Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Weiss

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special daily special, Tarrytown Chowder Tuesday is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, law firm Paul Weiss capitulated to Trump, now it has lost its top partners.Then, on the rest of the menu, RFK, Jr's FDA head warned doctors to “stop throwing insulin at diabetics,” or else; the state Trump won by just one percent faces an ugly three hundred fourteen million dollar loss in vital aid in the “Big Beautiful Bill;” and, former US Representative Charles Rangel, who spent nearly fifty years representing New York, has died at age ninety-four.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Tesla sales across Europe plunged by half last month, even as growth in the electric car market picked up pace; and, Russia-backed far-right candidate Calin Georgescu, who upended the Romanian presidential race, has withdrawn from politics.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.” -- Ernest Hemingway "A Moveable Feast"Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

What if the most transformative healing you could offer the world wasn't through doing more, but through becoming a blessing in how you simply show up? Tune in for an inspiring discussion with Paul Weiss on his work The Blessing Way. Moments with Marianne airs in the Southern California area on KMET 1490AM & 98.1 FM, an ABC Talk News Radio affiliate! Not in the broadcast area? Click here to listen! Paul Weiss is a highly acclaimed writer, teacher, and founder of The Whole Health Center in Blue Hill, Maine. His work encompasses zen meditation, tai chi, qigong, and compassionate healing practices, drawing from decades of study and practice across various traditions. His counseling work incorporates a Buddhist-based cognitive behavioral therapy, couple's communication processes, and expressive emotional recovery and integration work. In his practice, he also applies meditative awareness to what he called  CNR – conscious neural re-circuiting; and has elaborated the Tibetan compassion practice of Tonglen as a comprehensive therapeutic program he calls Compassion, Integration, and Healing. . https://www.thewholehealthcenter.org For more show information visit: www.MariannePestana.com 

Kannon Shanmugam is a partner at the law firm Paul Weiss and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, representing clients such as Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Meta, Warner Music, Bank of America, Coinbase, and the NFL, among others. Kannon has also argued more than 150 appeals in courts across the country, including all 13 federal courts of appeals. A longtime Supreme Court reporter said that Kannon has “perhaps the most eloquent and elegant manner … that I've ever seen in my 40 years covering the Court." Legal 500 called Kannon "a brilliant lawyer and tactician, with impeccable judgment and an optimal moral compass." It added, “you won't find a more talented, sophisticated, compelling lawyer—and he matches that with his overall humility and kind nature.” Before entering private practice, Kannon served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Kannon earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard, was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, and then returned to Harvard for his Law degree. In this episode we discuss the following: As Judge Sack told Kannon, all you can do in a career is stand by the hoop and hope that somebody passes you the ball. There's no substitute for hard work. At the top levels, everyone has great credentials. But what differentiates the very best people is they put in the work, in a profession where there are no shortcuts. Surround yourself with great people, including great mentors. But not just older people. Kannon devoted a lot of time to finding the most talented young attorneys who were driven, smart, and enthusiastic. Enthusiasm is one of the most important things Kannon looks for when identifying talented people: enthusiasm to work, enthusiasm to grow, and enthusiasm to learn. If you love what you do, it's easy to get out of bed in the morning and keep doing it. Connect on Social Media: X: https://twitter.com/nate_meikle LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/natemeikle/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nate_meikle/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@nate.meikle  

This Day in Legal History: Louisiana PurchaseOn this day in legal history, April 30, 1803, the United States signed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty with France, dramatically altering the legal and territorial landscape of the country. The treaty, signed in Paris by American envoys Robert Livingston and James Monroe, officially transferred approximately 828,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River from French to American control. President Thomas Jefferson, though uncertain whether the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorized such a land acquisition, ultimately supported the deal, citing the necessity of expanding the republic and securing trade access to the port of New Orleans.The purchase, which cost $15 million (roughly four cents an acre), effectively doubled the size of the United States and set a precedent for executive power in foreign affairs. It raised important legal questions regarding the role of the executive branch, the powers of Congress, and the interpretation of constitutional authority in territorial expansion. The acquisition also intensified debates over the expansion of slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples, both of which would become central legal and political issues throughout the 19th century.In addition to expanding national territory, the Louisiana Purchase laid the groundwork for the exploration and legal organization of new states. Soon after, Congress passed legislation governing how the territory would be divided and admitted into the Union. This required new legal frameworks for property rights, governance, and federal versus state authority in previously foreign lands.The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on whether Oklahoma can fund a religious charter school—the first case of its kind. At issue is the state's attempt to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a K-12 online institution run by two Catholic dioceses, using public funds. A state court previously blocked the school, ruling it would act as a “governmental entity” and violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bars government endorsement of religion.The school's supporters, including Oklahoma's governor and President Trump, argue that denying the school solely because it is religious constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, opponents, including the state's attorney general, warn that the move would amount to taxpayer-funded religious indoctrination and could erode public education standards, particularly around non-discrimination.Charter schools in Oklahoma are considered public entities, which complicates claims that St. Isidore would operate as a private, independent institution. Organizers maintain that contracting with the state doesn't make the school an arm of the government. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could redefine the boundaries between church and state in education.The legal element worth highlighting here is the Establishment Clause vs. Free Exercise Clause tension—the case tests how far states can go in accommodating religious institutions without endorsing them. This clash sits at the core of modern debates about public funding and religious liberty. Under the current Supreme Court composition, it is likely we will see an expansion of the former at the cost of the limits in the latter. US Supreme Court mulls legality of milestone religious charter school | ReutersGoogle CEO Sundar Pichai is set to testify in a high-stakes antitrust trial where the U.S. Department of Justice is pushing to break up parts of Google's business to restore competition in online search. The DOJ is urging the court to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and stop paying major tech partners like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on their devices. Prosecutors argue these deals entrench Google's monopoly and hinder innovation, especially as search overlaps more with emerging generative AI tools like ChatGPT.U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has already found that Google maintains a dominant position in the search market with no real rivals. The government is also asking the court to make Google share search data with competitors to level the playing field. Google, in response, claims that such measures would harm user privacy and undercut smaller partners like Mozilla that depend on Google funding.Pichai is expected to argue that the proposed remedies would have unintended consequences across the tech ecosystem. Google has already made some adjustments, allowing phone makers to pre-install alternative search and AI apps, but it still plans to appeal any adverse ruling. The case could have sweeping implications for the future of search, digital competition, and AI integration online.Google CEO Sundar Pichai to take the stand at search antitrust trial | ReutersPresident Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to coordinate free legal defense for police officers accused of misconduct. The order calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to organize pro bono support from private law firms, aiming to protect officers who, in the administration's view, face "unjust liability" for actions taken in the line of duty. Though the order doesn't name specific firms, it expands Trump's broader effort to harness the legal industry to support his administration's priorities.This follows recent agreements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms—including Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Kirkland & Ellis—to commit $940 million worth of pro bono work to causes the administration endorses, such as veterans' services and combating antisemitism. Critics, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and 20 Democratic state attorneys general, have raised concerns about political pressure and lack of transparency in how these firms were selected and what they've agreed to.The order also calls for improved pay and training for police while denouncing efforts to “demonize law enforcement.” Critics warn this could undermine accountability and place pressure on firms to align their legal services with political goals. Meanwhile, some firms have publicly stated they will maintain control over their pro bono work, even as Trump claims the right to “use” them for administration-selected causes.Trump executive order seeks law firms to defend police officers for free | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I examined President Trump's renewed push to replace income taxes with tariffs, particularly targeting relief for Americans making under $200,000. The idea sounds populist, but it's economically misleading. Tariffs, after all, are simply hidden taxes that show up in the form of higher prices on imported goods. For lower- and middle-income Americans—those Trump claims to want to help—this shift would likely increase, not reduce, their financial burden.The proposal doesn't change the amount of money the government needs—just where it's extracted. Instead of the IRS, the “bill collector” becomes stores, suppliers, and foreign producers, with consumers footing the bill at checkout. Trump's approach, I argue, banks on the psychological difference between writing a tax check and absorbing incremental price hikes, though the economic effect is the same.Historically, tariff-based revenue systems led to inequality and volatility—conditions that helped inspire the adoption of the income tax through the Sixteenth Amendment. And practically speaking, tariffs simply cannot generate the hundreds of billions needed to sustain modern federal programs. Relying on them also cedes revenue control to foreign exporters, which undermines national fiscal stability.Ultimately, this policy doesn't tackle the real issue—Americans' frustration with a high cost of living. Instead, it disguises taxation while dodging the deeper structural question of who should be paying more. I emphasized that real reform must address not just how taxes are collected, but also the fairness of who bears the burden.Trump Continues To Push Idea Of Replacing Income Tax With TariffsSpecial ThanksStephanie Himel-Nelson, Jennifer Porter Law, PLLC This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

If the mob were doing what President Donald Trump is doing, we'd call it a shakedown. By way of several executive orders, he has accused some of the largest law firms in America of unlawful misconduct and, on his own, determined they violated the law and issued punishment. But if the firms capitulate to his demands, they won't be punished.Joining us in this discussion is our friend and fellow lawyer, Jim Meaney.The targeted firms are guilty of simply representing causes Trump can't stand and represent some of the largest businesses in America, many of which do business with the federal government. These firms are given a choice: either do legal work for free—for groups that Trump likes—or be barred from entering federal buildings and lose their security clearances, while the government terminates its contract with their clients. What's the misconduct? Trump accuses the Paul Weiss firm of engaging in “harmful activity,” Perkins Cioe firm of “dangerous and dishonest activity,” and Susman Godfrey of working to “degrade the quality of American elections.”What did Paul Weiss do? A partner in the firm brought suit against the individuals who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Perkins Coie represented the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case against Fox Corp. What's going on here is part of a much bigger plan—a unified attack on everything Trump hates. He is attacking universities and free thought. He is attacking the judiciary by approving the idea of impeaching judges who have ruled against his immigration policies. He's dismantling multiple federal agencies. At last count, nine firms have capitulated and struck deals with Trump. Four have filed suit in federal court and attacked his executive orders and have been successful in the early stages of litigation. In street parlance, we have nine “cavers” and four “fighters.”The issue is, don't law firms have an obligation to see beyond themselves, to see beyond their own interest, and to see beyond their clients' interests when the system itself is at risk? Nine firms have said no. Four have said yes.

This Day in Legal History: Easter RisingOn April 24, 1916, the Easter Rising erupted in Dublin as Irish republicans launched a bold and ultimately tragic insurrection against British rule. The event, intended to establish an independent Irish Republic, had enormous legal and constitutional consequences that would ripple through British and Irish law for years. Roughly 1,200 rebels seized key buildings across Dublin, proclaiming the establishment of the Irish Republic from the steps of the General Post Office.In response, the British government declared martial law and deployed thousands of troops to suppress the rebellion. Courts-martial were swiftly convened, and between May 3 and May 12, fifteen rebel leaders were executed, including Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, and Thomas Clarke. These summary executions, carried out without the protections of civilian trial, shocked many in Ireland and Britain and were later criticized as legally excessive and politically tone-deaf.The use of military tribunals rather than civilian courts raised serious questions about the limits of legal authority during wartime and the rights of those accused of political violence. The Rising also marked a critical turning point in British colonial legal practice, highlighting the inherent tension between empire and constitutional rule.In the wake of the rebellion, the British government passed additional emergency laws to manage dissent in Ireland, but these legal measures only deepened nationalist sentiment. The Easter Rising set the stage for the Irish War of Independence, the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, and ultimately the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922.The legal legacy of April 24 is one of sharp contrast: between the rigid imposition of imperial law and the revolutionary demand for self-determination. It remains a powerful example of how law can be both a tool of control and a symbol of contested legitimacy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has agreed to drop its appeal in a longstanding legal battle with PayPal over a 2019 rule that required digital wallet providers to disclose fees using a standardized form originally intended for prepaid cards. The decision came through a joint filing on April 21 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, following a March 2024 district court ruling in PayPal's favor that limited the reach of the rule.The CFPB's regulation extended fee disclosure mandates for prepaid cards to digital wallets, despite the agency's own acknowledgment that most digital wallets don't charge such fees. PayPal contested the rule soon after its issuance, arguing that digital wallets function differently from prepaid cards since they store payment credentials rather than actual funds. In contrast, prepaid cards are used to store and spend cash directly.The legal journey began when Judge Richard J. Leon initially sided with PayPal in 2020, but his ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit in 2023, prompting a remand. Leon again ruled for PayPal in March 2024, leading the CFPB to appeal before ultimately deciding to drop the case.This withdrawal marks the second recent instance of the CFPB, under acting Director Russell Vought, stepping back from litigation challenging its rules. A week prior, the agency also agreed to halt enforcement of a proposed $8 cap on credit card late fees amid a separate lawsuit. PayPal is represented by WilmerHale which, you will of course remember, has been targeted by a Trump executive order.CFPB Agrees to Halt Appeal of PayPal Win on Digital Wallet RulePresident Trump announced via Truth Social that he is suing the law firm Perkins Coie, accusing it of committing “egregious and unlawful acts,” specifically pointing to the actions of an unnamed individual at the firm. However, it remains unclear whether Trump intends to file a new lawsuit or was referring to ongoing legal disputes.Last month, Trump signed an executive order that aimed to terminate federal contracts with clients of Perkins Coie if the firm had performed any work on them. In response, Perkins Coie sued the administration, claiming the order was unconstitutional.Trump's legal team also requested the recusal of U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell from overseeing that case, alleging a “pattern of hostility” toward the president. Trump repeated his criticism of Judge Howell in his latest post, calling her “highly biased.”The legal conflict adds to Trump's ongoing confrontations with the judiciary and firms linked to Democratic causes. Perkins Coie has historically represented Democratic interests, making the dispute politically charged.Trump says he is suing Perkins Coie law firm | ReutersLaw firms Perkins Coie and WilmerHale asked federal judges in Washington, D.C., to permanently block executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. The firms argue the orders are unconstitutional acts of political retaliation. These orders sought to revoke government contracts held by their clients and restrict the firms' access to federal buildings, citing their ties to Trump's legal and political opponents.The legal battle marks a significant escalation between major law firms and the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell heard Perkins Coie's request for summary judgment, while Judge Richard Leon handled WilmerHale's case later in the day. Both judges had already issued temporary blocks on Trump's orders in March.The Department of Justice defended the executive orders as valid exercises of presidential authority. Meanwhile, other prominent firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps have settled with the White House to avoid similar orders, agreeing to provide pro bono services and other terms reportedly totaling nearly $1 billion in value.The legal community has widely condemned the executive orders. Hundreds of firms and legal organizations argue the moves were designed to chill legal representation against Trump, infringing on the right to counsel and undermining the legal profession's independence. Some attorneys at firms that settled have resigned in protest.Law firms targeted by Trump ask judges to permanently bar executive orders against them | ReutersThe State Bar of California plans to ask the California Supreme Court to lower the passing score for the February 2025 bar exam after a troubled rollout that included technical and logistical failures. The proposed score of 534 is below the 560 recommended by the bar's testing expert. This score adjustment would apply to all test takers, regardless of the specific issues they faced.February's exam marked the first time California administered a hybrid bar test, offered both remotely and in-person, and without components of the long-used national bar exam. Although the change aimed to reduce costs, it resulted in significant problems such as software crashes and intrusive proctoring interruptions. It's unclear how many of the 4,300 examinees were affected, but the State Bar has opened an investigation into the widespread issues.The bar also recommended imputing scores for test takers unable to complete key sections, a process that estimates performance based on completed answers. The Committee of Bar Examiners acknowledged the challenge of crafting a remedy that is both fair and preserves the integrity of the exam.In addition to adjusting scores, the committee is considering provisional licensing programs that would allow affected test takers to practice under supervision while awaiting full licensure. Final test results are due May 2, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the score change request by April 28. The committee will meet again on May 5 to consider further options.California bar seeks to reduce pass score after disastrous exam rollout | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We're revisiting standout episodes of the CMO Series Podcast to explore how AI is reshaping professional services marketing. We'll hear insights directly from industry leaders on the best approaches to integrating AI into your firm and the efficiencies they are seeing. In this special episode, we look back at a memorable session from the CMO Series Live held in New York. Alison Arjoon, the Chief Marketing and Business Development Officer at Fragomen, and Luke Ferrandino, who was the CMO at Paul Weiss and is now the Chief Business Development & Marketing Officer at Skadden, took to the stage to discuss how AI is ushering in a new era of collaboration within law firms.  They cover: The role of technology and the challenges faced by both traditional and non-traditional law firms Strategies for effectively leveraging technology to streamline processes How AI contributes to project success and fosters a new way of collaboration  The evolving role of AI and its current and future impact

This week, Sami and V are joined by MSNBC co-host of The Weekend: Primetime Catherine Rampell to discuss the difficulties of a free press in 2025. Then, they unpack top headlines of the Pope's passing and Harvard vs. Paul Weiss. And finally, Sami interviews MSNBC host of The 11th Hour, Stephanie Ruhle, on business and the rule of law. Watch this and more on Betches YouTube today! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Fair Housing ActOn this day in legal history, April 11, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, a pivotal expansion of civil rights protections in the United States. Commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation was enacted just days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy of nonviolent activism heavily influenced its passage. The law made it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing based on race, color, religion, or national origin.It aimed to dismantle the systemic barriers that had long segregated American cities and suburbs, including redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory practices. Title VIII of the Act directly addressed these inequities and empowered the federal government to enforce fair housing standards for the first time. Though political resistance to housing integration had stalled similar legislation for years, the national mourning following Dr. King's death shifted public and congressional sentiment.Johnson, in a nationally televised address, described the signing as a tribute to Dr. King's life and a necessary step toward realizing the full promise of civil rights in America. Subsequent amendments expanded protections to include sex, disability, and familial status, making the Fair Housing Act one of the most comprehensive civil rights laws on the books. Enforcement mechanisms, however, remained a challenge, and litigation over housing discrimination has continued into the present day.The law has been central to major legal battles over zoning laws, gentrification, and access to affordable housing. It also laid the groundwork for subsequent legislation aimed at combating economic and racial segregation. While the Act did not instantly eliminate housing discrimination, it marked a legal turning point that recognized the home as a critical site of equality and opportunity.A small team from the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), created under Elon Musk's initiative to reduce government spending and staffing, has arrived at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), according to an internal email from the agency. While the team is working with FDIC leadership to identify internal efficiencies, it does not have access to sensitive or confidential bank data, including resolution plans, deposit insurance records, or examination materials. The FDIC emphasized that the DGE operatives are full-time federal employees working under formal interagency agreements and have not sought access to confidential information.DGE has previously drawn concern from industry participants during its visit to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due to fears over data exposure. The FDIC oversees highly sensitive information about major U.S. banks and their failure plans, which regulators rely on during crises. The number and identity of DGE team members at the FDIC have not been disclosed, and the agency declined to comment further.The agency is also preparing for staff reductions, following the Trump administration's deferred resignation program that has already led to the loss of 500 FDIC employees. Additional buyouts and formal layoffs are expected soon. The timing of DGE's involvement comes as global markets react to new tariffs announced by President Trump, prompting concerns from former officials about weakening regulators' ability to respond to potential financial instability.DOGE Arrives at FDIC but Doesn't Have Access to Bank Data (2)At least three major law firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—are in talks with the Trump administration to reach a joint agreement that would commit over $300 million in pro bono services to causes favored by the White House. The potential deal is also intended to resolve federal investigations into the firms' diversity programs, which the administration has scrutinized for alleged discriminatory practices. If finalized, the arrangement would bring the total pledged in pro bono services from various firms to at least $640 million.President Trump, speaking at a Cabinet meeting, hinted that a handful of firms remain in negotiations, emphasizing that many firms have already paid significant sums or made concessions. He stated that he expects lawyers from participating firms to assist with policy efforts such as implementing tariffs and expanding coal mining.The administration has previously targeted several firms with executive orders for representing causes or clients viewed as oppositional to Trump's agenda. These orders have included punitive measures such as revoking security clearances and restricting federal access. Some firms—like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block—have successfully blocked these actions in court, while others like Paul Weiss settled by agreeing to pro bono contributions. Firms such as Skadden and Milbank preemptively negotiated similar deals.Trump Talks Deal With Three Massive Law Firms as Others FightA U.S. immigration judge is set to rule today on whether Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist at Columbia University, can be deported. Khalil, who holds Algerian citizenship and became a lawful U.S. permanent resident last year, was arrested last month at his New York City apartment and transferred to an immigration jail in rural Louisiana. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for Khalil's removal under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his presence in the U.S. poses foreign policy risks due to his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.Rubio's letter to the court claims Khalil was involved in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” but does not accuse him of any crimes. Instead, Rubio argues the government can revoke legal status based solely on speech or associations if deemed harmful to U.S. interests. Khalil's attorneys say the case is an attempt to punish constitutionally protected speech and have called the letter politically motivated and authoritarian in tone.They are requesting to subpoena and depose Rubio as part of their defense. The immigration court hearing the case operates under the Department of Justice and is separate from the federal judiciary. Khalil is also suing in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that his arrest, detention, and transfer far from his legal team and family were unconstitutional.US immigration judge to decide whether Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil can be deported | ReutersPresident Trump signed a bill nullifying a revised IRS rule that would have broadened the definition of a “broker” to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges, or DeFi platforms. The rule, finalized in the final weeks of the Biden administration, was part of a broader IRS effort to tighten crypto tax enforcement and was rooted in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It would have required DeFi platforms to report user transactions to both the IRS and the users themselves.The crypto industry strongly opposed the rule, arguing that DeFi platforms do not function like traditional brokers and lack access to user identities, making compliance impossible. Centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, by contrast, already meet these reporting requirements as intermediaries. Both the House and Senate voted in March to repeal the IRS rule through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn recent federal regulations with a majority vote.Trump, who has positioned himself as a pro-crypto candidate, had campaigned on promises to support digital asset innovation. Since taking office, he has formed a federal cryptocurrency working group and signed an executive order to establish a national bitcoin reserve.Trump signs bill to nullify expanded IRS crypto broker rule | ReutersThis week's closing theme takes us back to April 13, 1850, when Richard Wagner's opera Lohengrin premiered in Weimar under the baton of his friend and supporter, Franz Liszt. Wagner, one of the most influential and controversial figures in classical music, was then in political exile, and unable to attend the debut of what would become one of his most iconic works. Known for his revolutionary approach to opera—melding music, drama, and mythology—Wagner crafted Lohengrin as a sweeping, mystical tale of a knight of the Holy Grail who arrives in a swan-drawn boat to defend the innocent Elsa of Brabant. The opera's shimmering textures, leitmotif-driven score, and spiritual overtones would set the stage for his later monumental works like Tristan und Isolde and the Ring Cycle.Lohengrin remains best known for its third-act bridal chorus—“Here Comes the Bride”—but the opera's deeper themes of identity, trust, and the cost of forbidden questions give it lasting emotional and philosophical weight. Set in a quasi-medieval world laced with mystery, the opera tells of a hero who must depart the moment his name is asked, leaving love suspended in silence. Wagner's orchestration in Lohengrin is luminous and patient, often evoking shimmering water and distant prophecy, with long-breathed phrases that seem to float above time.As a closing theme for this week, Lohengrin invites reflection—on belief, on leadership, and on how history so often pivots on names, silence, and the tension between loyalty and doubt. Its premiere on April 13th marks not only a moment in Wagner's evolution as a composer but also a cultural point of departure, where German Romanticism began leaning toward something darker and more transcendental. We end the week, then, with the slow unfurling of Lohengrin's prelude: a gentle, ascending shimmer that begins almost imperceptibly, and rises—like the swan on the river—toward the unknown.This week, we close with the prelude to Lohengrin by Richard Wagner—music of undeniable beauty from a composer whose legacy includes both brilliance and deeply troubling beliefs. We share it for its artistry, not its ideology. Without further ado, Richard Wagner's Lohengrin, the prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Senate Approves Alaska PurchaseOn April 9, 1867, the United States Senate voted to ratify the Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska, approving the acquisition of the territory for $7.2 million. The deal, championed by Secretary of State William H. Seward, added over 586,000 square miles to U.S. territory. At the time, many Americans viewed the icy, remote land as a barren wasteland, mocking the transaction as “Seward's Folly” or “Seward's Icebox.” Despite public ridicule, Seward pursued the deal partly to prevent British expansion from neighboring Canada and to extend American commercial interests into the Pacific. Russia, for its part, saw little strategic or economic value in Alaska and feared it might lose the territory without compensation in a future conflict.The treaty passed in the Senate by a vote of 37 to 2, reflecting support among lawmakers despite popular skepticism. Legal authority for the purchase came through the treaty-making power of the executive branch, with Senate ratification required under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Once finalized, the transfer of sovereignty occurred in October 1867 in Sitka, with a formal ceremony marking Russia's departure.Criticism of the purchase subsided decades later following the Klondike Gold Rush and, eventually, the discovery of significant oil reserves. These developments drastically changed the public's perception of Alaska from frozen liability to strategic asset. The purchase also helped lay the groundwork for America's growing influence in the Pacific and Arctic regions.President Donald Trump announced that major law firms pledging $340 million in pro bono work would assist his administration with coal industry initiatives and international tariff negotiations. Speaking at a White House event, Trump said these firms—such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie—would provide legal support for leasing and regulatory issues in coal mining, as well as in talks with foreign countries on trade. While he didn't specify which firms would take on specific tasks, Trump emphasized their legal talent and claimed they were offering services “for the right price.”The announcement coincided with Trump signing executive orders invoking the Defense Production Act to increase coal mining and directing investments into advanced coal technology. He also said the Department of Justice would be tasked with challenging state and local regulations he views as harmful to miners. The law firm agreements came after Trump targeted several legal firms with directives that threaten their business, prompting lawsuits from Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block. Trump posted the agreements on Truth Social, stating the firms would work on causes like veterans' rights and combating antisemitism, although details on how their roles will be determined remain unclear.Trump Says He'll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, TariffsA group of 67 former top legal executives from companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Eli Lilly filed a legal brief condemning President Trump's executive orders targeting several major law firms. They argue that the orders violate the Constitution and threaten the independence of corporate legal counsel by coercing political loyalty through federal contract threats. The brief supports a lawsuit by Perkins Coie, one of the firms impacted by the orders, which claims the directives bar its attorneys from government buildings and jeopardize its clients' federal contracts.The former general counsels contend that Trump's actions don't just punish individual firms, but undermine the principle that companies should be free to choose their legal representation without fear of political retaliation. The brief highlights how the orders signal to businesses that hiring lawyers linked to Trump's critics could lead to government sanctions. Trump issued similar orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, and all three firms have secured temporary legal blocks against the measures.While some firms like Paul Weiss struck deals with Trump to avoid penalties—agreeing to provide pro bono work for causes aligned with his administration—others have pushed back. Four days prior, hundreds of law firms submitted their own brief supporting Perkins Coie. Trump's administration defends the orders as efforts to stop perceived political bias in Big Law.Former top lawyers at major companies decry Trump orders against law firms | ReutersAn immigration judge has given the U.S. government through today to present evidence justifying the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident. Khalil was arrested in New York and transferred to a detention facility in rural Louisiana, sparking concern over due process and free speech rights. At Tuesday's hearing, Judge Jamee Comans made it clear that if the government cannot prove Khalil is deportable, she will dismiss the case by Friday. She also criticized delays in sharing evidence and emphasized the importance of Khalil's due process rights.Khalil's lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, claims the deportation effort is politically motivated and violates the First Amendment, suggesting that Khalil is being targeted for speaking out in support of Palestinians. The government argues Khalil should be deported under a Cold War-era law that allows removal if an immigrant is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, and also accuses him of omissions on his green card application—charges he denies.The case has drawn national attention, including a crowded virtual courtroom. A separate habeas petition is also under consideration in federal court, and Khalil cannot be deported while that process plays out. His wife, a U.S. citizen who is expecting their child this month, has been unable to visit him due to her pregnancy.US given one day to show evidence for deporting Columbia University protester Khalil | ReutersA federal judge has ordered President Trump's White House to temporarily lift access restrictions on the Associated Press (AP) while a lawsuit challenging the ban moves forward. The Trump administration had barred AP journalists from events like Oval Office briefings and Air Force One trips after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term, "Gulf of America," instead continuing to refer to the "Gulf of Mexico." U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from excluding journalists based on viewpoint.The ruling, which takes effect Sunday to allow time for appeal, restores the AP's access to White House press events. McFadden emphasized that if some journalists are granted access, others cannot be denied for their editorial stance. The AP sued three senior Trump aides in February, claiming the restrictions were unconstitutional retaliation against protected speech and lacked due process.AP reporters testified that the ban hindered their ability to cover the president, while Justice Department lawyers argued that access to presidential spaces is a privilege, not a right. Press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association welcomed the decision, calling it a win for independent journalism. The case remains ongoing, with a final ruling expected in the coming months.Judge lifts Trump White House restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Liz and Andrew sit down with fellow legal podcaster Ken White, AKA “Popehat,” to discuss the Trump administration's attack on law firms. Who's fighting? Who's folding? And who's f—ed? Plus an update on the case of the Maryland man deported to a torture prison in El Salvador, and the legal effort to get him home. And for subscribers: The DC Circuit considers if Humphreys Executor is dead, or just mostly dead?    Links:   Serious Trouble Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/serious-trouble/id1630160928   Wilcox docket (DC Cir) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69714705/gwynne-wilcox-v-donald-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc   Abrego Garcia v Noem Docket (4th Cir) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69847836/kilmar-abrego-garcia-v-kristi-noem/   Perkins Coie Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/   Jenner & Block Docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278932/   WilmerHale Docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278933/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Over the past few weeks, President Trump has used executive orders to wage war on law firms, specifically targeting those whose lawyers have investigated or sued him, or represented his enemies in court.Michael Barbaro speaks to Thomas Sipp, a lawyer who chose to quit after his firm, Skadden, negotiated a deal to placate the president.Guest: Thomas Sipp, a lawyer who left his firm after they negotiated a deal with Mr. Trump.Background reading: Read about how, Paul Weiss, a major democratic law firm, ended up bowing to Mr. Trump.Ever since the elite law firms Skadden and Paul Weiss reached deals with the Trump administration, top partners have closed ranks in support of the agreements.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: John Taggart for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This Day in Legal History:  Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil ServiceOn April 7, 1933, the German government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a key early legal step in the Nazi regime's campaign to marginalize and exclude Jews and political dissenters from public life. The law targeted civil servants, stating that anyone who was not of “Aryan” descent or who held views deemed politically unreliable—especially Communists and Social Democrats—could be dismissed from government service. While phrased in bureaucratic language, the law was a thinly veiled act of political and racial purging. Jewish teachers, professors, judges, and other state employees were removed from their posts, some having served Germany for decades, including veterans of World War I.The law also gave the regime a tool to begin shaping state institutions along Nazi ideological lines. Its vague language about “unreliability” gave officials wide discretion to remove not only Jews but anyone who opposed the Nazis or failed to show sufficient loyalty. Although certain Jewish individuals were temporarily exempted under a “front-line fighter” clause—meant to placate concerns about fairness—the loophole would soon be closed in later legislation.This marked the first legal codification of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, providing a model for further exclusionary laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. It also demonstrated how laws could be used not only to formalize discrimination but to normalize it, embedding it into the everyday machinery of the state. By disguising oppression as administrative reform, the Nazi government laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic system of persecution that would escalate into far more violent phases in the years to come.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's highest-grossing law firm, is in negotiations with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by an executive order similar to those issued against several of its competitors. The firm reportedly reached out to the White House proactively, hoping to strike a deal that would spare it from the penalties imposed on others—such as revoking security clearances, limiting federal access, or canceling client contracts.Other cowardly firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Milbank have already secured deals involving multimillion-dollar pledges for pro bono legal work aligned with White House priorities. These agreements also include commitments to avoid discriminatory diversity practices and to recruit ideologically diverse attorneys. Kirkland, though not yet the subject of an executive order, is one of 20 firms under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scrutiny following Trump's directives.In 2024, Kirkland earned nearly $9 billion, with its lawyers playing key roles in major private equity and M&A deals, topping Bloomberg Law's transactional rankings. The firm's aggressive style and market dominance have made it a heavyweight in the legal world, and this move signals its intent to shield its interests amid the Trump administration's ongoing pressure campaign against firms seen as politically opposed.$9 billion in earnings is, apparently, not enough to buy a spine. Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid OrderMore than 500 law firms have signed onto a court brief supporting Perkins Coie in its legal challenge against a Trump executive order that penalizes the firm over past political work and diversity policies. The brief, filed with U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticizes what it describes as a dangerous effort to intimidate the legal profession, warning that legal representation of disfavored causes may now provoke government retaliation. Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on March 11, following Trump's order targeting the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its internal diversity policies. Several firms targeted by similar orders—such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling—have either sued or signed the brief. Others, including once again the aforementioned Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached deals with Trump to avoid formal action.Judge Howell has already blocked parts of Trump's order, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to the legal system's foundations. The White House maintains the orders are lawful exercises of presidential authority. The brief was spearheaded by former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who now practices at Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of several prominent firms suing the administration over related matters. Many top law firms have stayed silent, but the growing backlash reflects broad concern about the use of presidential power to retaliate against legal opposition. Critics say the executive orders weaponize the law to chill dissent and undercut core legal protections.More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie suit against punitive Trump order | ReutersA U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been placed on administrative leave after failing to defend the government's actions in a wrongful deportation case that a federal judge described as “wholly lawless.” The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran migrant with a valid work permit, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that he be returned to Maryland and found no legal basis for his arrest, detention, or deportation, noting he had complied with all immigration requirements and had no criminal record.At a recent hearing, DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni struggled to explain the deportation and admitted he lacked evidence justifying the government's actions. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that Reuveni and his supervisor August Flentje have been sidelined from the case. The administration is appealing the order but has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's deportation was a mistake.The deported man is now being held in a high-risk prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming gang affiliations, though there are no charges against Abrego Garcia. The case highlights broader concerns about due process and immigration enforcement under the current administration, with critics pointing to a pattern of ignoring legal protections in deportation proceedings.US sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Sarah Longwell and George Conway discuss a powerful letter by lawyer Paul Weiss's granddaughters on the importance of the rule of law, the legality of recent deportations and their implications for American citizens, market reactions to “Liberation Day,” and whether Trump could legally pursue a third presidential term.

This Day in Legal History:  MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Smith v. AllwrightOn April 3, 1944, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Smith v. Allwright, reshaping the landscape of voting rights in the American South. The case centered on Lonnie E. Smith, a Black voter from Texas who was denied the right to vote in the Democratic Party's primary election due to a party rule that only allowed white voters to participate. At the time, the Democratic primary was the only meaningful election in many Southern states, as the party dominated politics, making exclusion from the primary tantamount to disenfranchisement.The Texas Democratic Party argued that, as a private organization, it had the right to determine its own membership and voting rules. However, the Court, in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, held that primaries were an integral part of the electoral process and could not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The justices concluded that excluding Black voters from primaries violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.This ruling effectively overturned the Court's 1935 decision in Grovey v. Townsend, which had upheld the use of white primaries. The Smith decision marked a critical step toward dismantling the legal architecture of Jim Crow voter suppression. While states continued to use other tactics to limit Black political power, the ruling energized civil rights activists and laid the foundation for future litigation.By reasserting federal authority over state electoral practices, Smith v. Allwright signaled a turning point in the judicial battle against racial segregation and disenfranchisement. It also demonstrated the Court's growing willingness to confront systemic racism in voting, a commitment that would deepen during the civil rights era. This case is remembered as one of the pivotal moments in the long struggle for voting rights in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld the FDA's authority to deny applications for flavored vaping products, supporting actions taken during the Biden administration under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act. The unanimous ruling rejected arguments from companies like Triton Distribution and Vapetasia LLC, which claimed the FDA unfairly imposed new testing requirements and ignored their marketing plans. These companies had applied to sell flavors like “Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.”The Court found the FDA's approach consistent with its earlier guidance, despite claims from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the agency had pulled a “regulatory switcheroo.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, agreeing with most of the FDA's decisions but sending the case back to the appeals court to reassess whether the agency erred in refusing to consider the companies' marketing plans—an element the FDA had previously called “critical” for evaluating youth appeal.Though the ruling solidifies the FDA's regulatory role, its long-term impact is uncertain. President Trump, in furtherance of his undying effort to always be on the wrong side of everything, has promised to “save vaping,” though his campaign never clarified what that means in terms of future regulation. The case, FDA v. Wages and White Lion, leaves the appeals court to decide whether any procedural missteps by the FDA were ultimately harmless.Supreme Court Largely Backs Biden-Era FDA on Flavored Vapes (1)Elon Musk's time in Washington as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) appears to be nearing its end. Both Musk and President Trump have hinted that his departure is imminent, with Trump noting that DGE itself “will end.” Originally designed as a temporary advisory panel to cut federal costs, DGE has morphed into a more integrated part of the government, staffed with Musk allies tasked with canceling contracts and slashing budgets.However, signs of a wind-down are emerging. DGE staff are being reassigned to federal agencies, layoffs are underway, and the organization's influence seems to be diminishing. Musk, a special government employee limited to 130 working days per year, is approaching that limit, though neither he nor the administration has confirmed when his tenure will end.Musk's recent political involvement also took a hit when his preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court lost, despite significant financial backing and a campaign visit. Tesla's 13% drop in quarterly sales adds further pressure. Trump praised Musk's contributions but acknowledged his corporate obligations, suggesting a graceful exit is likely rather than a public fallout.DGE had once shared leadership between Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy left to run for Ohio governor. While Musk boasted about aiming to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, critics say the group's progress has been overstated. Despite speculation, Trump hasn't committed to keeping DGE operational post-Musk, indicating the administration may be moving to a new phase of governance.Musk could be headed for a Washington exit after turbulent times at Trump's DOGE | AP NewsPresident Donald Trump announced a new agreement with law firm Milbank, marking another chapter in the growing divide among U.S. law firms over how to handle pressure from his administration. According to Trump's Truth Social post, Milbank initiated the deal, which includes a commitment to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes like veterans' support and combating antisemitism.The agreement comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to punish firms that have opposed or challenged his policies. Several law firms—such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have filed lawsuits seeking to block executive orders they claim were retaliatory and violated constitutional protections of free speech and due process. Federal judges recently issued temporary blocks on parts of those orders.In contrast, other firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr have opted for settlement-style deals with the administration to avoid similar sanctions. Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, reportedly described the agreement as aligned with the firm's values and praised the productive talks with the administration.This situation underscores a growing rift in the legal community: some firms are resisting what they see as political coercion, while others are choosing cooperation to preserve their standing with the federal government.Trump reaches agreement with Milbank law firm | ReutersPresident Trump announced a sweeping new tariff policy during a Rose Garden press conference, unveiling a "reciprocal" trade strategy aimed at countering what he described as decades of unfair treatment by U.S. trading partners. Holding a copy of a government report titled Foreign Trade Barriers, Trump declared that the U.S. will now impose tariffs that are approximately half the rate other countries charge American exports—but with a minimum baseline tariff of 10%, and many rates going significantly higher.Countries hit with new tariffs include:* China: 34%* European Union: 20%* Japan: 24%* South Korea: 25%* Switzerland: 31%* United Kingdom: 10%* Taiwan: 32%* Malaysia: 24%* India: 26%* Brazil: 10%* Indonesia: 32%* Vietnam: 46%* Singapore: 10%Trump also confirmed a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles, stacking on the above-referenced rates, effective at midnight, and pointed to motorcycle tariffs as a key example of longstanding trade imbalances. He argued that U.S. manufacturers face rates as high as 75% abroad, while the U.S. imposes just 2.4%.The president justified the move as necessary to protect American jobs and industry, singling out countries like Canada and Mexico for benefiting from U.S. subsidies and defense spending. Detroit autoworker Brian Pannebecker spoke in support, calling Trump's actions a hopeful step toward revitalizing shuttered factories.While Trump emphasized that the tariffs fall short of full reciprocity to avoid overwhelming allies, he made clear the era of what he called “economic surrender” was over. The announcement included plans to sign an executive order formalizing the new tariff regime, which boosted U.S. stock futures as markets reacted positively to the aggressive trade stance. Oh no I'm sorry, I got that wrong: stock futures tanked.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A great divide is developing. ----- Following the Paul Weiss surrender we discussed last week, Skadden preemptively followed suit agreeing to commit $100M in pro bono payola to the MAGA cause. Bringing to light some embarrassing email policies in the process. But other Biglaw firms showed a little more life, with Jenner & Block and WilmerHale suing the administration over its retaliatory executive orders. And a major firm announced an end to on-campus recruiting, which seems like a bad policy for both students and the firm.  

This Day in Legal History: MA Enacts Anti-Vietnam War LegislationOn April 2, 1970, Massachusetts enacted a bold piece of legislation challenging the U.S. government's involvement in the Vietnam War. The law stated that no resident of Massachusetts, whether inducted or already serving in the military, could be compelled to participate in armed hostilities abroad unless Congress had formally declared war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. At the time, the Vietnam War had escalated significantly without such a formal declaration, raising widespread constitutional concerns. This state-level defiance of federal military policy was one of the clearest legal confrontations to emerge from domestic antiwar sentiment during the era.Supporters of the law aimed to provoke a judicial review of the war's legality by forcing the issue into the courts. The ultimate hope was that the U.S. Supreme Court would accept the case and directly address whether the war was unconstitutional due to the lack of a Congressional declaration. However, the Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction, a move that disappointed advocates but was consistent with the Court's cautious approach to politically sensitive war powers questions. The case was instead relegated to the lower federal courts, where it lost much of its political and legal momentum.This episode underscored the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority, especially in areas of foreign policy and military engagement. It also highlighted the ongoing ambiguity surrounding the War Powers Clause and the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. Although the Massachusetts law was largely symbolic and never led to a judicial rebuke of the Vietnam War, it marked a significant moment in the legal resistance to undeclared wars.Willkie Farr & Gallagher has agreed to commit at least $100 million in pro bono legal services supporting causes aligned with conservative ideals, according to a public announcement by President Trump. This move follows similar flagrant displays of cowardice by other major law firms, Paul Weiss and Skadden, in the face of Trump's recent executive orders targeting firms based on political associations and past legal work. The deal allows Willkie to avoid a potentially damaging executive order by committing to initiatives like supporting veterans, promoting fairness in the justice system, and fighting antisemitism.Willkie's leadership acknowledged the difficult nature of the decision in a firmwide email, saying they evaluated the risks of resistance versus cooperation and ultimately chose to protect the firm's interests and stakeholders. The firm also pledged to uphold laws on employment practices, maintain bipartisan client representation, and continue work for underrepresented groups. Trump emphasized that Willkie will commit to “merit-based hiring” and avoid what he called “illegal DEI discrimination,” with the firm agreeing to outside legal oversight for compliance.Doug Emhoff, a partner at Willkie and husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly opposed the deal and urged leadership to resist. Just before the announcement, Emhoff warned students at Georgetown Law that democracy and the rule of law are under threat, and that lawyers must defend both.Trump Strikes Deal With Willkie, Law Firm of Doug Emhoff (2)Doug Emhoff's law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher reaches deal with Trump | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Justice Department's corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be filed again. Judge Dale Ho rejected the DOJ's request for a dismissal without prejudice, citing concerns that leaving the case open could make Adams appear beholden to the Trump administration, especially on immigration enforcement. The decision aligns with an independent legal opinion commissioned by the court, which warned that the threat of reindictment could create the perception that Adams' actions were motivated by federal pressure rather than public service.The original charges accused Adams of accepting illegal contributions and favors from Turkish officials, but Adams pleaded not guilty and maintained that the case was politically motivated retaliation for his criticism of President Biden's immigration policies. In a surprising turn, the Trump administration backed Adams, arguing the prosecution interfered with his re-election efforts and hindered cooperation on deportation efforts.The case became a political flashpoint in the run-up to the November mayoral election, with Adams facing low approval ratings and a field of Democratic challengers, including former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Multiple prosecutors resigned rather than follow the DOJ directive to drop the case, raising concerns about politicization within the department. Judge Ho's ruling effectively ends the legal battle but leaves lingering questions about Justice Department independence and the political forces behind the case.NYC Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case dismissed, cannot be brought again | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major case that could determine whether South Carolina can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. The state, led by Republican officials, wants to exclude the organization from the Medicaid program because it provides abortions, even though federal funds cannot be used for abortion services. At issue is whether Medicaid recipients have the right to sue states under federal law to access care from any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood.The case stems from a 2018 decision by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, who ordered Planned Parenthood's removal from the state's Medicaid program. The organization and a patient sued under an 1871 civil rights law, arguing that the move violated patients' rights to choose their healthcare providers. Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that South Carolina's actions were unlawful.Planned Parenthood clinics in South Carolina offer a range of services to Medicaid patients, including cancer screenings, contraception, and general health exams. The state, supported by the Trump administration and represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that the Medicaid law does not grant individuals the right to sue.The Supreme Court has addressed elements of this dispute before but has not yet ruled on the key legal question: whether Medicaid enrollees can challenge states that exclude providers for political or ideological reasons. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court mulls South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from carrying out mass firings of federal employees still in their probationary period, ruling that the government must follow established procedures for large-scale layoffs. The case stems from the administration's February dismissal of about 24,500 workers without prior notice to states or local governments. U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland found the move likely violated federal law and ordered that only those employees living or working in the 19 suing states and Washington, D.C. must be reinstated.This decision narrows an earlier, broader ruling and will remain in effect while the lawsuit continues. The plaintiffs, led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, argue the firings were politically motivated and part of a broader effort to dismantle the federal workforce. While the administration claims poor performance was behind the dismissals, the judge noted that probationary status alone doesn't justify bypassing legal protections.The Trump administration has appealed the decision, arguing Bredar overstepped his authority. An appellate court has so far declined to pause the ruling. The case highlights growing tension between the Trump administration's push to reshape the federal government and the legal limits on executive power over civil service employment.US judge blocks Trump administration from firing federal employees on probation | ReutersPresident Trump is expected to announce a sweeping new set of tariffs today at 4 p.m. ET, but no one seems to know exactly what the nut job in chief has in store. Speculation is rampant, with previous threats including 200% duties on European alcohol imports, and reports suggesting a possible 20% universal tariff. Businesses, investors, and world leaders are on edge, bracing for what could be a dramatic escalation in global trade tensions.Confusion reigns across industries—from winemakers in Spain who feel caught in a trade war they never asked for, to U.S. auto suppliers now recalculating their costs under layered tariffs that could exceed 50%. Manufacturing data shows signs of contraction, and fears of stagflation are emerging. Stocks are slipping, gold is surging, and key trading partners like the EU, Mexico, and Canada are preparing potential countermeasures. Trump, meanwhile, has dubbed today “Liberation Day,” further muddying the policy waters.With the exact scope and structure of the duties still unknown, the only certainty right now is uncertainty.Trump Tariffs Live: Global stock market and trade war fears as April 2 announcement looms | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A great divide is developing. ----- Following the Paul Weiss surrender we discussed last week, Skadden preemptively followed suit agreeing to commit $100M in pro bono payola to the MAGA cause. Bringing to light some embarrassing email policies in the process. But other Biglaw firms showed a little more life, with Jenner & Block and WilmerHale suing the administration over its retaliatory executive orders. And a major firm announced an end to on-campus recruiting, which seems like a bad policy for both students and the firm.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Beginning in February, President Donald Trump issued a series of orders targeting law firms that he claims have engaged in “conduct detrimental to critical American interests.” The firms named in the orders — Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — have previously represented clients or hired lawyers that opposed Trump and his administration. Several firms have brought lawsuits to challenge the executive actions, while others have sought deals with the White House. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think about President Trump's orders targeting law firms? Let us know here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

O presidente americano sistematicamente avança sobre pilares da democracia dos Estados Unidos. As pressões às quais Trump já submeteu parte da imprensa e das universidades chegaram também à Justiça do país. O novo alvo do republicano é a “big law”, ou seja, os grandes escritórios de advocacia americanos. Na semana passada, Trump divulgou um comunicado ameaçando punir advogados e escritórios que se envolvam em casos que ele considera "frívolos, irracionais e vexatórios" contra a sua gestão --sanções que poderiam impedir esses profissionais de acessarem prédios públicos e proibi-los de fechar contratos com o governo. Dias antes, ele já havia atacado o sistema judicial ao ameaçar de impeachment um juiz que barrou uma ordem executiva da Presidência. Para explicar a nova ofensiva de Trump, Natuza Nery conversa com Guga Chacra, comentarista da TV Globo, da Globonews e da rádio CBN, e colunista do jornal O Globo. Ele detalha, por exemplo, o caso do escritório Paul Weiss, que já capitulou e concordou em fornecer 40 milhões de dólares em serviços jurídicos para causas apoiadas pela administração Trump. Guga comenta também a possibilidade de o presidente americano sobre disputar um terceiro mandato -- o que é inconstitucional nos EUA.

What do Tesla, Chevron, Paul Weiss, Accenture, and Boeing all have in common? In this episode, Anthony and Stephen dive into the companies most impacted, positively or negatively, by Donald Trump's latest term in office.From surprise military contracts and stealth fighter jets to sanctions, executive orders, and collapsing EV valuations, this episode breaks down how politics and policy are shaking up corporate America.You'll learn:(00:00) Introduction to Trump's Impact on Companies(02:45) Tesla's Rollercoaster Ride(09:43) Chevron and Tariff Day(13:56) Paul Weiss: Politics and Law(19:41) Accenture's Consulting Challenges(23:11) Boeing's Military Contracts and Future ProspectsThis is Part 1 of a two-part series tracking 10 companies caught in the Trump storm, so remember to follow and tune in next week for part 2! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Civilian Conservation Corps Created by FDROn this day in legal history, March 31, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Senate Bill S. 598, creating the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) as part of his sweeping New Deal agenda. The CCC was a rapid-response effort to the economic devastation of the Great Depression, designed to provide immediate employment to young, unemployed men. Within weeks of its creation, the program began enrolling thousands, ultimately putting over 3 million men to work during its nine-year run.The CCC operated under the Department of Labor, War Department, and Department of Agriculture, reflecting its blend of social welfare, environmental stewardship, and federal coordination. Workers were paid $30 per month, $25 of which was sent home to support their families—a vital lifeline during a time of widespread poverty. Projects included reforestation, flood control, soil erosion prevention, and the construction of trails and facilities in national and state parks.Legally, the CCC represented an expansion of federal authority into economic and environmental realms, and it raised constitutional questions about the scope of executive power during peacetime. While the Supreme Court would later strike down some New Deal programs, the CCC escaped judicial invalidation, in part due to its voluntary nature and its framing as a public works program rather than a federal jobs guarantee.The CCC's legal structure helped shape future federal employment and environmental programs, and it laid the groundwork for later conservation efforts like the Soil Conservation Service and aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency. March 31, 1933, thus marks not just the birth of a New Deal agency, but a foundational moment in the legal history of federal labor and environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit linked to the Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, seeking a religious exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argues that the state's denial of the exemption violates the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom and church autonomy. Wisconsin law allows such exemptions only for organizations "operated primarily for religious purposes," a standard the state Supreme Court ruled the charities failed to meet due to their primarily secular social service work.The Catholic Charities Bureau, founded in 1917, provides services like job placement and home visits for people with disabilities but does not require employees or service recipients to be Catholic. After one of its affiliates was granted an exemption in a separate case, the Bureau and other affiliates sought similar treatment in 2016. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2024 decision upheld the tax requirement, stating the group's activities were charitable rather than religious.The case has broader implications for how courts distinguish between religious and secular work, with critics warning that a ruling in favor of the charities could allow large religiously affiliated organizations to bypass many government regulations, jeopardizing benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers. The decision is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear a related case on April 30 concerning a proposed taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.US Supreme Court to hear Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | ReutersCatholic Charities Case Poised to Shape Religious Tax ExemptionsTwo federal judges have temporarily blocked major parts of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, which had been involved in legal efforts against his administration. The firms sued the Trump administration, arguing that the orders violated constitutional protections of free expression and due process. U.S. District Judge John Bates criticized Trump's order against Jenner & Block as “reprehensible,” especially for targeting the firm's pro bono work on behalf of immigrants and transgender individuals. He warned the order threatened the firm's existence by aiming to cancel its clients' federal contracts and restrict access to federal facilities and courts.In a separate ruling, Judge Richard Leon blocked similar provisions in the order against WilmerHale, calling it retaliatory and a threat to the public interest and justice system. However, he allowed a clause suspending the firm's security clearances to stand. Trump has signed orders targeting five law firms to date, and several—including Perkins Coie—have already challenged them in court with partial success.Meanwhile, law firms Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss reached deals with the White House to avoid being targeted. Skadden agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal work and implement merit-based hiring, while Paul Weiss pledged $40 million toward mutually agreed causes. The executive orders mainly cited the firms' past involvement in investigations into Trump, especially the Mueller probe. Critics argue the orders are politically motivated attempts to punish opposition and intimidate legal advocates.Judges block Trump orders targeting two law firms as Skadden cuts deal | ReutersTwo labor agency officials fired by President Donald Trump—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board—will not be immediately reinstated, following a decision by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court declined to pause its earlier order that temporarily blocked lower court rulings which had reinstated the officials. Judges Karen Henderson and Justin Walker sided with the administration, while Judge Patricia Millett dissented.This legal battle tests the limits of presidential authority to remove officials from independent agencies, despite statutory protections meant to insulate them from political pressure. While trial courts previously ruled the firings were unlawful, the appeals court has halted those decisions from taking effect for now. The panel's latest order did not include an explanation of its reasoning.Wilcox and Harris may still ask the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel's ruling, but Sunday's denial of an administrative stay could influence their next steps. Meanwhile, a broader decision on whether Congress can limit the president's power to fire certain agency officials is expected to be taken up in oral arguments scheduled for May 16. The issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, given its potential to reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.Fired Agency Officials Lose Attempt at Immediate ReinstatementFrench antitrust regulators fined Apple €150 million (about $162.4 million) for abusing its dominant market position through its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) tool, marking the first time any regulator has penalized the company over this feature. The ATT tool, introduced by Apple on iPhones and iPads, allows users to control which apps can track their activity. While Apple framed it as a privacy measure, digital advertisers and mobile gaming companies argued it made advertising more difficult and disproportionately impacted smaller publishers reliant on third-party data.The French Competition Authority found that while privacy protection is a legitimate goal, Apple's implementation of ATT was neither necessary nor proportionate and unfairly favored its own services. The decision followed complaints from several advertising and media associations, who hailed the ruling as a major win for their industries.Despite the fine, Apple is not currently required to change the tool's design. However, regulators emphasized that it is Apple's responsibility to ensure compliance going forward. Apple, expressing disappointment with the decision, noted that investigations into ATT are ongoing in other European countries including Germany, Italy, Poland, and Romania.Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Marc Elias joins to discuss the legal smackdown dealt against Trump's grudge-filled crusade against private law firms. Plus, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons on his call for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to resign for his role in the Signal-gate security fiasco.

*** Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code OPENING at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/opening *** OA1143 - In the past month, Donald Trump has issued a series of truly fascist orders targeting some of the country's best-known law firms for crimes ranging from hiring people Trump doesn't like personally to doing some favors for special counsel Jack Smith to flagrantly hiring non-white non-men. What is actually in these orders, and how bad is it that one of leading litigation firms in the country gave in to Trump's demands without  a fight? And what will it mean for the already-overloaded immigration court system when they start going after immigration lawyers as they have also promised? Former NYC Biglaw associate (and current NYC public defender) Liz Skeen joins to help us to understand this uniquely un-American moment in American legal history. (UPDATE: This episode was recorded shortly before news broke about the Trump administration taking action against major US law firms Wilmer Hale and Skadden Arps.) Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block (3/25/25) Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss (3/25/25) Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court (3/22/25) Addressing Risks From Paul, Weiss (3/14/25) Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLC (3/6/25) Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts (Covington & Burling LLP)(2/25/25) “Complicity in the Perversion of Justice: The Role of Lawyers in Eroding the Rule of Law in the Third Reich,” Cythnia Fountaine, St. Mary's Journal of Legal Ethics (2020)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

A new poll this week shows that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo continues to be the frontrunner in this year's crowded Democratic mayoral primary. Since announcing his candidacy, Cuomo has remained at the top of the pack while continuing to deploy a rose garden strategy. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams has finally begun to confront this tough political reality by taking on the former governor in his most pointed language yet. NY1 investigative reporter Courtney Gross, and political reporters Bobby Cuza and Kelly Mena break down all the latest news in the race for mayor. After that, Columbia University has agreed to sweeping policy changes on campus in an attempt to appease the Trump administration. The changes include hiring more public safety officers, cracking down on discipline and reviewing its Middle Eastern Studies Department. This comes as another New York institution, the law firm Paul Weiss, has capitulated to the Trump administration after the president had signed an executive order attempting to limit the firm's ability to litigate. The “Off Topic” team looks at these dramatic examples of Trump's influence on our city. Leave a message: 212-379-3440 Email: yourstoryny1@charter.com

This Day in Legal History:  Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim ArkOn March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who were legally residing in the U.S. but ineligible for naturalization due to prevailing immigration laws. After a visit to China in 1895, he was denied re-entry on the grounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.The Court rejected the government's argument that children of Chinese immigrants were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship. In a 6–2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. This decision established a major precedent for interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil.The ruling came during a period of intense anti-Chinese sentiment, when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its extensions aimed to restrict Chinese immigration and civil rights. Wong Kim Ark was a significant rebuke to efforts that sought to limit the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants, and it laid the foundation for future interpretations of birthright citizenship.The Senate's vote to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $5 cap on overdraft fees is a clear signal: protecting bank profits matters more to Senate Republicans than shielding consumers from predatory financial practices. With a 52-48 vote, Republicans—joined by only one Democrat—moved to dismantle a regulation designed to curb exploitative overdraft charges that routinely hit working-class Americans the hardest.This isn't a technical policy disagreement—it's a choice to side with an industry that routinely charges Americans up to $35 for covering small shortfalls, even when the overdrafted amount is often less than the fee itself. The CFPB's rule was narrow, targeting only large banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, and still allowed higher fees if justified by actual costs. It was a modest, evidence-based consumer protection measure.The financial industry's immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable.No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They'll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment's reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they're looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity. Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1)Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale's clients, revoke lawyers' security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller's investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.Trump criticized Mueller's investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies.WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump's agenda.Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2)Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a Labor Department rule that would force grant recipients to abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago, halts a two-week enforcement window of a January executive order that required organizations receiving federal funds to certify they don't operate any DEI initiatives—even those unrelated to their grants.The case was brought by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit that trains women for skilled labor jobs and receives federal funding. The judge sided with CWIT's argument that the DEI restriction violates First Amendment protections, noting that such a rule could pressure grantees into self-censorship. Kennelly also blocked the Labor Department from terminating CWIT's funding under Trump's directive to eliminate “equity-related grants,” though this protection applies only to CWIT and not nationwide.Kennelly's order represents a legal pushback against Trump's broader effort to dismantle DEI initiatives across government agencies and contractors. While a federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary ban on DEI programs in federal agencies and contracting businesses, this ruling suggests courts may scrutinize how far the administration can go in policing DEI-related activity outside direct federal oversight.The ruling underscores an emerging legal battleground over free speech, anti-discrimination law, and the limits of executive authority in regulating DEI efforts.Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve Signal messages exchanged by top officials regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The messages, inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic, revealed internal discussions involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about timing and targets of attacks against the Houthi militant group. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling mandates that all Signal messages sent between March 11 and March 15 be retained by the agencies involved.The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a government watchdog group, which argued that the use of auto-deleting messaging apps like Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. The lawsuit doesn't focus on the national security aspects of the disclosure but rather on the legal obligation of government agencies to preserve official communications.The controversy deepened after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized Boasberg, accusing him of political bias and claiming he was attempting to obstruct Trump's agenda. Trump himself has previously called for Boasberg's impeachment after the judge blocked a deportation policy targeting Venezuelan migrants—an action later upheld by an appeals court.The White House has not commented on the matter, but the episode has sparked scrutiny over the administration's handling of sensitive military planning and whether efforts to bypass official communication channels undermine transparency and accountability.Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Sergei Rachmaninoff.This week's closing theme is one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable moments in all of classical music: Variation XVIII from Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 by Sergei Rachmaninoff, in a solo piano arrangement by Schultz. Rachmaninoff composed the Rhapsody in 1934 during his later years in exile from Russia, blending his romantic sensibilities with virtuoso brilliance. The work is a set of 24 variations on the 24th Caprice by Niccolò Paganini, itself a legendary theme known for dazzling technical demands.While most of the piece is fiery and rhythmic, the 18th variation stands apart—lyrical, sweeping, and emotionally expansive. In fact, it's a musical inversion of Paganini's theme, reimagined as a lush romantic melody that seems to rise straight out of the piano's depths. Rachmaninoff himself admitted it was his favorite part of the piece, and it's easy to understand why: it's tender, grand, and full of longing.This solo arrangement by Schultz pares down the orchestral drama but keeps all the expressive power, letting the piano sing with full-hearted warmth. The variation has since transcended its classical origins, appearing in films, commercials, and pop culture, yet it never loses its emotional punch. It's the kind of music that doesn't need explanation—it just resonates.Rachmaninoff, ever the late Romantic in a century veering toward modernism, poured his soul into his music. This variation, placed deep in a virtuosic whirlwind, emerges like a moment of clarity—an unguarded confession in a storm. Let it carry you out this week. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Jason Kander and Ravi Gupta break down the Signal fiasco, as the Atlantic releases more leaked messages after Trump officials accused them of lying. Ravi and Jason then turn to Trump's latest executive order targeting top law firms, as Jenner & Block faces pressure and Paul Weiss caves, prompting George Conway to call it “the most disgraceful action by a major law firm in my lifetime.” Kander and Gupta then analyze the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations, the D.C. Circuit Court's sharp rebuke, and Trump's attempt to block key details using the state secrets privilege. Jason and Ravi are then joined by Congressman Jake Auchincloss to discuss all this and more on the podcast that helps you, the 54% of the country that votes for progress in every election, convince your conservative friends and family members to join our majority. This is Majority 54! Bird Dogs: Get a completely free hat @birddogs with code MAJORITY at https://www.birddogs.com/MAJORITY #birddogspod Viia: Try VIIA Hemp! https://viia.co/MAJORITY and use code: MAJORITY Order Ravi's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Garbage-Town-Ravi-Gupta/dp/B0DHHL3LTN Checkout Jason and Ravi's new podcast: https://www.youtube.com/live/cxyD5Dy794Q?si=FuHsqb2uDbnO8KJ8 Majority 54 is a MeidasTouch Network production. Theme music provided by Kemet Coleman. Special thanks to Diana Kander. Majority 54 on Twitter: https://twitter.com/majority54 Jason on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JasonKander Jason on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jasonkander/ Ravi on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RaviMGupta Ravi on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ravimgupta Ravi on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@LostDebate Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The pressure campaigns of the Trump administration are beginning to bear fruit. Last week saw two major institutions acquiesce to the president's demands after actions taken by the White House threatened to undermine their budgets, workforce and, in some cases, ability to perform core business. The first was Paul Weiss, a major law firm that some accuse of trading pro bono work on behalf of Trump causes to maintain business ties to federal agencies. The second was Columbia University, which agreed to terms laid out by the government in exchange for the restoration of funding that had been slashed earlier this month. Hailed as victories by Donald Trump, Isaac Stanley-Becker, staff writer at The Atlantic, says these are just two of the highest profile examples of the ways the president has learned to wield fear as a political tool.While Donald Trump has always used scare tactics in his exercise of power, Stanley-Becker explains, what we are seeing now is different from his first term, marked by name-calling and social media bullying. “What I think is especially significant,” says Stanley-Becker, “is the use of government assets and government resources -- and denying those as a bargaining chip to bring these institutions to heel.”Stanley-Becker joins Diane to talk about his recent piece for The Atlantic, “The United States of Fear.” 

Paul Weiss is the third law firm to come under attack from the Trump administration and the first one to cut a deal, agreeing to certain terms about its practices in exchange for Trump withdrawing an executive order that effectively aimed to bankrupt the firm. The firm had different things to say about the agreement than Trump did — and we discuss what a capitulation like this might do for its business, staffing and more at Paul Weiss and throughout Big Law.Plus: Columbia University has similarly given in to demands from the administration, an appeals court panel has backed up Judge James Boasberg, declining to disturb his temporary restraining order that bars the administration from more renditions under the Alien Enemies Act, for now. And the Houthi war planning Signal chat is now the subject of a lawsuit — also before Judge Boasberg, lol — alleging that the administration is disobeying the Federal Records Act by setting those messages to auto-delete.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find episode transcripts. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

Courage seems to be in short supply in Biglaw. ----- Paul Weiss folded immediately in the face of Trump's threat, offering the president pro bono services and a retreat from DEI. For a firm that built its reputation on litigation, the move came as a surprise. A Skadden associate called upon the industry to develop a backbone. So she's not going to be working there any more. There are a lot of dumb things about the administration's mass deportation to an El Salvadoran prison, but its unironic inversion of the burden of proof is definitely the scariest.

Kdyby se to neodehrávalo v nejvyšších patrech americké politiky, vypadalo by to jako úryvek z mafiánského příběhu. V posledních týdnech si Donald Trump vzal na mušku významné právnické firmy jako Paul Weiss či Perkins Coie a další. Obě jmenované patří mezi americká právní esa, zaměstnávají po tisícovce právníků a mají více než stoletou historii.

Donald Trump's top national security officials plan a major offensive in a Signal chat—after mistakenly inviting a journalist to join—and hilarity ensues. More American institutions cave to Trump's pressure campaigns, and the administration presses on with its effort to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants without so much as a hearing. Jon, Lovett, and Tommy break down all the latest developments and compare notes from a weekend spent in the field with Democratic campaigners. Then, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear sits down with Jon to talk about how we can win in red states.  To grab your tickets to Lovett or Leave It live in DC on April 24, visit: https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1500626D89D419E2

The New Abnormal hosts Andy Levy and Danielle Moodie talk about why Columbia University and top law firm Paul Weiss shouldn't have bent the knee to the Trump administration. Then, Emmy-nominated writer Ben Schwartz discusses his latest piece for The Nation on “The Not-So-Golden Age of MAGA Troll Comedy.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Isgur and David French give us an update on the Paul Weiss legal drama and the frontal attacks on the law firm from the Trump administration. Plus, video dissents and a bill tackling injunctions. The Agenda: —The deal —The Texas Lawbook responds to Trump administration —Skadden Arps and the backlash —Paul, Weiss chair's Sunday afternoon memo —Dinesh D'Souza, for some reason —The Dissenting Judge —The end of universal injunctions? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, V and Sami unpack “cyber checks” while traveling and Sami describes her recent experience returning from Paris. Then, they do a deep dive into the Easter ‘Egg Roll' on the White House lawn that is now brand sponsored like a NASCAR race, because we do, indeed, live in hell. Following that, Sami and V discuss Chuck Schumer's Senate leadership capabilities and MSNBC host Katie Phang stops by to explain Trump's overnight attack on law firms. Oh, and the editor of The Atlantic was accidentally invited to a Trump administration Signal group chat which leaked future war plans to the press. Super chill! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration has sent flights of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. NPR's Sergio Martínez-Beltrán shares what we know about them.Then, while Kansas voted overwhelmingly for President Trump, police are reticent to advance his deportation agenda. Kansas News Service's Zane Irwin talks about why the state is an outlier on immigration enforcement. And, 23andMe, the genetic testing company that helps people learn about their ancestry and health risks based on a DNA sample, is declaring bankruptcy and seeking buyers. Roben Farzad, host of the podcast "Full Disclosure," joins us to discuss what it means for users' data. Plus, attorney Erin Elmouji explains why she signed a letter criticizing the head of her former law firm Paul Weiss for making a deal with Trump to avoid being targeted by the White House.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

It's another week in paradise with the Trump administration trying to burn down the government. First we'll talk about the attack on law firms and judges, then we've got a breakdown of the newest executive order on immigration silos. You know when they try to hide crazy sh*t under the most boring, generic label ever. It's that! Plus subscribers get a visit with Dinesh D'Souza. Links: Perkins Coie v. DOJ docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice JGG v. Trump (DC) docket (removal under the Alien Enemies Act) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump Does 1-26 v. Musk [Docket] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.576293 The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/ Presidential Proclamation on information silos https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/stopping-waste-fraud-and-abuse-by-eliminating-information-silos/ “Fact Sheet” https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-eliminates-information-silos-to-stop-waste-fraud-and-abuse-60f3/ OMB Data on Improper Payments https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/briefing-room/2024/11/27/omb-releases-annual-data-showing-lowest-government-wide-improper-payment-rate-since-2014/ https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/payment-accuracy-the-numbers/ GAO Report on Improper Payments https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106927.pdf PIIA  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-III/chapter-33/subchapter-IV Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

SEASON 3 EPISODE 112: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL COMMENT: Give me liberty or give me death. Patrick Henry said it 250 years ago yesterday, to galvanize Americans against the tyranny growing around them brought by an insane dictator-king. Not whatever was manifesting near St. John’s Church in Richmond where the Second Virginia Convention was meeting; not what threatened them individually; not what was at their door, but what they knew WOULD be at their door soon or late because it was already inside the homes of their fellow Americans in far off Boston. Give me liberty or give me death - because whether or not the tyrant is here for US now, he is here for our brothers and sisters. He will be here for us soon enough. And what would OUR Patrick Henry have said on March 23rd, 2025? Give me liberty or give me… a free 12-ounce coffee with the purchase of a dozen donuts while supplies last at participating outlets. Add Columbia University, my alma mater Cornell and a major Democratic-heavy law firm to the list of those who when the chips were down saved themselves and told the rest of us to drop dead. The list already , the American news media, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party (save for AOC and Bernie), the former presidents, the laws, the courts, the Supreme Court, and every supposed guardrail you can think of It's not just that democracy is being raped by Trump. It's that we're standing around shrugging. And as soon as Columbia caved, Trump decided to Disappear a Cornell student. As soon as Paul, Weiss collapsed, Pam Bondi was sicced on all firms supplying lawyers to deportees or suing Trump. Give me liberty or give me up to 30 percent off on rooms at select Disney Resort Hotels when I stay five nights or longer. B-Block (33:15) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Trump again threatens MSNBC and NBC, saying MSNBC (and CNN) "will be turned off." A week ago he declared them "illegal." Do not misunderstand him. He means it. And I suspect since it's a month since MSNBC fired Joy Reid and the other anchors of color, NBC is going to through someone or something out the MSNBC window, and that right soon. C-Block (54:45) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: How unpopular is Wayne Gretzky in Canada? They smeared feces on the statue of him outside the Edmonton hockey arena. New York's Mayor may have Trump but he also has raised $36,000 this year. And while celebrating the demise of the Department of Education, Musk misspelled "Department."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Monday, March 24th, 2025Today, the Pentagon set up a briefing with Elon Musk on Chinese war plans; Trump rescinds an executive order attacking the Paul Weiss law firm after the firm agrees to give him $40M in free legal services; Leland Dudek has threatened to shut down the Social Security Administration; the Trump administration has re-hired nearly 25K probationary employees; the military has agreed not to separate any transgender service members until at least March 28th; Trump is revoking the legal status of over half a million migrants; Time Magazine has published a piece about what Venezuelan migrants are going through in the Salvadoran prison complex; IRS is nearing a deal with ICE to provide them with information on suspected undocumented immigrants; Andrew and Tristan Tate are on their way back to Romania; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Guest: Lizz WinsteadApril 2 - Steps of the Supreme Court of the United StatesApril 3 - Boom! Buzzkilled: microdosing the RoepocalypseVolunteer Resources • Abortion Access FrontFeminist Buzzkills Podcast • Abortion Access FrontLizz Winstead she/her (@lizzwinstead.bsky.social) — BlueskyAbortion Access FrontMedina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic - BallotpediaThank You, AG1New subscribers, go to drinkAG1.com/dailybeans to get a FREE $76 Welcome Kit, bottle of D3K2 AND 5 free travel packs in your first box when you sign up.Thank You, DeleteMeFor 20% off your DeleteMe subscription go to Deleteme.com/dailybeans code dailybeans.Stories:Pentagon changed course for Musk visit after report about him viewing China war plans: Officials | ABC NewsU.S. to revoke legal status of more than a half-million migrants, urges them to self deport | CBS NewsInfluencer brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate return to Romania after weeks in U.S. | CBS NewsFederal judge pushes back on acting Social Security head over threat to close agency | The Washington PostIRS nears deal with ICE to share addresses of suspected undocumented immigrants | The Washington PostTrump rescinds executive order after law firm agrees to provide $40m in free services | Guardian staff and Associated PressTrump administration reinstating almost 25,000 fired workers after court order | ReutersWhat the Venezuelans Deported to El Salvador Experienced | TIMEGood Trouble:Donald Trump and Elon Musk think this country belongs to them. They're taking everything they can get their hands on, and daring the world to stop them. Saturday, April 5th - we're taking to the streets nationwide to fight back with a clear message: Hands off!This is a MASSIVE nationwide protest. For more information on a rally near you, head to HandsOff2025.comShare your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/From The Good NewsHandsOff2025.comA Grain of Salticidae - podcastThe Portal SeriesReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

The week featured the expansion of Trump's shakedowns of prominent sectors of civil society. The legal industry was stunned when prominent law firm Paul Weiss agreed to terms to in order to get Trump to withdraw a blackballing order. Columbia U. also capitulated to Trump's demands to save $400 million in federal grants. Where does it stop? A great panel of Emily Bazelon, Susan Glasser, & Carol Leonnig joins Harry to dig into that issue and the brighter side of highlights of the legal landscape.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Faced with President Trump's shakedown, the Paul Weiss law firm agreed to a “deal” with Trump that sure looks like a ransom payment. Trump then told reporters that firms like these have the option to make similar “deals” to avoid getting targeted—a straight-up extortion threat right in public. We keep hearing that voters don't care about this kind of thing. But the White House's top political adviser is warning that Democratic anger could be a big problem in the midterms—and Trump's lawlessness is a key driver of it. We talked to New Republic editor Michael Tomasky, who's been arguing that we're actually facing multiple constitutional crises and that Democrats must find their footing in this moment. He explains what all this says about Trump's escalating lawlessness, how Democrats can harness public anger over it, and why real heroics are needed to resist it.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Headlines over the weekend that President Trump's April 2nd tariffs could include certain carve outs - Sara Eisen and David Faber broke down the latest as key sectors like Chips, Tech, and the Autos rally. Wharton School Professor Jeremy Siegel joined the team with his take - arguing a rally to new highs is unlikely here – while Citi's Chief U.S. Equity Strategist took the other side… saying the fundamentals still support a bull market. Also in focus: Microsoft breaking its longest losing streak since 2008… Has Big Tech bottomed here? Plus, the latest on next-gen weight-loss drugs out of Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk; and a look at the fallout in for businesses and the legal community, after a new executive order from President Trump targeting Paul Weiss. Squawk on the Street Disclaimer

Faced with President Trump's shakedown, the Paul Weiss law firm agreed to a “deal” with Trump that sure looks like a ransom payment. Trump then told reporters that firms like these have the option to make similar “deals” to avoid getting targeted—a straight-up extortion threat right in public. We keep hearing that voters don't care about this kind of thing. But the White House's top political adviser is warning that Democratic anger could be a big problem in the midterms—and Trump's lawlessness is a key driver of it. We talked to New Republic editor Michael Tomasky, who's been arguing that we're actually facing multiple constitutional crises and that Democrats must find their footing in this moment. He explains what all this says about Trump's escalating lawlessness, how Democrats can harness public anger over it, and why real heroics are needed to resist it.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Faced with President Trump's shakedown, the Paul Weiss law firm agreed to a “deal” with Trump that sure looks like a ransom payment. Trump then told reporters that firms like these have the option to make similar “deals” to avoid getting targeted—a straight-up extortion threat right in public. We keep hearing that voters don't care about this kind of thing. But the White House's top political adviser is warning that Democratic anger could be a big problem in the midterms—and Trump's lawlessness is a key driver of it. We talked to New Republic editor Michael Tomasky, who's been arguing that we're actually facing multiple constitutional crises and that Democrats must find their footing in this moment. He explains what all this says about Trump's escalating lawlessness, how Democrats can harness public anger over it, and why real heroics are needed to resist it.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Obama special counsel Norm Eisen joins to discuss the potential consequences of a private law firm bending the knee to Trump. Plus, California Congressman Jimmy Gomez on his effort to bring the Democrats' message into Republican districts.

Listen to the Daily Global #News from Grecian Echoes and WNTN 1550 AM - Columbia University and Paul Weiss Law Firm agree to Trump demands - Democrats call for Chuck Schumer to step aside - Israel is expanding its ground operations in Gaza - Turkey jails Istanbul Mayor Imamoglu pending trial

Trump loves to complain about the deep state while Elon claims he's rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse with all his mass firings. But DOGE should be looking higher up the food chain to target the graft: for example, the South African immigrant whose car company would not have gotten off the ground without the taxpayer money he still collects. In contrast, government workers are mainly mission-driven and they're not in it for the money. Michael's new collection of essays takes a look at some of the characters who populate our federal workforce, including people performing small miracles without fame and glory. Plus, the risk of Trump politicizing economic data and his plan to destroy whatever trust people still have in the government. Michael Lewis—and Sarah Vowell, who profiled a record keeper at the National Archives for the new book—join Tim Miller for the weekend pod. show notes The new book, "Who Is Government: The Untold Story of Public Service" Tim's "Bulwark Takes" on some of the men taken taken to the El Salvador prison camp Adrian's "Huddled Masses" newsletter on ICE deportations based on tattoos George Conway emergency pod on the Paul Weiss law firm caving to Trump Michael's book, "Losers: The Road to Everyplace but the White House" Tim's playlist

George Conway joins Tim Miller to discuss the law firm Paul Weiss bending to Donald Trump in order to have an executive order rescinded, with the exchange of pro bono lawyer support towards the administration.  Read More in Morning Shots, "Big Law's Big Capitulation"

The latest, most brutal entry in the rap battle between Kendrick Lamar and Drake comes in the form of a motion to dismiss. Drake, you will remember, sued Lamar's record label (which is also Drake's record label) for defamation, alleging that Lamar's hit single “Not Like Us” defames him by calling him a pedophile. But as UMG's attorney Rollin Ransom points out, rap battles are well known to feature hyperbolic accusations and insults that are not necessarily factual, which means they are unlikely to be defamatory. Plus, Drake explicitly dared Lamar to call him a pedophile — or, more specifically, Drake released a track in which he used an AI-generated Tupac Shakur voice to urge Lamar to “talk about [Drake] likin' young girls.” It's all very embarrassing, but as Ken notes, while UMG has a strong argument that it did not assist in defaming its own client, their argument is one a judge might not agree to consider in its entirety at this stage in the case.Plus: Trump tries to give Paul Weiss the Perkins Coie treatment, several of Trump's major executive actions are facing new roadblocks in the courts, Nancy Mace faces a defamation lawsuit where the speech or debate clause is likely to provide her an important shield, and Ed Martin continues to Ed Martin.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode, relevant links and to sign up for our newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe