports warn that AI-driven pricing risks exacerbating inequality, allowing companies to charge different prices based on who they think the buyer is—effectively punishing certain groups of consumers.Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would block state-level AI rules, escalating the tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-led consumer protection initiatives.US states take aim at data-driven pricing to ease consumer pain | ReutersIn a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first high court in the U.S. to ban prosecutors from introducing expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the internal injuries typically attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The 6–1 ruling came in two separate child abuse cases involving fathers accused of harming their infant sons. The court held that the state failed to show sufficient scientific consensus across relevant fields, particularly from biomechanical engineering, to justify presenting SBS as a reliable diagnosis in the absence of external trauma.While SBS has long been used to explain serious injuries like brain swelling and internal bleeding in infants—forming the basis for thousands of abuse prosecutions—the court emphasized that scientific evidence must be broadly accepted and reliable, not speculative or limited to select disciplines. Pediatricians and neurologists largely support the SBS diagnosis, but the court noted that the foundational research stemmed from a 1968 whiplash study, and the biomechanics field has not confirmed that shaking alone, without head impact, can produce the injuries.One of the defendants, Darryl Nieves, had his case dismissed, while the other, Michael Cifelli, remains charged but plans to seek dismissal based on the ruling. The decision opens the door for challenges in past SBS convictions and may limit future prosecutions relying solely on SBS testimony.Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote that the door isn't permanently closed—if future research can establish consensus, such testimony may be admitted. But for now, the ruling significantly raises the bar for the use of SBS in court. Justice Rachel Wainer Apter dissented, warning that the majority gave too much weight to a single scientific field over others.New Jersey high court first in US to ban Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week examined how Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) reporting enforcement has evolved into a penalty system wildly out of sync with the actual harm caused. I opened with the United States v. Saydam decision, where a dual citizen was hit with a $437,000 civil penalty for failing to file FBAR forms—even though the government's tax loss was only about $29,000. There was no fraud, no evasion, and no criminal behavior, yet the punishment looked like something reserved for offshore tax schemers. I argued that this case shows how FBAR has drifted far from its original purpose under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was aimed at serious financial crime, not routine reporting lapses.In the article, I explained how the concept of “willfulness” has morphed into something elastic enough to include recklessness or even simple inattention, giving the IRS license to impose penalties of up to 50% of an account's highest balance per year. That structure means the punishment often bears no relation to any underlying tax obligation. Saydam's case illustrates this perfectly—the government simply took his highest‑balance year, sliced it in half, spread it across the years he didn't file, and ended up with a crushing figure.I also emphasized that the people being hit hardest aren't drug traffickers or money‑launderers; they're ordinary taxpayers with overseas ties—dual citizens, immigrants, retirees—whose “wrongdoing” is usually limited to missing a form. The court's acknowledgment that FBAR penalties are indeed “fines” under the Eighth Amendment should have prompted a stronger proportionality analysis, but instead it set a very forgiving standard for the government, effectively blessing massive penalties for paperwork lapses.In my view, when penalties exceed the actual tax loss by a factor of fifteen, we're no longer talking about a compliance tool—we're talking about a punitive revenue mechanism. The system now incentivizes extracting large sums from people who pose no threat to the tax base. Saydam didn't hide money or lie about his income; he just didn't file a disclosure. Yet he now faces nearly half a million dollars in liability. As I wrote, if this is the precedent, FBAR has stopped being a transparency measure and has become a blunt instrument aimed at immigrant taxpayers.The Rise And Proliferation Of Excessive FBAR PenaltiesThis week's closing theme is by Henry Purcell.This week's closing theme comes from Purcell, the brilliant English Baroque composer often called “the Orpheus Britannicus” for the beauty and depth of his music. Born in 1659 and active during the late 17th century, Purcell's work bridged the gap between Renaissance polyphony and the emerging Baroque style, blending French elegance, Italian expressiveness, and a distinctly English sensibility. Though he died young at just 36, his influence on British music would echo for centuries.While his “Ode to Saint Cecilia”—written for the patron saint of music—is his most direct connection to November 22, the official feast day of Saint Cecilia, Purcell's music is appropriate listening for this week. His compositions often graced the St. Cecilia Day festivals held annually in London, celebrating music itself as a divine art.The Overture in G minor, which closes our episode today, is not among his ceremonial odes but showcases many of his signature strengths: tight contrapuntal writing, a dark, dignified mood, and striking harmonic shifts that feel centuries ahead of their time. The overture begins with a slow, solemn introduction before launching into a more vigorous section, where rhythmic vitality meets melodic restraint.It's a concise, powerful piece that reflects Purcell's talent for writing music that is both emotionally direct and structurally refined. Though originally composed for a larger suite or theatrical context, it stands on its own as a miniature masterwork. As the week draws to a close and Saint Cecilia's Day approaches, Purcell's music reminds us that even in constraint—of time, of scale, of form—there can be grandeur.And with that, enjoy Purcell's Overture in G minor! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Ratification of the Bill of Rights by New JerseyOn November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, a landmark moment in American constitutional history. Just months after the U.S. Constitution went into effect, debate over its lack of explicit protections for individual liberties sparked calls for amendments. Responding to this concern, James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments in the First Congress in June 1789, aiming to ease Anti-Federalist fears and solidify support for the new federal government. Congress approved twelve amendments on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states for ratification.New Jersey acted swiftly, ratifying eleven of the twelve proposed amendments less than two months later. The state rejected the first proposed amendment, which concerned congressional representation, and accepted the rest, including protections for freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey's early endorsement gave momentum to the broader ratification effort, which required approval by three-fourths of the states.By December 15, 1791, ten of the amendments had been ratified by the necessary eleven states and became known as the Bill of Rights. These provisions would become foundational to American legal doctrine, judicial interpretation, and civil liberties jurisprudence. New Jersey's rapid ratification also signaled the willingness of smaller states to embrace a constitutional framework that better balanced federal power with individual protections.The ratification process itself reflected the structural legal mechanism required to alter the Constitution—Article V mandates both congressional proposal and state approval. This episode demonstrates how early American legal institutions navigated public pressure and political compromise to create durable legal norms. The Bill of Rights remains central to constitutional interpretation today, frequently invoked in court cases involving speech, privacy, and due process.A group of senior judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently influenced several rulings on politically sensitive cases, softening the conservative tone of one of the nation's most right-leaning appellate courts. These judges, many appointed decades ago by presidents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, were part of three-judge panels that struck down or allowed challenges to laws involving religion in schools, drag shows on campus, and firearm signage. However, these decisions are now set for reconsideration by the court's full active bench in January, as part of a growing trend of en banc rehearings.The Fifth Circuit includes 17 active judges and seven senior judges. While senior judges can still hear cases and author opinions, their influence is ultimately limited because active judges control en banc reviews, which can overturn panel rulings. Most of these upcoming en banc cases saw dissents from Trump-appointed judges at the panel level. Some senior judges, like Edith Brown Clement, are conservative and remain highly active, while others like James Dennis and Patrick Higginbotham are known for their moderate or liberal views and are key voices in current and upcoming decisions.Legal experts say senior judges' experience and moderation often make them more willing to adhere to precedent rather than pursue ideological shifts. Their dissents and opinions can also help signal to the U.S. Supreme Court that a case warrants review. With an increase in ideologically charged cases on topics like immigration and free speech, the Fifth Circuit's internal dynamics reflect a broader national tension between judicial restraint and a more activist, conservative legal agenda.Full Fifth Circuit Overrides Moderate Senior Judges' RulingsThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic harassment. The EEOC's request was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and stems from a charge initiated in December 2023 by Republican-appointed Chair Andrea Lucas. The agency is seeking documents and information identifying victims and witnesses to reported religious-based harassment affecting faculty and staff.The investigation centers on claims that the university failed to adequately respond to internal complaints of antisemitism. The EEOC under Lucas—particularly during and after the first Trump administration—has prioritized enforcement actions related to religious discrimination, with higher education institutions facing increased scrutiny. Penn has not yet issued a public response regarding the subpoena or the broader investigation.EEOC Seeks UPenn Information Disclosure in Antisemitism ProbeCryptocurrency exchange Kraken announced that it has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States. The move positions Kraken among several digital asset firms seeking to go public amid renewed investor interest in the crypto sector. Other companies like Circle and Gemini have also made progress toward U.S. listings this year.Kraken recently reported a $20 billion valuation in its latest fundraising round, marking a 33% increase over the past two months. While the company did not disclose specific details about the IPO structure or timeline, the filing indicates growing momentum for digital finance firms in public markets.Crypto exchange Kraken confidentially files for US IPO | ReutersThe U.S. government has loaned Constellation Energy $1 billion to restart a nuclear reactor at the former Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania. The project, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center, involves reviving an 835-megawatt reactor that was shut down in 2019. Constellation entered a partnership with Microsoft in 2024 to help offset the tech company's energy use, especially for power-intensive data centers. The reactor's restart reflects rising energy demand tied to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.The Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office (LPO) issued the loan to help lower financing costs and encourage private investment. Officials emphasized that nuclear energy offers stable, carbon-free baseload power critical for both grid reliability and climate goals. While Constellation is financially strong enough to obtain private funding, the administration said public support signals a national commitment to clean and dependable energy infrastructure.The plant still needs regulatory approvals, including from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Constellation has already begun hiring workers, inspecting systems, and ordering essential equipment. The company now expects the reactor to come online by 2027, a year ahead of the original timeline due to an accelerated grid connection review.US loans Constellation $1 billion for Three Mile Island reactor reboot | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Gettysburg AddressOn November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, months after the blood-soaked Civil War battle that left over 50,000 dead or wounded. The speech nearly didn't make it—Lincoln's draft was reportedly misplaced during the train ride to Gettysburg, and he completed the final version just the night before the ceremony. The headliner that day was Edward Everett, a famed orator who delivered a two-hour address rich in historical detail and classical references. Lincoln followed with a two-minute speech of just 271 words.Drawing inspiration from Pericles' Funeral Oration in ancient Athens, Lincoln sought to elevate the sacrifices of Union soldiers into a reaffirmation of democratic ideals. He framed the war as a test of whether a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could endure. In his address, Lincoln humbly suggested that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” asserting that the deeds of the fallen, not words, would be remembered by future generations.Afterward, Lincoln reportedly told his bodyguard, “that speech won't scour,” using a Midwestern farming phrase to express doubt about its impact. But Everett, recognizing its brilliance, wrote to Lincoln the next day to say that the president had accomplished in two minutes what he had failed to do in two hours. Indeed, Everett himself is now most famous for his connection to Lincoln's words. Though met with mixed reviews at the time, the speech has since eclipsed the Battle of Gettysburg itself in cultural memory and certainly legal significance.Lincoln's words at Gettysburg echoed something he had written five years earlier, after his defeat in the 1858 Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. Reflecting on what seemed like the end of his political career, Lincoln wrote, “and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.” These words, penned just two years before he became president, speak to Lincoln's deep conviction that principles—not personal success—leave the most enduring legacy. The Gettysburg Address ultimately became one of those “marks,” still telling for the cause of civil liberty over 160 years later.The Gettysburg Address endures not just as a piece of oratory but as a touchstone of American constitutional values, echoing through the Fourteenth Amendment and generations of civil rights jurisprudence.A federal judge in Virginia will hear arguments from former FBI Director James Comey's legal team seeking dismissal of criminal charges against him, alleging the case was politically motivated by President Donald Trump's long-standing animosity. Comey's lawyers argue the prosecution is a form of “vindictive” retaliation for his public criticism of Trump, who has often called for Comey's prosecution since firing him in 2017. Comey, charged in September with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, has pleaded not guilty and is pursuing multiple avenues to have the case thrown out before trial.The hearing will also examine the controversial role of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prosecutorial background, appointed as interim U.S. Attorney overseeing the case. A separate judge is reviewing whether Halligan's appointment was lawful, while a magistrate judge recently flagged serious procedural concerns with how she handled the grand jury that indicted Comey. Prosecutors maintain that Trump's public statements and criticism of Comey do not meet the legal threshold for a vindictive prosecution claim and argue the charges are legitimate.Comey's case is part of a broader pattern, with other Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton, also facing charges following Trump's calls for retribution. Legal observers are closely watching whether courts will allow such prosecutions to proceed given the appearance of political targeting.US judge to weigh Trump's influence over case against ex-FBI chief Comey | ReutersCravath, Swaine & Moore has kicked off the 2025 year-end bonus season for major U.S. law firms by announcing associate bonuses of up to $140,000. According to an internal memo, standard year-end bonuses will range from $15,000 for first-year associates (on a pro-rated basis) to $115,000 for the most senior associates. Additionally, the firm will issue special bonuses between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with bonus levels previously set by competitor Milbank.Cravath, long viewed as a market-setter in associate compensation, made the announcement on Tuesday, prompting at least one other major firm—Paul Hastings—to follow suit with matching payouts. These bonuses mirror those issued last year, maintaining pressure on peer firms to remain competitive in compensation.Currently, associates at top U.S. firms earn base salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000 depending on seniority. Firms often wait for Cravath to act before making their own compensation decisions. The announcement comes amid strong financial performance across the legal sector, with a surge in client demand—especially for transactional work—reported in the third quarter. Analysts suggest this demand positions firms for a profitable close to 2025.Cravath sets pace for US law firm bonuses, promising associates up to $140K | ReutersCravath Doles Out Associate Bonuses Ranging Up to $140,000 (2)The U.S. Senate is set to question Michael Selig, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with a focus on his views on cryptocurrency regulation and election betting markets. Selig, currently the chief counsel for the SEC's crypto task force and an adviser to Republican SEC chair Paul Atkins, has been an outspoken supporter of pro-crypto policies. In a recent social media post, he pledged to help make the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World.”Trump's administration has embraced the crypto sector, rolling back enforcement efforts and enacting a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The CFTC could gain expanded oversight powers under the proposed CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July and is now being reviewed by the Senate. That legislation aims to clarify when a digital asset is a commodity versus a security, a long-standing jurisdictional issue between the CFTC and the SEC.Selig's nomination follows the withdrawal of Trump's earlier pick, Brian Quintenz, who alleged his nomination was derailed by pressure from major crypto donors, the Winklevoss twins. Senators are expected to press Selig on his approach to inter-agency cooperation, how he would regulate crypto spot markets, and how the CFTC might handle politically sensitive areas like election betting. Currently, only one commissioner remains on the CFTC, Republican Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair and has signaled plans to step down once a new leader is confirmed.Senate to grill Trump's pick for CFTC head on crypto regulation | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Trump filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the phrase linked him to Nazi propaganda and unfairly compared him to Adolf Hitler. However, both the district court and the appeals court found that CNN's language constituted protected opinion, not provable falsehoods.The court emphasized that Trump failed to demonstrate that CNN's statements were factually false, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim. While Trump asserted that “Big Lie” was unambiguous and defamatory, the panel disagreed, finding the term inherently subjective and open to interpretation—particularly in political contexts. They noted that if politically charged terms like “fascist” are ambiguous, then “Big Lie,” which is facially apolitical, must be considered at least as ambiguous.Trump had also tried to compare CNN's interpretation of his actions to his own self-assessment, in which he saw himself as exercising constitutional rights. But the court held that differing views on Trump's conduct are subjective and not subject to clear proof. The district court's refusal to reconsider or allow Trump to amend the complaint was upheld, as he failed to present new evidence or show any legal error.The opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth Branch.Trump Fails to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN Over ‘Big Lie' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Statute of MarlboroughOn November 18, 1267, the Statute of Marlborough was enacted during the reign of King Henry III of England. It is the oldest piece of English statute law still partially in force, with four of its original twenty-nine chapters remaining on the books. The statute emerged from a period of intense baronial conflict and civil unrest, notably the Second Barons' War, and was part of a broader effort to restore royal authority and stabilize governance through legal reform. It reinforced the crown's prerogatives while addressing grievances raised by rebellious nobles, making it a compromise between royal and feudal powers.Among its most enduring provisions were regulations on the practice of “distress,” which referred to the seizure of property to compel debt repayment or enforce court judgments. The statute restricted unlawful and excessive distresses, requiring them to occur only with legal justification and in the appropriate jurisdiction. These reforms curtailed private self-help remedies and emphasized formal court processes, laying foundational principles for due process and the centralization of judicial authority. It also addressed issues like wardship, waste of land, and the obligations of tenants—key concerns in the feudal legal structure.The Statute of Marlborough built upon earlier reforms such as the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster, but had a more lasting legal impact. Its survival into modern times speaks to the durability of certain legal concepts, especially those reinforcing procedural fairness. Some of its language has been modernized, but the essence of its rules remains intact in English law. The statute reflects an early attempt to systematize and limit both public and private power through legal mechanisms. Legal historians often point to it as a stepping stone on the path to the English common law tradition.The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the federal government's authority to limit asylum processing at official U.S.-Mexico border crossings under the now-rescinded “metering” policy. Originally implemented under President Trump and formalized in 2018, metering allowed border agents to stop asylum seekers before they crossed into the U.S. and decline to process their claims, even when they were physically present at ports of entry. The Biden administration repealed the policy in 2021, but Trump's return to office has revived interest in reestablishing it.At the core of the case is the legal meaning of the phrase “arrives in the United States,” with the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2024 that it includes people who reach official border entry points—even if still on the Mexican side. That ruling held that federal law requires asylum seekers at ports of entry to be inspected and allowed to apply, regardless of logistical constraints like capacity. The advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which brought the lawsuit in 2017, argues the metering policy illegally circumvented these obligations, leaving vulnerable migrants stranded in dangerous border conditions.Trump's Justice Department contends that “arrives in” means actual entry, not mere proximity—using analogies ranging from Normandy to football to make its point. The administration has also signaled that it intends to resume the policy if conditions warrant. The case, which will likely be decided by June, comes amid broader efforts to restrict asylum protections globally and may clarify the limits of executive power over humanitarian migration policy.Supreme Court to review US government power to limit asylum processing | ReutersA California judge has blocked a proposed class action lawsuit involving 6,000 Black workers at Tesla's Fremont factory who alleged systemic racial harassment, marking a significant legal win for the company. Judge Peter Borkon ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action because the plaintiffs' attorneys failed to secure testimony from at least 200 workers—raising doubts about whether the experiences of a smaller group could represent the broader workforce. This reverses a 2024 decision by another judge who had previously allowed the class to move forward.The original lawsuit, filed in 2017 by former worker Marcus Vaughn, alleged pervasive racism at the facility, including slurs, racist graffiti, and even nooses in work areas. Tesla has denied allowing harassment and said it takes disciplinary action against those who violate company policy. While this ruling narrows the scope of Vaughn's lawsuit, Tesla still faces other legal challenges, including a similar case from California's civil rights agency and a separate federal suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tesla has previously settled other race discrimination lawsuits brought by individual employees.Tesla wins bid to undo race bias class action by Black factory workers | ReutersAshurst and Perkins Coie have agreed to merge, forming a global law firm with 3,000 lawyers and $2.7 billion in revenue—placing it among the world's top 20 legal outfits by size. The merger, expected to close in late 2026 pending partner approval, will create Ashurst Perkins Coie, with 52 offices across 23 countries. The move is part of a broader trend of transatlantic law firm consolidation aimed at scaling up to serve cross-border clients more effectively.Leadership will be shared between Ashurst's global CEO Paul Jenkins and Perkins Coie's managing partner Bill Malley, who emphasized the merger's value for clients in technology, financial services, and energy. Talks began in early 2025, with both firms framing the deal as a long-term strategic alignment. Perkins Coie recently gained attention for its role in successfully challenging executive orders from President Trump's administration targeting the firm and others tied to his political adversaries. While the firms say they have no current plans to expand their office footprint, the combination signals a deepening of U.K.-U.S. legal market integration.Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at OpenAI's effort to expand the CHIPS Act tax credit into a broad-based AI infrastructure subsidy—and what it reveals about the government's evolving role in underwriting the AI economy. OpenAI has asked the federal government to stretch the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit—originally designed to revive U.S. semiconductor manufacturing—to cover the entire AI stack, from servers to steel. That request arrives as data centers' energy consumption and land use start imposing real costs on local grids, budgets, and communities, raising the question: who's actually footing the bill for AI?I argue that this isn't a bailout so much as a bid for taxpayer-backed central planning, with a venture-capital gloss. AI infrastructure projects like OpenAI's Stargate centers already benefit from layers of state and local tax breaks, discounted electricity, and favorable land deals. Adding a 35% federal credit on top creates a subsidy stack that warps local priorities—school districts lose tax revenue, utilities are forced to reroute energy, and residents pay more on their bills. The public impact is mounting, even as the private benefit remains largely proprietary and insulated.Rather than offering blank checks, Congress should condition federal support on clear benefit-sharing requirements: job thresholds, emissions transparency, energy sourcing obligations, and clawbacks for missed targets. I propose a framework that makes federal aid contingent on upfront impact disclosures, co-investment in the grid, and full accounting of overlapping subsidies. Industrial policy isn't inherently bad—but without enforceable terms, we're not funding a public-private partnership. We're subsidizing a corporate buildout dressed up as a national security imperative. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: US Capitol OpensOn November 17, 1800, the United States Congress convened for the first time in the new Capitol building in Washington, D.C., marking a foundational moment in American legal and political history. The relocation came after a decade of Congress meeting in temporary quarters, most recently in Philadelphia, as the young republic grappled with questions of permanence and national identity. Washington, D.C. had been selected as the capital through the Residence Act of 1790, a political compromise that helped balance regional power between North and South. By 1800, the city remained largely undeveloped, and the Capitol itself was still under construction—only the north wing was usable.Despite its incomplete state, the Capitol's occupation by Congress signaled the institutional maturity of the federal government. It gave physical shape to the separation of powers by housing the legislative branch in its own dedicated space, distinct from the executive and judiciary. This move also underscored the federal character of the American system, establishing a neutral location not belonging to any one state. John Adams, still president at the time, had moved into the President's House (now the White House) just weeks earlier, completing the federal trifecta.The decision to proceed with the session in an unfinished building reflected a commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law, even in the face of logistical and environmental hardships. Lawmakers contended with the muddy streets and sparse accommodations of the nascent city, yet their presence inaugurated what would become one of the most symbolically and functionally important legislative chambers in the world. This moment laid the groundwork for Washington, D.C. to become not only the seat of American government but a focal point for legal development, political conflict, and democratic debate for centuries to come.More than 500 lawsuits alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy causes autism in children may be revived, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit prepares to hear arguments from plaintiffs challenging a 2024 dismissal of their cases. A lower court had rejected the claims after finding that the plaintiffs' expert testimony lacked scientific rigor, a conclusion supported by Tylenol maker Kenvue. The plaintiffs argue the judge mischaracterized their experts' findings and are citing public support from President Trump and health officials, who linked autism to Tylenol use during a September 2025 press conference.Scientific consensus continues to hold that no definitive link exists between acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) and autism, a position echoed by Kenvue. The company is also facing a separate suit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who accuses Kenvue of concealing risks to children, though a Texas judge recently denied Paxton's efforts to halt a $398 million shareholder dividend and restrict Tylenol marketing. Meanwhile, it remains uncertain whether the appeal will impact Kimberly-Clark's pending $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, though both companies have indicated that litigation over autism claims won't derail the deal.US appeals court to weigh reviving cases over Tylenol and autism | ReutersGupta Wessler, a boutique appellate firm in Washington, D.C., known for its U.S. Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of plaintiffs, has hired Matthew Guarnieri, a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. Guarnieri argued 13 Supreme Court cases under both the Biden and Trump administrations and is the first attorney to leave the solicitor general's office for a firm that exclusively handles plaintiff-side appellate work. His move reflects a growing recognition of Gupta Wessler's nontraditional model, which competes with corporate-heavy appellate practices at larger firms.Guarnieri becomes the fifth principal at the 18-lawyer firm, which is currently involved in high-profile litigation, including representing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees challenging President Trump's mass firings and securing a $185 million verdict against Monsanto over chemical contamination. The firm also represents Uber passengers alleging sexual assault and recently blocked an attempt in Nevada to limit contingency fees in civil cases. Guarnieri left the DOJ in October after nine years of service; the department declined to comment on his departure.DC appellate firm picks up departing DOJ Supreme Court advocate | ReutersA federal jury in California has ordered Apple to pay $634 million to Masimo, a medical technology company, for infringing a patent related to blood-oxygen monitoring used in Apple Watches. The jury found that specific features like workout mode and heart rate notifications violated Masimo's patent rights. Apple has announced plans to appeal, arguing that the patent in question, which expired in 2022, covers outdated technology and that most of Masimo's other patent claims have been invalidated.This verdict is part of a broader legal conflict between Apple and Masimo, which accuses Apple of poaching employees and misappropriating pulse oximetry technology. In 2023, the U.S. International Trade Commission imposed an import ban on certain Apple Watch models, prompting Apple to remove the disputed feature and later reintroduce it with customs approval. A new ITC review is now underway to determine if the updated models should also be banned. The legal fight spans several courts and includes ongoing challenges from both companies over import restrictions and intellectual property claims.US jury says Apple must pay Masimo $634 million in smartwatch patent case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

This Day in Legal History: Happy Brandeis DayOn November 13, 1856, Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He would go on to become one of the most influential jurists in American legal history. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson, Brandeis was the first Jewish justice and brought a deeply progressive and pragmatic philosophy to the bench. Long before his judicial career, he co-authored the seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy,” articulating a legal theory that would shape decades of constitutional interpretation. On the Court, he consistently championed civil liberties, individual privacy, and limitations on unchecked government and corporate power.Brandeis was known for his meticulous reasoning and willingness to dissent, often laying the groundwork for future majority opinions. In Whitney v. California (1927), his concurring opinion defended free speech in sweeping terms, arguing that the remedy for harmful ideas was more speech, not enforced silence—a principle that remains central to First Amendment jurisprudence. In economic cases, he frequently opposed monopolistic practices and was skeptical of concentrated financial power, earning him the moniker “the people's lawyer.” His distrust of large institutions was not ideological but rooted in a belief that democracy and individual autonomy could only flourish when those institutions were held accountable.Brandeis also advanced the use of social science and empirical data in legal arguments, exemplified by the famous “Brandeis Brief” in Muller v. Oregon (1908), which emphasized real-world facts over abstract legal theory. He believed that courts should understand the broader implications of their rulings, particularly in cases affecting labor, privacy, and civil rights. Though his views were sometimes out of step with his contemporaries, many of his ideas became mainstream in later decades. Brandeis served on the Court until 1939, leaving a legacy of principled independence and intellectual rigor.House Democrats have released emails suggesting that Donald Trump may have been aware of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of underage girls. The documents include a 2019 email in which Epstein told author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls” and asked Ghislaine Maxwell to “stop,” as well as a 2011 message from Epstein to Maxwell claiming Trump spent significant time at his house with one of Epstein's victims. The victim's name is redacted, but the White House says it refers to the late Virginia Giuffre, who has publicly stated that Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing.Trump has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein's crimes, emphasizing that their friendship ended years before Epstein's death in jail in 2019. The White House dismissed the email release as a politically motivated stunt and accused Democrats of constructing a “fake narrative.” Still, the controversy has stirred unease among Trump's base, with recent polling showing only 40% of Republicans support his handling of the Epstein case—far less than his usual approval ratings.Wednesday's release coincides with the swearing-in of Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, whose vote could trigger a full House vote to declassify all Epstein-related records. Democrats, led by Rep. Robert Garcia, are pushing for full transparency, alleging that attempts to conceal the files raise deeper concerns about Trump's connection to Epstein.House Democrats release Epstein papers saying Trump ‘knew about the girls' | ReutersApple says recent fee cuts for app developers in the EU, made to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), have not led to lower prices for consumers. The company commissioned a study showing that developers kept prices the same or raised them for 90% of products, with only 9% seeing reductions—and those were consistent with typical pricing trends, not fee changes. Most of the financial benefit from reduced commissions, totaling €20.1 million, went to non-EU developers.Apple argues this undermines the DMA's goal of helping consumers and fostering competition, instead creating new hurdles for startups and potential risks for users. The European Commission has not yet commented. The DMA targets tech giants like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, aiming to level the playing field and offer users more choice.Developer fee cuts not passed on to EU users, Apple says | ReutersGoogle has filed a federal lawsuit in New York aiming to dismantle an international phishing operation it claims originated in China. According to the complaint, the group used software called “Lighthouse” to impersonate entities like Google, the U.S. Postal Service, and E-ZPass, sending fake text messages that tricked users into revealing sensitive personal and financial information. Nearly 200,000 fraudulent websites were allegedly created in just 20 days, targeting over a million people across more than 120 countries.Google accuses the 25 unnamed defendants of trademark infringement, false advertising, and racketeering, and is seeking financial damages as well as legal orders to shut the scheme down in the U.S. The company estimates the group may have stolen between 12.7 million and 115 million U.S. credit card numbers. Google's general counsel also backed proposed federal legislation to strengthen protections against similar scams.Google sues in New York to break up text phishing scheme | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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