Podcasts about legalnews

Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss Iran, Minneapolis, and crypto. 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: “Axis of Evil”On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq's supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti's waist before the shooting.The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn't comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He's got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | ReutersThe U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn't struck.US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | ReutersGoogle has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users' cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone's property for one's own use.Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.Plaintiffs' attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | ReutersGoogle to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data SuitA Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students' pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district's pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.Polk argued that MCPS's policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students' gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.Christian Teacher Can't Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss 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: Monkey SelfieOn January 28, 2016, a federal judge in California dismissed a highly publicized copyright lawsuit that sought to establish whether a monkey could own intellectual property rights. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident in which a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took a series of selfies using wildlife photographer David Slater's unattended camera in Indonesia. The resulting images, particularly a striking self-portrait of the grinning primate, went viral and sparked widespread debate over authorship and ownership. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto's behalf, asserting that the monkey was the true author and copyright holder of the images under the Copyright Act.The case presented novel legal questions about the boundaries of authorship and whether non-human animals have standing to sue in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that animals do not have statutory standing under the Copyright Act, which applies only to human authors. In his opinion, Orrick emphasized that Congress had not intended to grant copyright rights to animals, and that extending such rights would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.The ruling did not settle the matter completely, as PETA appealed the decision. However, in 2018, PETA and Slater reached a settlement in which Slater agreed to donate a portion of any future revenue from the photos to organizations protecting macaques and their habitats. The case sparked lasting discussion about animal rights, legal personhood, and the reach of copyright law in the digital age. It also underscored how existing legal frameworks may be ill-equipped to address emerging questions posed by technology and non-human agency.Several Democratic-led U.S. states are advancing legislation to allow individuals to sue federal immigration agents in state courts for alleged civil rights violations. This movement gained momentum after two fatal ICE encounters in Minneapolis and broader concerns over enforcement tactics under President Trump's immigration policies. Illinois recently became the first state to pass such a law, but the Trump administration quickly filed a legal challenge, citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. Other states, including California, New York, and Virginia, are considering similar measures.Supporters argue these laws would close an accountability gap, as federal agents—unlike state or local officials—are largely shielded from individual civil rights lawsuits. While Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows such suits against state actors in federal court, no equivalent exists for federal officers. The Federal Tort Claims Act permits some claims against the U.S. government but not against agents personally, and it involves complex procedures. Legal experts say these state efforts could spark a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially giving courts a framework to hold federal agents accountable for constitutional violations.The Department of Homeland Security has defended ICE's actions and criticized the state proposals. Critics, including legal scholars, warn that parts of the Illinois law—such as those allowing punitive damages—may be unconstitutional. However, others maintain that the core idea of state-level accountability for federal misconduct is both lawful and necessary.US state lawmakers push to allow lawsuits against ICE agents | ReutersA Virginia judge blocked an attempt by state Democrats to advance a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to redraw the state's congressional map in their favor. Judge Jack Hurley, Jr. ruled that the process used to introduce the amendment was procedurally invalid and came too close to the state's 2025 election. The decision halts a strategy that could have given Democrats control of up to 10 of Virginia's 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six they currently hold.Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Don Scott, have pledged to appeal the ruling. The blocked amendment was intended to be put before voters in a special election this spring, with a new electoral map released ahead of time for public consideration. With control of the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives at stake in the upcoming midterms, the decision is a significant setback for Democrats, who need only flip three seats to gain a majority.The dispute is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting, with both parties pursuing aggressive map-drawing strategies in various states. Last year, Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw maps targeting Democratic incumbents, prompting Democratic-led states like California to follow suit in kind.Judge blocks Virginia lawmakers' bid for pro-Democratic voting map | ReutersTop lawyers at U.S. litigation firm Susman Godfrey are now billing up to $4,000 per hour, setting a new high for hourly legal fees in 2026. The rate applies to prominent partners Neal Manne and Bill Carmody, whose hourly fees were already $3,000 last year. While most of their work is done on contingency or flat-fee arrangements, this hourly benchmark reflects growing price trends across elite law firms. Manne joked that their rate-setting process is as secretive as a papal conclave, and the firm has not disclosed how the figures were determined.Susman Godfrey, based in Houston, is known for high-end litigation on both the plaintiff and defense side and offers above-average compensation, especially to associates. The rise in billing rates is part of a broader trend—major law firms raised their hourly rates by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.Other top firms are also pushing rate ceilings. Latham & Watkins reached $3,050 per hour for some partners in federal bankruptcy filings, while leading appellate lawyer Neal Katyal billed $3,250 at Milbank. Quinn Emanuel partners were billing at $3,000 an hour last year, according to court records.As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for top partners | 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

Jason talks with defense attorney Joe Tamburino about several legal cases making their way through the courts related to the ICE surge in Minnesota.

This Day in Legal History: Paris Peace AccordsOn January 27, 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords, effectively marking the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Though primarily a geopolitical and military agreement, the Paris Peace Accords had significant legal dimensions. Negotiated between the U.S., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong (under the banner of the Provisional Revolutionary Government), the accords represented a complex international legal settlement aimed at restoring peace in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.The agreement included provisions for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the release of prisoners of war, and the recognition of South Vietnamese sovereignty. Legally, the accords posed a challenge to domestic and international law frameworks, particularly in the way the U.S. executive branch negotiated and signed the agreement without formal Congressional approval. This would later contribute to the debate around the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which sought to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. forces without legislative oversight.Though hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the accords failed to bring lasting peace. North Vietnam eventually overran the South in 1975, raising legal questions about treaty enforcement and the durability of international peace agreements brokered without strong enforcement mechanisms.A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota is weighing whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the state, which has come under intense scrutiny following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse. Local officials from Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul argue the federal crackdown involves unlawful tactics, including warrantless home raids and racial profiling, carried out by over 2,800 heavily armed agents—more than the total local police force. The Biden-appointed judge, Katherine Menendez, acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case.The administration, defending the operation, dismissed the lawsuit as baseless. However, video evidence contradicts the official account of Pretti's death, showing he was unarmed and holding a phone when agents shot him, despite claims he posed a threat with a firearm. The incident has fueled widespread protests and demands for federal de-escalation from both state leaders and major Minnesota-based companies like Target and 3M.President Trump has sent border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, though it's unclear whether this signals an expansion or reassessment of federal actions. Trump says his administration is “reviewing everything” and that immigration agents will eventually withdraw. Tensions have also spilled into Washington, with Senate Democrats vowing to block DHS funding, risking a partial government shutdown. Meanwhile, even some Republicans are questioning the administration's approach.US judge to consider pause to Minnesota crackdown as Trump dispatches border czar | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from ending legal status for over 8,400 migrants from seven Latin American countries who had been allowed to live in the U.S. under family reunification parole programs. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the programs, which benefited migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.These programs, created or expanded under President Biden, allowed U.S. citizens and green card holders to sponsor relatives while they awaited visa approval. The Trump administration moved to end the programs, claiming they were inconsistent with current enforcement priorities and enabled people to bypass traditional immigration processes.Talwani found that the administration failed to justify its decision, noting the government neither provided evidence of fraud nor assessed the real-life consequences for affected migrants. Many had already sold homes or left jobs in their home countries. She ruled that DHS's policy shift lacked a reasoned explanation and was therefore arbitrary and capricious under administrative law.The ruling is part of a broader class action brought by immigrant rights advocates challenging Trump's rollback of temporary protections. Talwani had previously tried to block similar efforts affecting hundreds of thousands of migrants, but those earlier rulings were overturned on appeal or by the Supreme Court.US judge blocks Trump administration's push to end legal status of 8,400 migrants | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a look at the Empire State's budget. New York Governor Kathy Hochul's proposed no-tax-hike budget may appear fiscally cautious, but critics (includin me) argue it lacks the stable, long-term revenue needed to support key social programs like universal childcare. While the state currently enjoys relative revenue stability, the budget relies on temporary fixes, such as decoupling from parts of the federal tax code to generate $1.6 billion, instead of pursuing more durable sources of funding.My critique centers on Hochul's refusal to raise the top marginal corporate tax rate—currently 7.25% for large companies—which is lower than neighboring states like New Jersey (11.5%) and Connecticut (8.25%). I suggest raising the rate to at least 8.5% and making the existing corporate tax surcharge permanent. I argue that companies benefiting from New York's infrastructure and market can afford modest increases, and are unlikely to relocate given regional and national tax landscapes.Without securing permanent funding, the state risks repeating a familiar pattern: expanding programs in good times and cutting them during downturns. I warn that relying on temporary revenue maneuvers delays tough decisions and increases the likelihood of painful tax hikes or service cuts when the economy falters. In short, now is the time to align recurring revenues with long-term commitments, while conditions are favorable. 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: Dyer Anti-Lynching BillOn January 26, 1922, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, a landmark but ultimately thwarted attempt to make lynching a federal crime. Introduced by Missouri Republican Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer, the bill was drafted in response to the widespread and brutal practice of lynching—acts of racial terror largely aimed at Black Americans, often carried out with impunity. The measure sought to impose fines and prison terms on local officials who failed to protect individuals from mob violence, directly challenging the systemic neglect of justice in the Jim Crow South.Though the House approved the bill by a wide margin, it met a coordinated and racist blockade in the Senate, where Southern Democrats employed the filibuster to prevent a vote. The bill's failure underscored both the power of white supremacist interests in Congress and the federal government's unwillingness to confront racial violence. It would take a full century—100 years—for the U.S. to finally enact a federal anti-lynching law.That moment came in March 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was signed into law, making lynching a federal hate crime. The staggering gap between the Dyer Bill's passage in the House and the eventual success of anti-lynching legislation—exactly 100 years and two months later—is a sobering reminder of how recent, and how halting, legal progress on racial justice has been. From a historical perspective, 1922 is not ancient history; many living Americans had parents or grandparents who witnessed the Dyer Bill's failure.The Dyer Bill remains a powerful example of how legal change, even when urgent and necessary, can be obstructed for generations. It also reveals how the law, far from being a neutral instrument, often bends to the political will of those in power. The slow arc toward justice in this case wasn't just theoretical—it was measured in innocent lives lost and justice denied.The murder of Minnesota nurse Alex Pretti by ICE agents has sent shockwaves through Congress and thrown federal budget negotiations into chaos just days before a January 30 funding deadline. What had been a carefully arranged plan to pass remaining appropriations bills now faces collapse, raising the real possibility of a partial government shutdown. Senate Democrats, already uneasy about funding the Department of Homeland Security, have hardened their opposition in response to the killing and are demanding investigations and new limits on ICE. Several Democrats who previously helped avert a shutdown now say they will not support any bill that includes ICE funding under these circumstances.Even lawmakers known for deal‑making, including Sen. Patty Murray, have withdrawn support, arguing that federal agents cannot commit murder without accountability. Republicans warn that blocking DHS funding risks undermining national security, but cracks are appearing within their ranks as well. Sen. Bill Cassidy called the killing “disturbing” and urged a joint federal‑state investigation, a rare public break with the administration. Meanwhile, logistical hurdles—including winter storms and congressional recesses—are shrinking the window for compromise. With both parties dug in and tensions escalating nationwide, the shutdown threat has grown sharper by the day.Minnesota Shooting Inflames Tensions in Congress, Risks ShutdownMeta, TikTok, and YouTube are set to face trial this week in Los Angeles County over claims that their platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis by fostering social media addiction. The case centers on a 19-year-old plaintiff, K.G.M., who alleges she became addicted to the apps at a young age, leading to depression and suicidal thoughts. It marks the first time these major tech companies will have to defend their platforms in court, rather than in congressional hearings. The jury will be asked to determine whether the companies were negligent and whether their products were a substantial factor in harming K.G.M.'s mental health.This trial is seen as a bellwether for dozens of similar cases expected to follow. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel were both expected to testify, though Snap recently settled with the plaintiff. YouTube plans to argue that its platform is fundamentally different from other social media services, distancing itself from TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, these companies have been aggressively promoting parental control features and safety programs in schools and youth organizations to shift public perception.Despite these efforts, critics argue the tech giants are leveraging their influence—legal, financial, and cultural—to avoid accountability. Attorneys representing the companies have experience in other high-profile addiction-related litigation, including the opioid crisis and video game cases. As the trial unfolds, the question of corporate responsibility for digital harm to minors will be tested in court for the first time.Meta, TikTok, YouTube to stand trial on youth addiction claims | ReutersThe Supreme Court appears unlikely to grant President Trump's request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook but also seems disinclined to issue a sweeping ruling on the broader constitutional or statutory questions at play. Legal analysts suggest the justices are leaning toward a narrow, procedural decision—one that would preserve a lower court's injunction against Cook's removal while sending the case back to trial court for further fact-finding. This approach would allow the Court to sidestep defining what constitutes “cause” for firing a Fed governor or how far presidential removal powers extend, particularly in relation to the Federal Reserve's legal independence.The justices expressed concern about the rushed pace of the case and the thin evidentiary record, with Justice Alito questioning whether key documents were even part of the case file. Trump argues that Cook committed mortgage fraud, but Cook and her legal team contend the firing attempt is a pretext for punishing her resistance to his demands for aggressive rate cuts. Several justices highlighted the potential economic fallout of removing a Fed official, with economists warning of recession risks if the court acts hastily.This case underscores that the Court is never obligated to resolve constitutional issues in broad strokes—it may always choose a minimalist path that focuses on the facts before it. Legal scholars note that even if the Court rules for Cook, it could do so narrowly by emphasizing procedural due process rather than affirming a general principle of Fed independence. The outcome is expected by June but may arrive sooner.Supreme Court may leave big questions unresolved on Trump bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook | 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: League of Nations MeetsOn January 23, 1920, the League of Nations held its first official meeting, marking a major experiment in international law and collective governance. The League was created in the aftermath of World War I as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Its core mission was to prevent future wars through diplomacy, arbitration, and collective security. For the first time, nations committed themselves to resolving disputes through legal mechanisms rather than unilateral force. The League also helped develop early norms of international accountability and treaty enforcement. It established permanent institutions to oversee mandates, labor standards, and minority protections. Although the United States never joined, the League influenced how international law was discussed and practiced. Its failures, particularly its inability to prevent aggression in the 1930s, exposed the limits of voluntary compliance without enforcement power. Those weaknesses became lessons for later international institutions. Many of the League's structures and legal concepts were later incorporated into the United Nations. The League's first meeting thus represents a foundational moment in the modern law of international cooperation.U.S. President Donald Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit in Florida state court against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, alleging that the bank improperly closed his accounts for political reasons. Trump claims JPMorgan violated its own internal policies by singling him out as part of a broader political agenda. The bank denied the allegations, stating it does not close accounts based on political or religious views and that the lawsuit lacks merit. Trump also accused Dimon of orchestrating a “blacklist” intended to discourage other financial institutions from doing business with him, his family, and the Trump Organization. He said the account closures caused reputational harm and forced him to seek alternative banking relationships. JPMorgan countered that account closures are sometimes required to manage legal or regulatory risk. The lawsuit comes amid broader political scrutiny of banks over alleged “debanking” practices. Conservative critics have accused lenders of restricting services to certain individuals and industries. A recent report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that major banks limited services to some industries between 2020 and 2023, though it did not identify specific wrongdoing. Regulators have since moved away from using vague “reputational risk” standards in bank supervision.Trump sues JPMorgan, CEO Jamie Dimon for $5 billion over alleged debanking | ReutersFormer U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith told the House Judiciary Committee that Donald Trump willfully violated the law in his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Smith testified that Trump was not seeking truthful information about election fraud claims but instead was searching for ways to block certification of the results. The hearing marked Smith's first extensive public testimony about the two criminal cases he brought against Trump, both of which were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024. Republicans on the committee accused Smith of political bias and argued his investigation improperly targeted Trump and his allies. They focused on Smith's use of subpoenas for phone records of Republican lawmakers, portraying the actions as overreach. Smith defended those measures as necessary to investigate potential obstruction of justice. He said Republican witnesses who contradicted Trump's fraud claims would have been central to the election interference case. Trump responded by renewing calls for Smith to be prosecuted and accusing him of harming innocent people. Democrats on the panel defended Smith as a career prosecutor guided by evidence rather than politics.Former US prosecutor Smith says Trump ‘willfully broke' laws in bid to keep power | ReutersA federal judge expressed skepticism about whether the Trump administration has the legal authority to build a $400 million ballroom at the White House without congressional approval. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon questioned the administration's justification for demolishing the historic East Wing and replacing it with a large new structure. The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues the project violates federal laws governing construction on parkland in Washington, D.C. The group contends that Congress must expressly authorize such construction and that required environmental reviews were bypassed or improperly handled. Judge Leon sharply rejected comparisons between the ballroom and past minor renovations, signaling concern about the scale of the project. He is considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would halt construction while the case proceeds. The administration maintains the ballroom is necessary for state functions and part of a long tradition of presidential renovations. Government lawyers also argue that stopping construction now would serve no public benefit, especially since above-ground work is months away. Leon said he expects to rule on the injunction request in the coming weeks.White House faces skeptical judge in lawsuit over Trump ballroom | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Édouard Lalo.This week's closing theme features music by Lalo, a composer who spent much of his career just outside the spotlight of 19th-century French music. Born in 1823, Lalo came to composition relatively late and struggled for recognition in a musical world dominated by opera and established conservatory figures. He is best remembered today for works that combine classical structure with vivid color and rhythmic vitality. The Concerto in F Major, Op. 20 reflects those strengths, balancing elegance with expressive intensity. The opening Andante – Allegro begins with a reflective, almost searching character before unfolding into a more energetic and assertive main section. Lalo uses the solo instrument to sing rather than dominate, emphasizing lyrical phrasing over virtuosic display. The movement's shifting moods showcase his gift for contrast and dramatic pacing. There is a clear sense of forward motion, but never at the expense of clarity. Lalo's orchestration remains transparent, allowing themes to breathe and develop naturally. The music feels poised between Romantic warmth and classical restraint. As a closing theme, it offers both momentum and reflection. It is a reminder of Lalo's understated influence and the enduring appeal of his finely crafted musical voice.Without further ado, Édouard Lalo's Concerto in F Major, Op. 20, the opening Andante, 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

Legal News Commentator Gregg Jarrett joins Sid to talk about a House committee voted on a bipartisan basis yesterday to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress, teeing up a full vote in two weeks' time in the lower chamber that could result in criminal charges. Jarrett also comments on anti-Israel activist and former Columbia grad student Mahmoud Khalil set to be deported to Algeria — bringing a supposed end to a drawn-out court battle over his immigration status. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Aides ConvictedOn January 21, 1975, three of Richard Nixon's closest aides—H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney General John Mitchell—were convicted for their roles in the Watergate cover-up. The charges? Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. These convictions weren't just about punishing political wrongdoing; they were the direct legal aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Nixon six months earlier. That decision famously held that executive privilege—long seen as a near-impenetrable shield—does not extend to cover-ups and criminal conduct. The message was as clear as it was historic: even the most powerful figures in government are not beyond the reach of the law.The Watergate trials became a masterclass in the tension between power and accountability. These weren't fringe operatives—they were the President's top men, brought down not by partisan maneuvering but by due process. In convicting them, the courts affirmed a fundamental principle: constitutional protections are not carte blanche for corruption. That principle has since been tested repeatedly, often invoked but rarely with the same clarity.While Nixon himself was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his aides faced real legal consequences. And in doing so, they served as a sobering example of what happens when loyalty to power eclipses loyalty to the law.On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—an unprecedented move that could reshape the legal boundaries of central bank independence. Trump is challenging a lower court ruling that barred him from removing Cook while her legal challenge continues. At issue is whether a president can dismiss a Fed governor without due process, despite the Federal Reserve Act's “for cause” removal standard, which lacks clear definition.Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed's board (by President Biden in 2022), argues Trump's push is politically motivated, tied to disagreements over monetary policy. Trump cited past mortgage fraud allegations—which Cook denies—as grounds for her removal, but a district court found those likely insufficient and in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The D.C. Circuit declined to stay that ruling.The case has major implications: no president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor, and the Court's decision could determine how insulated the central bank remains from political interference. It also arrives amid broader questions about the scope of presidential control over independent agencies—and a criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, which many see as part of the same pressure campaign.By way of brief background, a Federal Reserve governor is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the central banking authority of the United States. The Board is composed of seven governors, each appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve staggered 14-year terms. These governors play a critical role in shaping U.S. monetary policy, overseeing the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and regulating certain financial institutions. Their primary responsibilities include setting the discount rate, influencing the federal funds rate (the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans), and voting on key decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—the body that manages the nation's money supply and interest rate targets.Importantly, Fed governors are designed to be insulated from political pressure to preserve the central bank's independence. That's why they can only be removed by the president “for cause”—a vague legal standard that has rarely, if ever, been tested. This structural independence is meant to prevent short-term political interests from influencing decisions that have long-term economic consequences, such as controlling inflation, stabilizing employment, or responding to financial crises. While their work often operates behind the scenes, the policies they help shape impact virtually every corner of the U.S. economy—from mortgage rates to job growth to the value of the dollar.US Supreme Court considers Trump's bid to fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersA court-appointed special master has recommended that women suing Johnson & Johnson over claims its talc-based products caused ovarian cancer should be allowed to present expert testimony supporting that link in upcoming trials. Retired Judge Freda Wolfson found that the plaintiffs' experts used reliable methods and cited statistically significant studies connecting genital talc use to ovarian cancer. The recommendation—part of a sprawling litigation involving over 67,500 cases—moves the lawsuits closer to federal trial, possibly later this year.Wolfson also allowed J&J's experts to present rebuttal testimony, but excluded certain plaintiff theories, such as talc migration via inhalation or links to fragrance chemicals and heavy metals. J&J criticized the ruling and plans to challenge it, arguing that the scientific evidence wasn't rigorously vetted.The litigation has dragged on for years, complicated by failed bankruptcy attempts by J&J to shield itself from liability. While the company denies its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer, prior jury verdicts have yielded multi-billion-dollar awards for plaintiffs, though some have been overturned. The case could become a major bellwether for corporate liability and the legal standard for expert scientific evidence in mass torts.Experts can testify about suspected J&J talc products' cancer link, special master recommends | ReutersLindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned prosecutor and former personal attorney to the president, is leaving her post at the U.S. Justice Department after a federal judge sharply rebuked her for continuing to act as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia beyond her legally allowed interim term. Appointed without Senate confirmation, Halligan's authority expired after 120 days, yet she continued using the title—prompting Judge David Novak to call her conduct a “charade” and warn of potential disciplinary action.Halligan had led politically charged investigations targeting Trump adversaries like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, though those cases were dismissed due to questions over her legitimacy. The Justice Department is appealing those rulings, but the controversy has sparked internal tension, with Novak criticizing the DOJ's recent filings as inflammatory and unprofessional.Her departure follows Senate Democrats' refusal to advance her formal nomination, citing the “blue slip” tradition that allows home-state senators to block nominees. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed Democrats for obstructing Halligan's tenure, while Trump allies hinted at retaliation if the court names a replacement. The episode underscores ongoing friction between the judiciary, the Justice Department, and Trump's efforts to assert political control over federal prosecutions.After judge's rebuke, Trump ally Halligan to leave US Justice Department | ReutersA Massachusetts judge has ruled that Kalshi, a New York-based prediction market platform, cannot offer sports betting services in the state without a proper gambling license. The decision comes after Attorney General Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi, arguing that it was illegally offering unlicensed sports wagers to residents, including users as young as 18. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith agreed, stating that state oversight of sports betting protects public health and financial interests.Kalshi, which allows users to bet on outcomes of events like sports, politics, and the economy, claimed that its operations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), due to its status as a registered contract market. The judge rejected that argument, ruling that federal oversight of financial instruments does not override state authority to regulate gambling.Kalshi plans to appeal the injunction, which could be finalized following a hearing. This marks the first court-ordered halt of Kalshi's operations in a state, though it faces similar legal challenges elsewhere. The case underscores growing friction between emerging event-based financial markets and traditional gambling laws.Kalshi cannot operate sports-prediction market in Massachusetts, 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: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court's original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners' authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court's recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government's suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion's project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration's objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration's opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association's role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida's decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump's administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization's influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service's partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren't ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can't simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn't just a federal tax problem—it's a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States 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: 18th Amendment to the US ConstitutionOn January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history by establishing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. The amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” for consumption in the United States and its territories. It was the culmination of decades of temperance activism, led by organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, which argued that alcohol was responsible for societal problems including crime, poverty, and domestic violence.The amendment passed Congress in December 1917, but ratification by the states was required for it to take effect. That threshold was reached on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it. One year later, on January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act—the federal statute enforcing the amendment—went into effect, ushering in the Prohibition era.However, the law led to unintended consequences. Rather than curbing alcohol consumption, it fueled the rise of organized crime, as bootleggers and speakeasies flourished across the country. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for prohibition waned through the 1920s.Ultimately, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment ever to be entirely repealed. The legacy of the 18th Amendment remains significant as a historical experiment in moral legislation and the limits of constitutional power.A federal judge in Virginia will soon decide whether Dominion Energy can resume construction on its $11.2 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was halted by the Trump administration last month. The Interior Department paused five offshore wind projects on December 22, citing classified concerns about radar interference and national security. Dominion is now challenging that pause in court, arguing that it violated procedural and due process laws and is causing the company significant financial harm—around $5 million in daily losses. Dominion has already invested nearly $9 billion in the project, which began construction in 2023 and is planned to power 600,000 homes.Similar legal challenges from other developers, including Orsted and Equinor, have already succeeded in federal courts in Washington, allowing their Northeast offshore wind projects to proceed. Those decisions raise the stakes for Dominion's case, which could influence the broader offshore wind industry amid continued hostility from the Trump administration toward the sector. Trump has long criticized wind energy as costly and inefficient. While the outcomes of these lawsuits may let projects move forward, industry uncertainty remains due to ongoing legal battles and political opposition.US judge to weigh Dominion request to restart Virginia offshore wind project stopped by Trump | ReutersA federal judge in Boston, William Young, said he will issue an order to protect non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian student activists. The upcoming order would block the government from altering the immigration status of the scholars who are parties to the case, absent court approval. Young emphasized that any such action would be presumed retaliatory and would require the administration to prove it had a legitimate basis.The lawsuit stems from Trump's executive orders in early 2025 directing agencies to crack down on antisemitism, which led to arrests and visa cancellations for several students, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk. These moves targeted those expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views on campus. Young previously ruled that these actions violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights of non-citizen academics.In his comments, Young described Trump as “authoritarian” and sharply criticized what he called the administration's “fearful approach to freedom.” He limited his forthcoming order to members of academic groups like the AAUP and Middle East Studies Association, rejecting a broader nationwide block as too expansive. Meanwhile, the administration, which plans to appeal Young's earlier ruling, accused the judge of political bias.US judge to shield scholars who challenged deporting of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersA federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration list. Judge David Carter ruled that the department's claims were not strong enough under existing civil rights and voting laws, and that turning over detailed voter data—such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and parts of Social Security numbers—would violate privacy protections.Carter emphasized that centralizing such sensitive information at the federal level could intimidate voters and suppress turnout by making people fear misuse of their personal data. The lawsuit, filed in September by the Trump administration, targeted California and other Democrat-led states for allegedly failing to properly maintain voter rolls, citing federal law as justification for demanding the data.California Secretary of State Shirley Weber welcomed the decision, stating her commitment to defending voting rights and opposing the administration's actions. The DOJ had reportedly been in discussions with the Department of Homeland Security to use voter data in criminal and immigration probes. Critics argue the push was driven by baseless claims from Trump and his allies that non-citizens are voting in large numbers.US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details | ReutersWhy can't people harmed by ICE just sue the agents themselves?U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2003. It enforces immigration laws and investigates criminal activities involving border control, customs, and immigration. ICE derives its authority from various federal statutes, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its agents operate with broad discretion during enforcement actions.Suing ICE agents or the agency itself is legally difficult. Individuals cannot usually sue federal agents directly because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the government and its employees from lawsuits unless explicitly allowed by law. One such exception is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government when its employees cause injury or damage while acting within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, victims can bring wrongful death or negligence claims, as Renee Good's family is now considering.However, FTCA claims are limited. Plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages or a jury trial, and compensation is capped based on state law where the incident occurred. The government is also shielded from liability for discretionary decisions made by its employees—meaning if the ICE agent used judgment during the incident and it's deemed reasonable, the claim can be dismissed. In Good's case, the government will likely argue self-defense.Suing ICE agents personally is even harder. The Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents case in 1971 created a narrow legal path for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, but courts have since restricted its use. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens does not apply to border agents conducting immigration enforcement, further insulating ICE officers from personal liability.Criminal prosecution of federal agents is also rare. State prosecutors may bring charges, but only if they can prove the agent acted clearly outside the scope of their duties and in an objectively unlawful way—a high bar that is seldom met.This week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven. Beethoven, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, revolutionized the classical tradition with works that bridged the Classical and Romantic eras.This week's theme is Franz Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — specifically, the first movement, Allegro con brio, catalogued as S.464/5. As one of the most iconic works in classical music, Beethoven's Fifth needs little introduction, but hearing it through Liszt's fingers offers a fresh perspective on its brilliance. In this solo piano version, Liszt doesn't simply condense Beethoven's orchestral power—he reimagines it, capturing the storm, structure, and spirit of the original with astonishing fidelity and virtuosity.The movement begins with the unforgettable four-note “fate” motif, its rhythmic insistence rendered on the piano with punch and precision. From there, Liszt unfolds Beethoven's dramatic argument, demanding the pianist conjure the textures of a full orchestra with nothing but ten fingers and a well-calibrated pedal. Every surging crescendo, sudden silence, and harmonic twist remains intact, though filtered through Liszt's Romantic sensibility and pianistic imagination.It's a piece that asks as much of the performer as it does of the listener—requiring clarity, power, and emotional depth. As a transcription, it's both a tribute and a transformation, placing Beethoven's revolutionary energy in the hands of a single interpreter. We chose this movement not just for its fame, but for how it exemplifies two musical giants in dialogue—Beethoven, the architect of modern symphonic form, and Liszt, the artist who made the orchestra speak through the piano.Without further ado, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — the first movement, Allegro 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: Williams v. FloridaOn January 15, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Williams v. Florida, a significant case interpreting the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury. The petitioner, Johnny Paul Williams, was convicted in a Florida court by a six-member jury and argued on appeal that his constitutional rights had been violated because the jury did not consist of twelve members. The Court, in a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Byron White, rejected this argument and held that the Constitution does not require a twelve-person jury in criminal cases.The ruling marked a turning point in how procedural aspects of jury trials were viewed under the Constitution. Drawing on historical analysis and functional reasoning, the Court concluded that the number twelve was a “historical accident” rather than a constitutional mandate. It emphasized that what mattered was whether the jury could fulfill its essential purpose: promoting group deliberation, guarding against government overreach, and representing a fair cross-section of the community.The Court's opinion opened the door for states to use smaller juries in certain criminal trials, leading to greater procedural flexibility. However, the ruling was not without its critics, including dissenting justices who warned that reducing jury size could dilute the quality of deliberation and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. The Court later clarified in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that juries smaller than six members were unconstitutional, setting a lower boundary on size.Williams v. Florida continues to shape discussions around the structure and fairness of criminal jury trials. It reflects a broader judicial approach that balances historical tradition with evolving interpretations of fairness and efficiency in the criminal justice system. The decision also illustrates how constitutional protections, while deeply rooted, are not frozen in time but subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny.On January 17, 2026, a U.S. District Court will hear a request from Norwegian energy company Equinor to resume construction on its Empire Wind offshore project off the coast of New York. The company is suing the Trump administration after it suspended offshore wind development in federal waters, citing national security concerns related to radar interference. Equinor argues that the $4 billion project, now 60% complete, faces cancellation if construction doesn't continue by January 16. The case follows a recent decision allowing Danish company Ørsted to resume work on its own halted project off Rhode Island.The legal challenge is one of several confronting the Trump administration's broader effort to stall offshore wind development. Trump officials have paused work on five federal wind leases, citing a classified Defense Department assessment. Offshore wind companies say these actions threaten billions in investment and the viability of long-term energy goals. Empire Wind is projected to power about 500,000 homes once completed.US court to weigh New York project challenge to Trump offshore wind halt | ReutersThe Trump administration has reversed its decision to lay off nearly all employees of the Justice Department's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. In a recent federal court filing in Boston, the DOJ stated that it rescinded the September layoff notices issued to 13 CRS staff members, citing “administrative discretion.” Civil rights groups, including two NAACP chapters and the Ethical Society of Police, had sued to block the terminations, arguing they were part of an unlawful attempt to dismantle the agency.Though the employees have been reinstated, it remains unclear if they will resume work on CRS functions. The plaintiffs have asked the court to hold a hearing to determine the practical impact of the reversal and whether CRS operations will truly continue. Under the Trump administration, the CRS reportedly stopped accepting new service requests and faced budget cuts, with the current White House proposal offering no funding for it. However, a bipartisan appropriations bill in Congress would allocate $20 million to support the agency.Previously, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied a temporary restraining order to stop the layoffs but said the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success. She is still considering whether to issue a permanent injunction to prevent dismantling the CRS.Trump administration reinstates fired employees of DOJ race-relations agency | ReutersTesla has agreed to enter mediation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to try to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging widespread racial harassment at its Fremont, California factory. The EEOC claims Tesla allowed a hostile work environment where Black employees were subjected to slurs, racist graffiti—including swastikas and nooses—and other forms of discrimination, some of which appeared on vehicles coming off the assembly line. Tesla has denied the allegations, arguing it was unaware of the conduct and accusing the EEOC of seeking publicity.U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley approved a pause on some discovery deadlines to prioritize mediation efforts. The EEOC and Tesla are currently selecting a mediator, with talks potentially beginning in March or April. Both sides must report to the judge by June 17 if mediation fails. The lawsuit, filed during the Biden administration in September 2023, is part of a series of legal challenges Tesla has faced over workplace issues at its Fremont facility.In a separate case, Tesla recently avoided a class-action lawsuit when a California judge ruled that over 6,000 Black workers at the plant could not proceed as a group, citing a lack of willing witnesses.Tesla agrees to mediation that could resolve US agency's racism lawsuit | ReutersSix federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned on January 13, 2026, in a move that may disrupt the Justice Department's intensified efforts to crack down on public benefits fraud. Among those stepping down are Joe Thompson, the former acting U.S. attorney for the district, and Harry Jacobs, a key figure in cases involving misused child nutrition program funds. Both were central to the high-profile Feeding Our Future investigation, which scrutinized alleged fraud in federal nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.Sources say the resignations were linked to political pressure from the Trump administration, including demands to investigate the widow of Renée Nicole Good, who was killed by a U.S. immigration officer earlier this month. The DOJ reportedly declined to pursue charges against the officer, leading to internal dissent.Minnesota Governor Tim Walz condemned the resignations as evidence of the Trump administration's politicization of the DOJ, accusing it of forcing out experienced, nonpartisan staff. The departures come amid a broader exodus from the department, including five senior lawyers from the Civil Rights Division, which had worked closely with Minnesota prosecutors after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.Attorney General Pam Bondi recently announced a new DOJ fraud division and plans to deploy prosecutors from other regions to Minneapolis. The White House has also ramped up enforcement in other liberal-leaning districts, which has led to more prosecutions related to immigration protests and officer assaults—and in some cases, grand jury rejections of those prosecutions.Six US Prosecutors Resign in Minnesota as Crackdown Builds (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

Legal News Commentator Gregg Jarrett calls in to discuss key legal issues facing the Supreme Court and the potential contempt charges for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Jarrett highlighted the Supreme Court's likely decision to uphold state rights to prohibit transgender women from competing in female sports teams, citing concerns for competition integrity and safety. Additionally, he touches on the Court's review of Trump's tariffs and their implications for the economy. The conversation also veered into the Clintons' refusal to comply with subpoenas in the Jeffrey Epstein case, examining the legal ramifications of their potential contempt of Congress. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one's parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government's ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark's favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women's sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools' efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants' financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump's claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump's $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | 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: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald's fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald's conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn't a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean's trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court's ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho's law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia's ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women's sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court's next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup's appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup's Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company's mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs' claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn't even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn't permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. 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: Hattie Wyatt Caraway Elected to SenateOn January 12, 1932, Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas became the first woman elected to the United States Senate in her own right, marking a milestone in American legal and political history. Initially appointed to her late husband Thaddeus Caraway's Senate seat, she was widely expected to serve only as a placeholder until a male successor could be elected. Instead, Caraway defied expectations by entering the special election and winning, quietly but firmly asserting her independence. Her victory came just over a decade after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote and laid the groundwork for their broader participation in political life.Caraway's campaign was bolstered by the support of Louisiana Senator Huey Long, whose populist style and energetic barnstorming helped draw attention to her candidacy. Despite being soft-spoken and reserved on the Senate floor, Caraway developed a reputation for diligence and loyalty to her constituents. She went on to win a full term later that year, becoming the first woman to do so and serving in the Senate until 1945.Her election symbolized a shift in legal and cultural attitudes toward women in government roles. While women had begun entering state legislatures and the House of Representatives, the Senate had remained all-male until Caraway's election. Her success challenged deeply rooted assumptions about women's capacity for leadership and helped open the door for future female senators. She focused much of her legislative work on issues affecting veterans, farmers, and rural communities.U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani announced she would block the Trump administration's attempt to terminate temporary legal status for 10,000 to 12,000 migrants from seven Latin American countries. These individuals had entered the U.S. under family reunification parole programs that allowed them to live legally with relatives while waiting for visa approval. The Department of Homeland Security had moved to cancel the programs, which were launched or updated during the Biden administration, arguing they were being misused to bypass regular immigration protocols.Judge Talwani criticized the government for failing to provide proper legal notice to the affected migrants, many of whom are children, and emphasized that the U.S. must also follow the law. The plaintiffs' attorney called the government's move harmful and disruptive, especially to families and school-aged children. A Justice Department lawyer argued that the administration had the legal authority to revoke parole.The case is part of a broader legal battle over Trump's efforts to dismantle humanitarian parole programs initiated under President Biden, which had provided temporary protection to hundreds of thousands of migrants. Talwani had previously issued rulings blocking similar rollbacks, but higher courts overturned them. Her upcoming order is expected to offer temporary relief to thousands facing imminent deportation.US judge to block Trump move to end thousands of Latin American migrants' legal status | ReutersOn January 10, Indonesia became the first country to temporarily block access to Elon Musk's Grok chatbot, citing concerns over the platform's ability to generate AI-produced pornographic content, including disturbing depictions of minors. The country's Communications and Digital Minister condemned non-consensual sexual deepfakes as serious human rights violations and emphasized the need to protect dignity and digital safety. This action follows growing international criticism of Grok's content safeguards, with some governments in Europe and Asia launching investigations.xAI, the company behind Grok, responded by limiting image generation features to paying users while working to address security flaws that had allowed the creation of sexualized images. However, its public response to Reuters included a dismissive automatic message: “Legacy Media Lies.” Musk, posting on X, insisted users generating illegal content would be held accountable as if they had uploaded it directly.Indonesia's firm stance highlights the absence of similar decisive action from the United States, where Grok and xAI are based—raising questions about America's professed commitment to protecting victims of online abuse. The U.S.'s failure to lead on this issue stands in stark contrast to its claimed leadership in defending digital rights and vulnerable populations.Indonesia temporarily blocks access to Grok over sexualised images | ReutersU.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government has more than enough funds—nearly $774 billion in cash on hand—to handle any tariff refunds that may result from a potential Supreme Court ruling against President Trump's emergency tariffs. However, Bessent noted that any repayments would be distributed gradually over weeks or even up to a year. He expressed skepticism that the Court would rule against the tariffs, and criticized potential refunds as corporate windfalls, questioning whether companies like Costco, which sued the government, would pass any refunded money back to consumers.While many importers argue that they should be reimbursed if the Court finds Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful, Bessent claimed the actual number of refundable tariffs is lower than the estimated $150 billion cited by some trade analysts. He declined to offer a precise figure. He also disputed the idea that Trump's tariffs significantly contributed to inflation, asserting that there was little evidence of cost pass-through to consumers.Bessent warned that if the Supreme Court does rule against the tariffs, the decision could be complex rather than a simple reversal, which might complicate refund logistics. He added that a delay in the ruling increases the odds of a decision favoring Trump. Treasury's projected end-of-quarter balance of $850 billion and an expected reduction in the 2025 calendar-year deficit are seen as bolstering its ability to manage any financial impact.Bessent says US Treasury can easily cover any tariff refunds | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell revealed that the Fed had been served with grand jury subpoenas by the U.S. Department of Justice, escalating tensions between the central bank and the Trump administration. The subpoenas reportedly relate to Powell's June 2025 congressional testimony about renovations to the Fed's headquarters, but Powell described the move as part of a broader campaign of political intimidation aimed at undermining the Fed's independence. He stated unequivocally that the threat of criminal charges was tied to the Fed's refusal to set interest rates according to presidential preferences.President Trump denied involvement in the DOJ probe, but his administration has long clashed with Powell over interest rate policy and spending. Trump has publicly floated removing Powell and Fed Governor Lisa Cook, whose case is pending before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, markets reacted to the news with falling stock futures and a surge in gold prices, reflecting investor unease over the attack on central bank autonomy.Republican Senator Thom Tillis condemned the subpoenas, pledging to block any future Fed nominee until the legal matter is resolved. The DOJ's inquiry is reportedly focused on whether Powell misled Congress about ballooning renovation costs, which reached $2.5 billion. Though the administration alleges possible misconduct, critics see the legal threat as part of a pressure campaign to force Powell out ahead of his term's expiration in May.Fed Served With DOJ Subpoenas, Powell Vows to Stand Firm (5) 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: Schenck v. United StatesOn January 9, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Schenck v. United States, a foundational case in American free speech law. Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, had been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The case raised critical constitutional questions about the boundaries of the First Amendment in times of national crisis. Schenck's defense argued that his actions were protected political speech. However, the government maintained that his words posed a threat to wartime recruitment and national security.The Court would go on to unanimously uphold Schenck's conviction in a decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Although the ruling came in March 1919, the arguments heard on January 9 and 10 set the stage for what became a pivotal moment in legal history. In his opinion, Holmes introduced the “clear and present danger” test, writing that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of causing substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent. He famously noted that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.This standard marked the beginning of a more nuanced approach to free speech jurisprudence, where context and consequences mattered. It reflected the tensions between civil liberties and national security during wartime. Although later cases would refine or move away from the “clear and present danger” test, Schenck remains a foundational precedent in American constitutional law. The case also marked the rise of Holmes as a central figure in shaping First Amendment doctrine.The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue at least one opinion this Friday, potentially including a highly anticipated decision on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case represents a significant test of presidential authority, especially in the context of Trump's use of emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump imposed these tariffs after returning to office in 2025, targeting nearly all U.S. trading partners and citing national emergencies such as trade deficits and drug trafficking, including fentanyl, as justification.During oral arguments in November, justices from both ideological sides expressed skepticism about the legal basis for the tariffs. Lower courts previously ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority, prompting his administration to appeal. Trump has defended the tariffs as strengthening the U.S. economy and warned that a ruling against them would severely harm the country.The case was brought by affected businesses and a coalition of 12 states—mostly led by Democrats—arguing that the tariffs were unlawfully broad. The outcome could have major implications for global trade and executive power. The Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, is also considering other significant cases, including a challenge to part of the Voting Rights Act and a First Amendment dispute over a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBT minors.Supreme Court set to issue rulings as Trump awaits fate of tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled in favor of New York Yankees star Aaron Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association, rejecting a Long Island man's attempt to trademark the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes The Judge.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's decision that Michael Chisena's filings infringed on Judge's common law trademark rights.Chisena filed for the trademarks in 2017 during Judge's breakout rookie season, claiming he planned to use them on clothing. He denied any connection to professional sports and insisted he had never seen Judge play. However, the USPTO's appeals board cast doubt on his good faith, noting the suspicious timing of the filings and their close link to Judge's rising fame.Judge and the MLBPA opposed the applications in 2018, arguing they would likely confuse consumers by associating the phrases with Judge's well-known public persona. They emphasized that the baseball star's last name, with its clear legal overtones, naturally lent itself to those phrases, which had become synonymous with him early in his career.The appeals court affirmed that Judge had built strong common law trademark rights through commercial use, and that Chisena's applications lacked merit. Chisena, who represented himself in court, also lost a related claim involving an image of a gavel and scales over a baseball diamond.Yankees' Judge clinches win in ‘All Rise,' ‘Here Comes The Judge' trademark case | ReutersLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile Manhattan shooting in December 2024, is set to appear in federal court Friday to challenge the possibility of facing the death penalty. Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges including murder, stalking, and firearms offenses, and remains in custody while awaiting trial.His attorneys will argue before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett that prosecutors failed to meet legal standards for the firearm-related murder charge—the only count that could result in a death sentence. They are also seeking to dismiss the entire indictment, claiming Mangione's constitutional rights were violated, which they argue should disqualify the government from pursuing capital punishment.While New York outlawed the death penalty in 2004, the ban applies only to state prosecutions. Because Mangione is being tried in federal court, the death penalty remains a legal possibility. He also faces separate charges at the state level, where a conviction could carry a life sentence.Judge Garnett has yet to decide on either the motion to dismiss the death-eligible charge or the broader request to throw out the indictment. No trial date has been set for the federal or state proceedings.Mangione, suspect in health insurance CEO murder, fights death penalty charge in court | ReutersVice President JD Vance announced the creation of a new assistant attorney general role focused on fighting fraud involving taxpayer money. The position will have nationwide jurisdiction and is intended to strengthen federal oversight and enforcement against misuse of public funds. Vance stated that a nominee for the role will be named in the coming days, signaling the administration's commitment to addressing financial misconduct within programs funded by taxpayers. The announcement was made during a White House press briefing, reflecting a broader effort to enhance government accountability—at least, ostensibly.Vance announces new assistant attorney general role to combat taxpayer fraud | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week's closing theme features one of the most charming and instantly recognizable pieces in the classical repertoire: the first movement of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso.” Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata showcases Mozart's extraordinary ability to blend elegance, wit, and emotional nuance with apparent ease. The opening movement is not a fast-paced sonata-allegro form, as one might expect, but rather a gentle theme and variations, a structure that allows Mozart to explore the same musical idea through shifting textures, moods, and embellishments.“Andante grazioso” lives up to its title—graceful and moderately paced, it opens with a lilting, almost courtly theme that feels both poised and playful. As the variations unfold, Mozart's genius becomes more apparent: he adds rhythmic complexity, dynamic contrasts, and increasingly virtuosic flourishes, while always keeping the original melody in sight. The movement is accessible but never simplistic, classical in form yet deeply expressive.K. 331 is the same sonata that ends with the famous “Rondo alla Turca,” but it is in this opening Andante that we see Mozart at his most refined and imaginative. He draws the listener in not through drama, but through balance, warmth, and an almost conversational intimacy between performer and listener. This piece has been beloved for centuries, not only by pianists but also by those new to classical music.As we close the week, the delicate ornamentation and unhurried beauty of “Andante grazioso” offers a kind of musical exhale—a moment of elegance and clarity in contrast to the noise of modern life. It's a quiet reminder of why Mozart remains one of the most enduring voices in Western music.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso” – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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.

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Delivers First State of the Union AddressOn January 8, 1790, President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in New York City, the temporary capital of the United States. This moment marked the formal inauguration of a constitutional duty outlined in Article II, Section 3, which requires the president to periodically give Congress information on the “State of the Union.” Washington's address was brief—just over 1,000 words—but carried significant weight, as it was the first time a sitting president had spoken to the legislature under the newly ratified Constitution.In his remarks, Washington emphasized the need to build public credit, maintain national defense, and promote science and literature. He called on Congress to consider a system of uniform weights and measures and to establish a national post office. Notably, he stressed the importance of establishing laws that would encourage “a due respect for property” and “the security of liberty.” His recommendations helped shape the early legislative agenda and solidify the constitutional structure of government roles.The address was delivered in person, following British parliamentary tradition, but Thomas Jefferson would later abandon this practice in favor of written messages, considering in-person speeches too monarchical in tone. Washington's speech helped define the president's role not merely as an executive but as a constitutional communicator, responsible for setting national priorities in collaboration with Congress.The legal legacy of this event lies in the precedent it established: that the president would serve not only as head of state and government, but also as an active participant in shaping legislative goals through regular, formal communication. Over time, this annual message evolved into a major political and legal event, shaping policy narratives and underscoring the balance of powers between the branches of government.Tysen Duva, a long-serving federal prosecutor from Florida, was recently sworn in as head of the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division, a powerful role now seen as vulnerable to political pressure under President Trump's second term. Duva replaces acting chief Matthew Galeotti, who, despite not being a permanent appointee, had earned respect for shielding the division from direct political interference and maintaining operational independence, particularly in white-collar and public corruption cases. Duva, who has no prior managerial experience at this scale, will now oversee over 1,000 prosecutors amid ongoing departmental turmoil, internal resignations, and controversial Trump-driven interventions.His appointment follows internal conflict, including a recent case where Duva clashed with a Trump-aligned U.S. attorney who tried to fast-track charges against a Democratic congresswoman. While the charges ultimately proceeded, the case highlights the complex political dynamics Duva must now navigate. Though Duva has pledged impartiality and praised Galeotti's example, his lack of a close working relationship with Deputy AG Todd Blanche—unlike Galeotti—may limit his autonomy.Observers note that the Criminal Division has largely avoided the most contentious political directives of the Trump administration so far, including investigations into Trump's critics and cultural flashpoints like gender-affirming care. However, experts warn that Duva may face tighter constraints going forward, with limits placed on certain enforcement areas like overseas bribery and tariff violations. DOJ veterans emphasize that how Duva manages pressure from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Blanche, and the White House will determine the future direction of the department's criminal enforcement strategy.Political Tension Awaits DOJ's Unproven Criminal Division ChiefThe UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has contacted Elon Musk's platform X and his AI company xAI, seeking clarification on how they are complying with UK data protection laws. The inquiry follows reports raising concerns about Grok, X's built-in AI chatbot, and its ability to generate images that may involve the use of personal data. The ICO emphasized that individuals have the right to expect lawful and respectful handling of their personal information on social media platforms. The regulator is requesting details on the safeguards X and xAI have in place to protect user privacy and uphold legal standards under UK data law.Reports have intensified regulatory concern by alleging that Grok has generated explicit images involving underage individuals. The claims raise serious legal and ethical questions under UK data protection and child‑safety laws. Such allegations heighten scrutiny of how training data is sourced, what safeguards are in place to prevent harmful outputs, and how quickly platforms respond when prohibited content is identified. The ICO's outreach suggests regulators are assessing whether existing controls are adequate to prevent the creation or dissemination (clearly not) of unlawful material and to protect minors' rights.UK data watchdog contacts Musk's X over Grok AI images | ReutersFord Motor Company has refiled a lawsuit accusing three California attorneys of orchestrating a fraudulent overbilling scheme to collect more than $100 million in legal fees under the state's Lemon Law. The amended complaint, allowed after a judge dismissed the original case in November, drops law firms as defendants and instead targets individual lawyers Steve Mikhov, Roger Kirnos, and Amy Morse, formerly of Knight Law Group. Ford alleges the attorneys operated a “Fee Motion Department” that submitted fake time entries, including implausible claims such as multiple 24-hour workdays and even a single day billed at 57.5 hours.The lawsuit claims these practices defrauded courts and automakers by inflating legal fees in warranty cases involving defective vehicles. California's Lemon Law allows recovery of attorney fees for reasonable legal work, but Ford argues the defendants manipulated this provision for profit. Ford's legal team says the amended filing includes new details drawn from testimony, reinforcing their claim that the lawyers exploited the court system. The accused attorneys have denied wrongdoing and previously argued the case is a retaliatory move by Ford meant to intimidate lawyers representing consumers. The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.Ford takes fresh aim at lawyers in lawsuit claiming overbilling 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: Nixon's PlumbersOn January 7, 1972, President Richard Nixon announced the formation of a special unit within the White House to investigate and prevent leaks of classified information, which would eventually evolve into the so-called “Plumbers” unit. This decision followed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, which deeply embarrassed the Nixon administration. Although the formal establishment of the Plumbers occurred in July 1971, Nixon's January 7 remarks to his aides marked a turning point in the administration's shift toward covert activity to manage political threats.The Plumbers were tasked with stopping or punishing perceived enemies of the administration. This group would go on to commit the break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and many of its members were later involved in the June 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex—an event that ultimately unraveled Nixon's presidency. The actions undertaken by the Plumbers and their associates triggered investigations into abuse of executive power, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice.This date is significant in legal history because it underscores the dangers of unchecked executive authority and the use of government resources for political ends. The legal fallout from these events led to reforms in campaign finance, surveillance, and oversight of executive conduct, including the passage of the Ethics in Government Act and the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act.Nicolás Maduro's arraignment in a U.S. federal court marks a rare and complex legal confrontation over the prosecution of a sitting foreign leader. Charged with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, Maduro pleaded not guilty and asserted he remains Venezuela's legitimate president. His defense hinges on two main arguments: a claim of head-of-state immunity under international law and an allegation that he was unlawfully abducted by the U.S. military. The U.S. government counters that Maduro lost legitimacy after a disputed 2018 election and is not entitled to immunity.Legal scholars suggest that immunity claims in criminal cases are uncommon but not unprecedented. Former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega attempted a similar defense, which failed, though he never held the official title of president. U.S. courts have dismissed civil suits against sitting leaders based on State Department recognition, but criminal immunity has a narrower scope. The court will also examine whether Maduro's alleged actions were part of his official duties—a critical factor in determining immunity.Even if immunity is denied, prosecutors may still face challenges proving Maduro's direct involvement in the conspiracy. Analysts note the indictment lacks strong ties between Maduro and specific terrorist or trafficking acts, though the Justice Department may be withholding key evidence. The defense is expected to argue aggressively that Maduro's arrest violated international law, echoing arguments rejected in the Noriega case.Maduro's immunity claim tests US power to prosecute foreign leaders | ReutersNick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of slain filmmaker Rob Reiner, is scheduled to enter a plea this Wednesday to two counts of first-degree murder in the fatal stabbings of his parents. His initial court appearance in December was postponed at his defense attorney's request, citing complex legal issues. Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Reiner, 70, were found dead in their Los Angeles home on December 14, both having suffered multiple stab wounds. The killings, which occurred just hours before a planned event with the Obamas, shocked both Hollywood and political communities where Rob Reiner had long been influential.Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek the death penalty, though capital punishment is currently under a moratorium in California. The case has drawn intense public scrutiny, especially after reports that Nick argued with his parents at a holiday party the night before their deaths. He was later found and arrested near a downtown park.Nick Reiner, who lived in a guest house on the property, has a well-documented history of drug addiction and homelessness. His struggles formed the basis of the 2015 film Being Charlie, which he co-wrote with his father. Rob Reiner, known for his role as “Meathead” in All in the Family and for directing beloved films like The Princess Bride and A Few Good Men, was a towering figure in both entertainment and Democratic politics. Michele Reiner was a producer and former photographer known for her 1980s portrait of Donald Trump. The motive behind the killings remains unclear.Son of slain Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner due back in court | ReutersA panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared doubtful of Meta Platforms' effort to dismiss over 2,200 lawsuits alleging that its platforms—along with those of Snapchat, YouTube, and TikTok—were intentionally designed to be addictive to young users. At the heart of the appeal is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields these companies from liability for harm allegedly caused by their platform designs, not just user content.The judges questioned whether it was premature to consider the companies' immunity claims at this stage, given that the underlying cases are still in early litigation. They noted that most appeals occur only after a final judgment has been issued. Meta's attorney argued that defending such massive litigation now, without immunity protection, would be an undue burden. However, the panel suggested the district judge—Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers—had left the door open to revisiting Section 230 defenses later in the process.The lawsuits, brought by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals, claim the platforms contributed to rising youth mental health issues like depression and body image disorders. The plaintiffs argue these are not content-related claims but rather focus on harmful platform features that fall outside Section 230 protections.Judge Jacqueline Nguyen pointed out that the language of Section 230 doesn't clearly grant the sweeping immunity Meta is claiming. Other judges on the panel, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, also showed skepticism toward the broad interpretation of immunity being asserted by the companies.US appeals court appears skeptical of Meta, social media companies' bid to cut off addiction lawsuits | ReutersSeveral major class action lawsuits with billions of dollars at stake are set for key appellate decisions in 2026, targeting high-profile companies across tech, entertainment, sports, and real estate. In one case, Live Nation is appealing a ruling that certified a nationwide class action accusing it of inflating ticket prices over 15 years for events at major venues, involving over 400 million ticket sales.Apple is also facing renewed scrutiny as consumers seek to reinstate a class action alleging its App Store rules created a monopoly, leading to $20 billion in overcharges. A lower court had decertified the class of nearly 200 million customers, but the 9th Circuit has agreed to review that decision.Meanwhile, the NCAA is defending a historic $2.8 billion settlement compensating college athletes for past use of their name, image, and likeness. Although the deal received widespread support, appeals have temporarily delayed payments to affected athletes.The NFL is facing a critical appeal after a $4.7 billion jury verdict over its “Sunday Ticket” broadcast package was thrown out last year. Consumers and businesses want that verdict reinstated, arguing the NFL monopolized out-of-market game access.In the hotel sector, the 3rd Circuit will decide whether to revive claims that Atlantic City resorts, including Caesars and MGM, colluded on room prices using algorithmic pricing software—similar to claims already dismissed in a Las Vegas case now potentially heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.Finally, the 8th Circuit will examine objections to settlements totaling over $668 million in a class action accusing real estate firms, including Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway-owned HomeServices, of fixing commission rates nationwide. Plaintiffs say the deals are fair; critics argue they don't go far enough.Billions in balance for US companies fighting class action appeals in 2026 | 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

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.

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.

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.

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.