Podcasts about wilmerhale

Paralegals might not wear capes, but they're often the ones keeping your law firm running and making sure your clients are happy. Conrad and Gyi dive into the unsung, everyday heroes of your practice, your paralegals, and how the right team can make or break your client experience. We highlight a few key clips from a full-length interview Conrad had with Ryan McKeen and Marisa Rua from Para Era about building better paralegal training programs, hiring talent from unexpected industries like food service, and creating systems that let paralegals thrive.  Your paralegals are often the first face of your firm, the first voice clients hear, and the first impression that shapes your brand. Ryan and Marissa discuss how to turn that reality into a competitive advantage.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln's Second InauguralOn March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation's constitutional framework.In one of the address's most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation's long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong.Lincoln's remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln's speech emphasized that the war's conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States.The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black.The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors.The committee's inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government's handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019.Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied.Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein's former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein's network and the government's response to his crimes.Goldman's Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UKThe Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders.The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms' security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates.Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power.The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny.BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump's battle with law firmsA trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications.The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow's milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts.Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself.Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed.The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC.Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | ReutersIn this week's column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven.The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California's approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap.In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn't benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those taxpayers, changing the label on a vehicle tax doesn't meaningfully change their federal tax bill. Even for many itemizers, the savings would likely be small.The proposal mainly helps a narrow band of higher-earning taxpayers—people with substantial state and property taxes who are still just below the federal SALT cap. For them, a vehicle purchase could generate a deductible amount that meaningfully lowers their federal tax liability. But that advantage grows with the price of the car and the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which means the largest benefits flow to relatively affluent households.If the goal is truly middle-class relief, a more direct approach would likely work better. For example, a refundable state tax credit tied to vehicle purchases could help working families without depending on federal deduction rules or itemization. Another long-term option would be shifting some of California's tax burden from individuals to businesses, since certain business-level taxes remain deductible federally.California's proposal shows the creativity that the SALT deduction cap has sparked among state policymakers. The real question, however, is whether clever tax reclassification is the right tool—or whether more straightforward policies aimed directly at middle-income taxpayers would produce fairer and more predictable results.California SALT Deduction Proposal Is More Clever Than Helpful 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

I never thought I'd be covering court battles like this, but here I am, glued to the latest twists in the legal wars swirling around President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, where the Trump administration is defending a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns. Justice Elena Kagan grilled lawyers with hypotheticals about ayahuasca ceremonies, and even Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted she'd never heard of the drug, asking if it was real. The justices seemed skeptical of challenges to the law's constitutionality, drawing parallels to everyday drug use to test the limits of Second Amendment rights, as reported in SCOTUSblog's live coverage.But that's just one front. Trump's unilateral military strike on Iran has sparked a firestorm over war powers. The New York Times' Charlie Savage detailed how accusations are flying that Trump violated the Constitution by launching the operation without congressional approval. It's reignited the age-old debate on who controls America's war machine—presidents have done it before, but critics say this crosses a line, paving the way for broader Supreme Court scrutiny.Over in the D.C. Circuit, things got wild with those executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Trump hit them hard—terminating government contracts, yanking security clearances, barring access to federal buildings—because they represented his opponents, worked on voting rights, or challenged his 2020 election efforts. District judges, including Beryl Howell, called it chilling, a First Amendment nightmare that could scare lawyers from tough cases. The Justice Department stunned everyone by moving to dismiss the appeals on Monday, a huge win for the firms and the rule of law. But Tuesday, they flipped, filing to revive the fights without explanation. Democracy Docket reports the firms fired back, urging the court to reject the about-face. Pro-democracy watchers are alarmed—this isn't just about contracts; it's whether a president can weaponize government against his legal foes.Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit shot down the Trump team's plea to delay a tariff refund case by up to four months. After the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents slap on tariffs willy-nilly, Trump vented on social media about rehearing it. Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman notes the administration argued complexity demands caution, but companies are pushing back, saying delays hurt. Trump responded by imposing 10 percent tariffs on all countries starting February 24 using other laws, per Holland & Knight analysis.Down in New York, a federal court in the Southern District smacked down Trump's bid to kill the city's Congestion Pricing program. Earthjustice, representing Riders Alliance and Sierra Club alongside the MTA, won summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy couldn't override the democratic process that approved the tolls, which have cleaned the air, sped up streets, boosted transit, and added millions to the economy despite Trump's "disaster" label.And that's not all—Lawfare's tracker logs 298 active cases challenging Trump actions, from national security to the Alien Enemies Act deportations. State courts are buzzing too, with oral arguments on ghost guns and DOJ voter data grabs. Whew, listeners, these past few days have been a legal whirlwind, testing the courts like never before.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

We are excited to begin In the Public Interest's sixth season with the introduction of our new cohost Jekkie Kim. Jekkie is a corporate partner in WilmerHale's Palo Alto office who focuses on life sciences technology and transactions and works closely with founders and emerging companies to support every stage of their commercial development. In conversation with her co-host Felicia Ellsworth, Jekkie shares insights into the life sciences industry, drawing on her varied career and experience both as a practicing attorney and education as a doctor. She discusses how she leverages her medical background in her current practice, allowing her to effectively serve clients and move quickly to match the fast-moving innovations coming out of Silicon Valley. She and Felicia also share advice for law students and early-career attorneys, speaking to the importance of mentorship and how to explore potential areas of focus.

This Day in Legal History: Opium is Prohibited in the USOn February 9, 1909, the United States took its first significant federal step toward regulating narcotics when Congress passed a law banning the importation of opium for non-medical purposes. The act, officially titled “An Act to Prohibit the Importation and Use of Opium for Other Than Medicinal Purposes,” marked the beginning of a century-long evolution in American drug policy. While opium had long been associated with addiction and social issues—particularly in Chinese immigrant communities—prior regulation had occurred mostly at the state and local levels. This federal statute aimed to curb both domestic consumption and the growing international trade in opium, which had become a concern for moral reformers, physicians, and public officials.The 1909 law was as much a product of racialized anxieties and diplomatic concerns as it was a health policy. U.S. officials were influenced by the growing global temperance movement and international agreements like those discussed at the International Opium Commission in Shanghai that same year. Domestically, the law paved the way for a broader federal role in drug control, leading to later landmark legislation such as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. It also helped define narcotics as a matter of federal concern rather than simply a moral or local issue.While the 1909 statute was limited in scope—it did not criminalize possession or use, only importation—it established the principle that Congress could regulate substances in the interest of public health and welfare. That principle would be expanded in later decades as the War on Drugs developed. The opium ban illustrates how early 20th-century American legal policy began to intertwine with international diplomacy, race, and evolving conceptions of public health.A landmark trial began this week in a California state court to determine whether Instagram and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly harming a young woman's mental health through addictive platform design. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., claims that Meta (parent company of Instagram and Facebook) and Google (which owns YouTube) designed their platforms in a way that fostered addiction from a young age, contributing to her depression and suicidal ideation. Her legal team argues the companies were negligent, failed to provide warnings, and that the platforms substantially contributed to her psychological harm.A verdict in her favor could open the door for thousands of similar lawsuits currently pending against major tech firms like Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok. Notably, Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff before trial, while Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify. The defense plans to emphasize external influences in K.G.M.'s life and highlight efforts they've made around youth safety.The case challenges longstanding U.S. legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields internet companies from liability for user-generated content. However, if the jury accepts the argument that the harm stems from platform design rather than content, it could weaken those defenses. Parallel legal battles are underway, including over 2,300 federal lawsuits and a separate trial in New Mexico where Meta is accused of enabling child sexual exploitation.Instagram, YouTube addiction trial kicks off in Los Angeles | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal court ruling that requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to release frozen funding for the $16 billion Hudson Tunnel Project, which aims to upgrade vital rail infrastructure connecting New York and New Jersey. Judge Jeannette Vargas issued a preliminary injunction ordering the unfreezing of the funds after officials from both states warned that construction would cease due to lack of financing. The administration filed a notice of appeal two days later.The funding had been halted in September pending a review of the project's adherence to new federal restrictions on race- and sex-based criteria in contracting. According to a source, Trump recently proposed unfreezing the money if Democrats agreed to rename Washington Dulles Airport and New York's Penn Station after him—an offer that was widely condemned.The Hudson Tunnel, which was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, remains a critical piece of rail infrastructure, handling over 200,000 passengers and 425 trains each day. The Gateway Development Commission, which oversees the project, expressed readiness to resume work once funding is reinstated. Approximately $2 billion of the $15 billion federal allocation—approved under the Biden administration—has already been spent.Trump administration appeals ruling on releasing New York City tunnel funds | ReutersA divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration's policy of mandating detention without bond for individuals arrested during immigration enforcement operations. The 2-1 decision is the first appellate ruling to affirm the policy, despite widespread opposition from hundreds of lower-court judges across the country who have deemed it unlawful. The ruling applies to Texas and Louisiana, states that hold the largest populations of immigration detainees.The policy relies on an expanded interpretation of the term “applicants for admission” under federal immigration law. Traditionally applied to individuals arriving at the border, the Department of Homeland Security argued in 2025 that it also applies to undocumented individuals already residing in the U.S. This interpretation was adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals and made mandatory by immigration judges nationwide.The case before the court involved two Mexican nationals, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, who had previously persuaded lower courts they were wrongly denied bond hearings. The appeals court reversed those rulings, with Judge Edith Jones writing that the statute's plain text supported the administration's view. Judge Dana Douglas dissented, arguing that the interpretation stretched beyond what Congress intended in the 1996 immigration law.Other circuit courts are expected to weigh in on similar challenges, and the issue may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.US appeals court upholds Trump's immigration detention policy | ReutersA federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration's request to delay proceedings in its appeal to reinstate executive orders targeting four major U.S. law firms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the cases—challenging orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—will move forward and be combined with a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid's revoked government security clearance.The Justice Department had sought to postpone the law firm appeals until after the Zaid case was decided, a move that could have delayed resolution for months. But the court rejected that approach, siding with the law firms, which argued they deserved a timely judgment on whether the government unlawfully targeted them.Trump's executive orders accused the firms of using the legal system against him and criticized their diversity policies, directing the government to strip them of security access and limit their interactions with federal agencies. Four federal judges previously struck down the orders as unconstitutional, finding they violated free speech and due process rights. The administration is now appealing both those rulings and the one involving Zaid.Trump administration loses bid to delay appeals over law firm executive orders | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoOn February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, officially ending the Mexican-American War and significantly altering the legal and territorial landscape of the United States. The treaty ceded vast swaths of land to the U.S., including present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of several other western states—about half of Mexico's territory at the time. In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed $3.25 million in claims by American citizens against Mexico. Legally, the treaty promised to protect the property rights and civil liberties of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, but these promises were inconsistently honored in practice.The treaty's ratification triggered significant legal and constitutional debates about the extension of slavery into new territories, setting the stage for the intensifying sectional conflicts that led to the Civil War. It also marked the beginning of long-standing disputes over land grants and water rights that would shape western property law. Moreover, the treaty's vague wording left many issues—such as tribal sovereignty and citizenship—unresolved, leading to future litigation and policy struggles.The treaty was signed in the town of Guadalupe Hidalgo, near Mexico City, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in March 1848. It remains a foundational document in U.S. legal history, frequently cited in discussions of land rights, citizenship, and the limits of treaty enforcement.Our first story today is a bit off topic.In today's digital world, every click, swipe, and login happens under a legal regime you didn't negotiate—Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and community guidelines that quietly shape your rights and obligations online. These documents form a system of private lawmaking, where companies act as legislators, drafting rules users must follow, often with little recourse or transparency. You don't sign them, but courts often treat them as binding contracts. Clauses about arbitration, content ownership, surveillance, and data sharing carry real legal weight. Yet these terms can change overnight, unilaterally, and without notice.TOSTracker was created to bring transparency to this ecosystem. It's a non-commercial research tool that tracks and archives the evolution of digital contracts over time. With over 150 companies and nearly 250 historical versions of key documents thus far, TOSTracker offers timestamped, hash-verified, and citable records of how these texts change. It provides full version histories, detects redlines at the word and section level, and supports programmatic access through an API. Whether you're studying arbitration creep, GDPR compliance, or how moderation rules evolve, TOSTracker gives you the empirical backbone to do it.All content is normalized and archived via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, with cryptographic hashes ensuring document integrity. Importantly, it doesn't interpret the law—it captures the text and structure so you can. For legal researchers, privacy advocates, and anyone concerned with digital governance, this is a window into how private law is made, revised, and enforced online. It's not a product; it's a dataset, an archive, and a call to look more closely at the legal architecture of everyday tech.We're also actively seeking contributors to help expand the archive. If you come across a consumer-facing legal document—like a Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, community guidelines, or EULA—that isn't already tracked, you can submit it directly through the site. This includes documents behind logins, from smaller platforms, or covering underrepresented industries and regions. Submissions help close coverage gaps, diversify the dataset, and improve the foundation for legal research into how digital rights are defined and redefined over time. Your input directly supports transparency in an area where the law is often invisible.Check it out at tostracker.app if your research overlaps with digital contracts, user rights, or the evolving boundary between public law and platform governance.The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sent warning letters to 42 major law firms over concerns that their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices may be anticompetitive. The FTC emphasized that firm-wide agreements to meet diversity benchmarks—particularly those tied to programs like Diversity Lab's certification—could unlawfully restrict competition in the legal labor market by influencing hiring, compensation, or promotions. These letters arrive amid a broader rollback of DEI initiatives under President Donald Trump's administration, which has eliminated related programs in government and targeted private sector efforts.Firms such as Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Skadden Arps, and Latham & Watkins—some of which had previously been challenged by Trump-era executive orders—are among those named. Some reached compromises with the White House, offering pro bono legal work in exchange for eased scrutiny, while others fought and won legal challenges against the orders. The FTC's scrutiny centers on participation in Diversity Lab's voluntary DEI certification, which encourages firms to ensure at least 30% of leadership candidates are from underrepresented groups. Though previously upheld in court as non-discriminatory, the FTC now frames such collective DEI practices as potentially violating competition law.US Federal Trade Commission warns law firms about DEI hiring | ReutersImmigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit in Boston challenging a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that allows agents to enter homes without judicial warrants. The suit, brought by the Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center, targets a May 2025 memo—recently revealed via a whistleblower complaint—that permits ICE officers to use administrative warrants instead of warrants signed by a federal judge. These administrative forms, issued internally by the Department of Homeland Security, were previously insufficient for home entries under longstanding practice.The plaintiffs argue that using such warrants for home arrests violates the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal advocates claim the policy removes a crucial constitutional safeguard just as ICE ramps up enforcement tactics in states like Minnesota, where multiple recent actions have already been deemed unlawful by judges. The lawsuit comes after fatal incidents in Minneapolis during anti-ICE protests, intensifying scrutiny of federal immigration operations.ICE officials defend the policy, asserting that individuals subject to removal have already received due process. However, the lawsuit challenges that rationale, pointing out that due process does not override constitutional protections against warrantless home intrusions.Lawsuit challenges ICE ability to enter homes without warrants from US judges | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is facing federal charges over his role in covering a protest at a Minnesota church opposing President Trump's immigration crackdown. The protest, which disrupted a church service in St. Paul on January 18, was livestreamed by Lemon and targeted the church because one pastor was allegedly also an ICE official. Lemon was arrested by the FBI, spent a night in custody, and appeared in court where he confirmed he plans to plead not guilty. He and six others, including independent journalist Georgia Fort, were indicted under laws prohibiting obstruction of access to houses of worship—a legal framework typically used against abortion clinic protests.Free press advocates and constitutional lawyers are raising concerns about the charges, framing them as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration targeting critics, including journalists. Lemon's attorneys argue this is a political prosecution meant to suppress press freedom and distract from ongoing crises. In the archived livestream, Lemon is seen documenting the protest rather than leading it, further fueling First Amendment concerns. The DOJ's case hinges on a controversial interpretation of laws rarely, if ever, used to prosecute journalists for protest coverage after the fact. Legal experts say there is no clear precedent for the charges, and press freedom groups are warning of escalating threats to constitutional protections.Ex-CNN journalist Don Lemon faces Minnesota protest charges | 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

What does it really take to lead a values-driven nonprofit at scale—without losing your mission, your independence, or your sanity? In this episode, I sit down with Elyse Cherry, CEO of BlueHub Capital, to talk about long-term leadership, mission discipline, community-centered finance, and how great leaders keep asking better questions as their organizations grow. Episode Highlights 02:21 – How global travel shaped Elyse's leadership worldview 07:58 – Staying true to mission and values over decades 14:15 – Navigating financial partnerships without losing independence 19:49 – What systems change really looks like in practice 31:15 – Why nonprofit leaders must "look around the corner." My guest for this episode is Elyse Cherry. Elyse Cherry is the CEO of BlueHub Capital, where she has led the organization since 1997. Under her leadership, BlueHub has invested more than $3.2 billion to support affordable housing, health centers, schools, clean energy, foreclosure prevention, and community wealth-building initiatives nationwide. She is also President of Managed Assets at Boston Community Venture Fund, Aura Mortgage Advisors, and NSP Residential. A former partner at WilmerHale, Elyse is an attorney with deep experience in real estate finance and community development. She is an active civic leader, serving on the boards of Wellesley College, Eastern Bank, and The Boston Foundation, and has been widely recognized for her leadership, including honors from the White House, the Boston Business Journal, and the Financial Times. Connect with Elyse: Website: https://bluehubcapital.org/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bluehubcapital Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bluehubcapital/ X: https://twitter.com/BlueHubCapital Sponsored Resource Join the Inspired Nonprofit Leadership Newsletter for weekly tips and inspiration for leading your nonprofit! Access it here >> Be sure to subscribe to Inspired Nonprofit Leadership so that you don't miss a single episode, and while you're at it, won't you take a moment to write a short review and rate our show? It would be greatly appreciated! Let us know the topics or questions you would like to hear about in a future episode. You can do that and follow us on LinkedIn.

EqualAI is thrilled to share the publication of our AI Governance Playbook for Boards—a practical guide to help Boards of Directors responsibly oversee AI while balancing risk management, value creation, and emerging legal and compliance obligations. On this episode of In AI We Trust?, EqualAI President and CEO Miriam Vogel sits down with our partners at WilmerHale, Jessica Lewis and Joshua Geltzer, to discuss the newly released Playbook, and Jessica and Joshua break down why Board-level engagement in AI governance is no longer optional—but both a best practice and, increasingly, a legal requirement. 

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Summer associate positions can be crucial in helping law students formulate their post-law school career paths, whether that means entering private practice, public service, or academia. In the season five finale of In the Public Interest, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined in a live conversation with WilmerHale Senior Counsel and former Massachusetts state senator Eric Lesser and Associate Professor of Practice at Boston College Law School Cheryl Bratt to discuss the many options available to WilmerHale summer associates and alumni. Speaking to an audience of over one hundred WilmerHale summer associates, Lesser and Bratt discuss how their time at the firm prepared and encouraged them to pursue their respective career paths in politics and teaching. They emphasize how WilmerHale's reputation for excellence initially attracted them to the firm and, in Lesser's case, caused him to return after his time in office. Throughout their conversation, Lesser and Bratt also share how the early connections they formed during their summer experiences served them throughout their careers, allowing them to access opportunities they wouldn't have had otherwise.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in early January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal wars are heating up like never before. Just days ago, on Tuesday, January 6, SCOTUSblog reminded us of that historic New York Times Company v. Sullivan case from 1964, where the Supreme Court protected the press from libel suits—timely now as tensions simmer between Trump and media outlets. But that's history; the real fireworks are exploding right now.Picture this: the Supreme Court is gearing up for its January 12 argument session in Washington, D.C., with seven massive cases, several straight from Trump's playbook. Axios reports that top of the list is Trump v. Barbara, where the justices could rule any moment on his executive order slashing birthright citizenship. Trump wants to deny U.S. citizenship to kids of undocumented immigrants born here, challenging over a century of 14th Amendment precedent. Businesses like Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, and Ray-Ban makers are suing over another bombshell—Trump's tariffs. In Learning v. Trump, they're fighting his national emergency declaration that slapped billions in duties on imports without Congress's okay. Trump boasted on Truth Social it's the "most case ever," but a loss could mean refunding over $100 billion. Then there's Trump v. Slaughter, pitting Trump against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and FTC's Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, whom he fired for clashing with his policies. The court will decide if he can boot independent agency heads, smashing 90-year-old protections.Just Security's litigation tracker paints an even wilder picture of chaos in lower courts. In D.C.'s federal district court, Taylor v. Trump challenges Executive Order 14164, where Attorney General Pam Bondi shuffled death row inmates to ADX Florence supermax under Trump's public safety push—plaintiffs scream due process violations. The National Association of the Deaf sued Trump, Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for axing ASL interpreters at White House briefings, claiming First and Fifth Amendment breaches. Law firms aren't safe either: Susman Godfrey out of Texas hit back at an executive order yanking their security clearances for opposing Trump; Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale face similar retaliation suits in D.D.C., alleging viewpoint discrimination. The American Bar Association sued over yanked grants from the Office on Violence Against Women, calling it payback for their stances. Even Rep. Eric Swalwell's in the mix with Swalwell v. Pute, targeting Trump's criminal arrest pushes.Politico says grand juries are Trump's new nightmare—refusing indictments left and right on his aggressive policies, from protester crackdowns to immigrant roundups. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blasted prosecutors for "rushed" cases with weak evidence. And in a wild international twist, CBS News covered ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and wife Cilia Flores arraigned Monday in Manhattan's federal courthouse before Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Whisked by helicopter from Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center under heavy security, Maduro pled not guilty to narco-terrorism, cocaine smuggling, and weapons charges—facing life in prison—while insisting he's still Venezuela's president.The Supreme Court's emergency docket, like in 25A312, keeps deferring stays till January arguments, per their own filings. Lawfare's tracker logs non-stop national security suits against Trump's moves. It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with the high court poised to reshape everything from guns in Wolford v. Lopez against Hawaii's private property ban, to conversion therapy fights in Miles v. Salazar.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Thing Discussed: Proportioning outrage: Sherrone, the maximum. Athletics department? Don't know but suspect people knew for a long time and didn't react until they got information they had to act on. The assistant he had an affair with? We don't know—not exonerated but also let's be conscious that sharing her name and photo and history of an unfamous person irreversibly makes her famous for This, for life. It also has a chill effect on other women caught in illicit relationships with powerful men, and we have a public interest in making sure that math favors coming forward, not participating in the cover-up. What is going on here that we don't have a control mechanism? Brian: I don't trust Warde in this situation because we saw the process for Mel Pearson. No faith this was handled appropriately. Who lied to you Sam? Sam: for certain, Sherrone lied. That wasn't the only basis for his report. Michigan investigated or "looked into it" and they didn't have credible evidence until yesterday when the woman came forward. (He doesn't say this but I took it to mean she lied to the investigators originally).  Brian: Warde Manuel has done nothing in 11 years but bumble from one crises to another. Sam: A coverup did take place, between the involved parties. What could Michigan have done to reveal it? We don't know. What brought it to light was she came forward. Argument with Craig over the Wilmer Hale report over Mel Pearson: Craig doesn't like the report, argues for due process; Brian and Seth found the report credible and included you-have-to-fire-him level offenses, and Warde sat on it for months. Other Thing Discussed: Candidates Kalen DeBoer: If he'll listen. Minter: think we can work around the show-cause, might not be able to work around the fact he's in line for NFL jobs. Jeff Brohm: Proven coach, Louisville alum but would listen. Jason Eck: Former Wisconsin OL and line coach who's a cultural fit, only been a HC for 4 years and only New Mexico for one year. Think he's a Harbaugh after 1 year at Stanford. Wildcard: Jay Harbaugh. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Seth notes insanity is possible, e.g. John Harbaugh might come available. Also hiring a coach these days won't be on the AD; you bring in consultants for this sort of thing. It's a much better job than PSU right now, or the last 3 Michigan coaching searches when we were trying to replace Lloyd Carr without paying anybody, trying to find someone who will debase himself to work for Dave Brandon, or Harbaugh-or-bust with a program coming out of a Hoke low. Michigan job today is you get to pick your staff, maybe pick your AD, and inherit Bryce Underwood and a roster built for success with a top 2 or 3 (maybe even #1) NIL war chest. Will DeBoer listen? Math has changed: Alabama fans are holding him to an unreasonable standard based on what Saban did during a time when Alabama had more advantages over Michigan than they did now. Sam: Think DeBoer will listen. If not for that Playoff selection they were ready to run him out of town. People there are expecting him to have the success Saban had in a system that does not afford him the same advantages that Nick Saban had. Brohm will listen too. Sam: Loves Brent Key (also his alma mater), but how much of his success is Hayes King? Lea same thing; why not hire Diego Pavia. Floor: Jedd Fisch, is fine, not a high ceiling, or might be. He's done what we would want to see at Arizona and Washington.

In this episode of Great Women in Compliance, co-hosts Lisa Fine and Hemma Lomax get a special preview of the 42nd Annual ACI Conference on the FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption. They are joined by two of the conference's distinguished speakers: Sandra Moser, Partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and former Chief of the DOJ's Fraud Section, and Kimberly Parker, Partner and Co-Chair of the White-Collar Defense & Investigations practice at WilmerHale. Sandra and Kimberly share their personal journeys into the white-collar and compliance space, discuss why this conference is a "must-attend" event in the anti-corruption world, and dive deep into their upcoming session topics. Kimberly explores how companies are re-evaluating resource allocation as global priorities evolve, while Sandra tackles the critical compliance challenges of operating in China amid geopolitical tensions. This episode is a must-listen for practical insights on shifting DOJ expectations, the future of compliance, and tips for any first-time attendees  Highlights include: * Sandra and Kimberly's Journeys to Compliance * Spotlight on the ACI FCPA Conference: * Evolving Priorities & Resource Allocation * Navigating Compliance in China * The Future of Compliance Resources:   ACI's 42nd Annual Conference on the FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption (December, Washington, DC - https://www.americanconference.com/fcpa-dc/ * Morgan, Lewis & Bockius: https://www.morganlewis.com/bios/sandramoser * WilmerHale: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/kimberly-parker Biographies Sandra Moser is a corporate investigations authority and trial lawyer who co-leads the firm's global white collar and investigations practice. She is former chief of the US Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Criminal Division, Fraud Section in Washington, DC, and a former Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) for the District of New Jersey. She defends companies, boards, and executives in a wide range of matters—including healthcare and federal program fraud, the False Claims Act (FCA), the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), securities, commodities, and anti-money laundering—involving the DOJ, state attorneys general offices, US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), US Congress, and other domestic and international enforcement agencies. Kimberly A. Parker's practice focuses on white-collar criminal matters, internal corporate investigations, and compliance counseling. Ms. Parker is vice chair of the firm's Litigation/Controversy Department, co-chair of the White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice, and co-leads the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Anti-Corruption Practice. Ms. Parker is also co-chair of the firm's Pro Bono and Community Service Committee. Ms. Parker represents clients in a range of criminal and enforcement matters and also provides compliance and governance advice. She has conducted internal investigations in the United States, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. She has represented companies and individuals in a variety of FCPA enforcement matters. She also regularly counsels clients facing difficult FCPA issues in a variety of business contexts, and assists clients in developing and implementing FCPA compliance programs and conducting FCPA training. She is a regular speaker at FCPA events.

Crisis management has emerged in recent years as an increasingly prominent practice area, helping clients to avoid major pitfalls and determine the path forward amidst conflict and public discourse. In this episode of In the Public Interest, host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with Partner Sid Velamoor about his experience managing many such cases both in the public and private sector.Throughout their conversation, Velamoor discusses his career pathway from WilmerHale to the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Crimes section of the US Attorney's Office, and then serving as Senior Counsel at Boeing before returning to the firm in 2024. He describes how the unique experiences he had in each role culminated in his current skillset in managing complex, high stakes matters. He also explains to Ellsworth how he views effective crisis management as crisis elimination, with skilled practitioners able to anticipate market challenges and proactively avoid them.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, guest host Daniel Volchok, the Vice Chair of WilmerHale's Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice, speaks with Dave Bowker, the Partner-in-Charge of the Washington DC office and chair of the International Litigation practice, about CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., a unique case involving questions surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the ability of U.S. courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign states. Bowker outlines each step of the case, describing its beginnings as a contract dispute in India and its journey to the Supreme Court. Volchok and Bowker further discuss the Court's unanimous 9-0 reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, certifying that the FSIA does not require proof of minimum contacts and jurisdiction can be effectively established through exception to immunity and service of process.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with WilmerHale Partner Andrew Rhys Davies and Senior Attorney for the ACLU's National LGBTQ and HIV projects Josh Block about United States v. Skrmetti. The case considers whether a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.Davies and Block unpack the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling, including the international context highlighted in WilmerHale's amicus brief. Block also reflects on the decision's potential impact on future civil rights litigation and its immediate consequences for the transgender community and access to gender-affirming healthcare.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, guest host Tom Saunders speaks with Amanda Masselam Strachan, a WilmerHale partner and member of the firm's white-collar defense and investigations practice, about two fraud cases that were decided this term.While Kousisis concerns if there needs to be economic harm done during a commercial exchange for a perpetrator to be convicted of wire fraud, Thompson is centered on whether misleading but true statements are criminalized as false statements under the mortgage fraud statute. Masselam Strachan breaks down the specifics of both cases, and in comparing them with one another, explains the impact these decisions have on federal fraud claims.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by Partner and Chair of WilmerHale's Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice Seth Waxman and Counsel Zaki Anwar to discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case concerns Richard Glossip, who has been on death row since 1998 on a first-degree murder charge. The team arguing on his behalf in front of Court, which included Waxman and Anwar, successfully argued that Glossip's sentence should be reversed and the state of Oklahoma should be allowed to retry his case.Waxman and Anwar walk through each step of the case, outlining the complex procedural history that has taken place over the course of nearly thirty years. They emphasize the significance of the case for due process and other capital cases in the future, and what it reflects about the current Court's ideologies when it comes to serious criminal convictions.

The Trump administration has sought to advance its extreme and often unlawful agenda through the strategic use and abuse of the law and legal system, including Executive Orders targeting law firms and litigation and misconduct complaints against district court judges. While some lawyers and courts are holding the administration accountable, others are quick to capitulate. Mark Lemley joins Christopher Wright Durocher to talk about the administration's abuse of the law and legal system and what can be done to stop it. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Mark Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Law, Science and Technology, Stanford Law School; Partner, Lex Lumina, LLPLink: Amicus Brief of 676 Law Professors in Support of Plaintiff, WilmerHale v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 25-cv-917 (Apr. 11, 2025)Link: As July 4 Approaches, Supreme Court Signs Away American Democracy, by Mark LemleyVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

In the Public Interest is excited to present its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Counsel Joey Meyer to discuss Mahmoud v. Taylor, which concerns the constitutional rights of parents who send their children to public school to opt their children out of lessons that may be at odds with their religious beliefs. WilmerHale represented the appellee in the decision.Together, Meyer and Ellsworth cover the background of the case and the implications of the Court's ruling on issues like parental rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedoms. Meyer also shares additional context from his experience as one of the WilmerHale lawyers who helped secure a victory for the public schools in the Fourth Circuit before going on to help represent them before the Supreme Court.

AI is here, and it's sparking conversations about everything from how we work to how we report. This episode of The Pre-Read, brought to you by Workiva, dives into the heart of what happens when artificial intelligence meets the real world of finance and risk. We're talking about why CFOs, general counsels, and audit chairs are all leaning in—and what questions they're asking.  Our own CFO, Jill Klindt, spills the beans about how finance teams can use AI to make their jobs better, not replace them. Think augmenting expertise and making those tedious tasks disappear. She's also got the inside scoop on why data quality is like gold for AI success and why CFOs should lead the charge when it comes to experimenting with this new tech.  Plus, Alan Wilson, Partner at WilmerHale, gives us the straight talk on the legal side of things. He emphasizes getting your legal team involved early, treating AI just like any other business risk, and keeping an eye on how regulatory accountability is already shaping up. It's a must-listen for anyone ready to navigate the exciting, and sometimes head-scratching, world of AI.    Timestamps: 02:30 Jill K. on AI: Enhancing human expertise versus automating the mundane.  05:10 Unlocking value: Where AI fits into your income statement.  08:00 Inside Workiva's AI strategy: Collaborating to build better tech.  10:45 Why clean data is the secret sauce for AI success.  13:30 Jill K's candid advice for executives embracing the AI future.  15:45 Alan W. on looping in legal when implementing AI.  18:30 Public perception: How to talk about AI without overselling it.  21:00 Navigating the legal maze: Agencies, juries, and the “AI washing” problem.  24:30 Peering into the crystal ball: Unforeseen risks and the future of AI.     

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today's IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California's stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday did not validate Trump's policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump's administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that permanently blocked the order, which aimed to bar Perkins Coie's clients from federal contracts and restrict the firm's attorneys from accessing federal buildings.Judge Howell condemned the order as an abuse of presidential power meant to punish political adversaries, stating that using government authority to settle personal scores is not a lawful use of executive power. Similar executive orders against three other law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were also struck down by different judges in Washington. The Justice Department has not yet appealed those rulings.Perkins Coie, along with the other firms, argued that the orders violated constitutional rights, including free speech, and were designed to intimidate attorneys from representing clients disfavored by Trump. The firm expressed confidence in presenting its case to the appeals court. Meanwhile, nine other firms have reportedly settled with the administration, offering nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and other terms to avoid being targeted.Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the explosive growth of tax breaks for data centers—driven by the demands of artificial intelligence—is creating unsustainable losses for state budgets. While these facilities are essential for powering AI models, states are racing to hand out subsidies with little oversight or accountability. I point out that what began as modest tech incentives have ballooned into open-ended giveaways, with Texas' projected tax losses surpassing $1 billion and Virginia now dedicating nearly half of its economic development incentives to data centers.I argue that states should not abandon data center investment but must start demanding more in return. That means linking tax breaks to responsible energy use, such as locating facilities near stranded renewable power or requiring dry cooling and on-site energy storage. These measures would mitigate the strain on local water and power systems, especially since AI data centers use far more energy than traditional ones and often during peak demand hours.The current model rewards scale rather than innovation or job creation, essentially turning data center exemptions into bottomless credits for big tech firms. Many states don't even track the actual cost of these subsidies, creating a feedback loop of growing losses and minimal scrutiny. I call for stronger transparency and for aligning data center growth with public interests—especially as AI infrastructure becomes embedded in state economies. Without intervention, we risk reinforcing outdated, inefficient policy frameworks just as computing becomes more powerful and energy-intensive.AI Boom Should Prompt States to Rein in Data Center Tax Losses 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

Should a president have unchecked authority to impose tariffs on foreign nations? In an excerpt from this week's Insider episode, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss the Court of International Trade's unanimous ruling that President Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. Also on the Insider docket: – Harvard University's ongoing legal battle against the Trump administration over its efforts to ban international students from attending the school; and – A federal judge's ruling that struck down Trump's executive order targeting Preet's law firm, WilmerHale. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Audio Producer: Nat Weiner; Deputy Editor: Celine Rohr; CAFE Team: David Tatasciore, Matthew Billy, Noa Azulai, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this week's episode, Asha Rangappa and Renato Mariotti discuss two federal judge smackdowns. First, D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon asks (in legalese), “WTF?” in response to Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Wilmer Hale with a decision declaring the entire order unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Massachusetts District Judge Brian Murphy calls out the Trump administration's hypocrisy in failing to comply with a solution the administration itself suggested for giving due process to the migrants being deported to South Sudan. Listen to Asha and Renato discuss how courts are getting to the end of their rope with Trump's legal shenanigans! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1162 - It's all good news from our favorite branch of government today! We review recent judicial wins in everything from illegal deportations to tariffs to the Trump administration's wars on international students,  private law firms, and common-sense understandings of the expression “foreign policy.” Plus, Matt shares a footnote from the front lines of Trump's mass deportation efforts to explain why an immigration judge 2000 miles away just left him an angry voicemail. MA District Court judge Brian Murphy's preliminary injunction in DVD v. DHS (4/18/25) Judge Murphy's denial of DHS's motion to reconsider (5/26/25) Order to return O.C.G. to Guatemala (5/23/25) Judge Michael Fabiarz's order on Mahmoud Khalil's habeas claim (5/28/25) VOS v. USA decision from the Court of International Trade (5/28/25)  DC Circuit judge Tanya Chutkan's decision in New Mexico v. Musk (5/27/2025) Judge Richard Leon's order in Wilmer Hale's challenge to Trump EO (5/27/25)

This week Trump got his ass kicked in courts no one's ever heard of! From tariffs to immigration, Harvard to WilmerHale, it's been a week of losing bigly. Andrew and Liz will break it down and explain what's next.   Links:   Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69921962/president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college-v-us-department-of-health-and/   V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump [District Court Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections-inc-v-donald-j-trump   V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump [Federal Circuit Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70394463/vos-selections-inc-v-trump/   WilmerHale v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/   Jenner & Block v. DOJ [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/   MTA v. Duffy (Congestion Pricing) [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69652290/metropolitan-transportation-authority-v-duffy/   D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security [Trial Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/   Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. [SCOTUS Docket] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1153.html   The Punch That Launched Trump's War on American Universities https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-college-university-federal-funding-fight-91c2a274   How to Hide a Constitutional Crisis https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/legalistic-noncompliance/682927/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss this week's Supreme Court decision that validates Trump's firing of 2 officials without cause thus stealth-overruling a key check on presidents, the power dynamics around who benefits from Trump's attempts to destroy Harvard, and the challenges and rewards of male friendship in modern life.  Here are this week's chatters:   Emily: Emily Davies for The Washington Post: Trump's clemency spree extends to ex-gangster, artist, former congressmen; Aaron Blake for CNN: ‘No MAGA left behind': Trump's pardons get even more political   John: Jason DeParle for The New York Times: How a Generation's Struggle Led to a Record Surge in Homelessness; Malu Cursino for the BBC: Ancient human fingerprint suggests Neanderthals made art; Cara Tabachnick for CBS News: Last living grandson of 10th U.S. President John Tyler, a link to a bygone era, dies at 96; the Miller Center at the University of Virginia: President John Tyler (1790-1862); Sherwood Forest: More About Sherwood Forest and John Tyler.   David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: The ‘Man Eater' Screwworm Is Coming   Listener chatter from Jody Litvak in Los Angeles: The Stamp Thief (trailer video 1:58)   For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss WilmerHale's court win this week, in which Judge Leon struck down the president's politically-motivated executive order against the law firm as unconstitutional.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with author Susan Dominus about her new book, The Family Dynamic: A Journey into the Mystery of Sibling Success.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss this week's Supreme Court decision that validates Trump's firing of 2 officials without cause thus stealth-overruling a key check on presidents, the power dynamics around who benefits from Trump's attempts to destroy Harvard, and the challenges and rewards of male friendship in modern life.  Here are this week's chatters:   Emily: Emily Davies for The Washington Post: Trump's clemency spree extends to ex-gangster, artist, former congressmen; Aaron Blake for CNN: ‘No MAGA left behind': Trump's pardons get even more political   John: Jason DeParle for The New York Times: How a Generation's Struggle Led to a Record Surge in Homelessness; Malu Cursino for the BBC: Ancient human fingerprint suggests Neanderthals made art; Cara Tabachnick for CBS News: Last living grandson of 10th U.S. President John Tyler, a link to a bygone era, dies at 96; the Miller Center at the University of Virginia: President John Tyler (1790-1862); Sherwood Forest: More About Sherwood Forest and John Tyler.   David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: The ‘Man Eater' Screwworm Is Coming   Listener chatter from Jody Litvak in Los Angeles: The Stamp Thief (trailer video 1:58)   For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss WilmerHale's court win this week, in which Judge Leon struck down the president's politically-motivated executive order against the law firm as unconstitutional.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with author Susan Dominus about her new book, The Family Dynamic: A Journey into the Mystery of Sibling Success.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thursday, May 29th, 2025Today, a federal judge STRIKES DOWN Trump's entire executive order targeting the Wilmer Hale law firm for political retribution; Judge Chutkan allows a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Elon Musk and DOGE's operations to proceed; another federal judge has ordered the release of the Russian scientist that brought inert frog embryos into the US; yet another judge blocks Trump's attempt to stop congestion pricing in New York; immigration courts are dismissing cases of those sent to El Salvador potentially cutting off their return; the Government Accountability Office rebuffs Trump's power grab; another SpaceX Starship launch fails while Musk cries about people not liking him; U-Haul bans Patriot Front nazis after they rented their trucks for a march in Kansas City; the Tate brothers have been charged with rape and sex trafficking in the UK; Nancy Mace's former staff claim she had them create burner accounts to promote her online; Trump gets mad about the Wall Street acronym TACO during a press conference; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, Daily LookFor 50% off your order, head to DailyLook.com and use code DAILYBEANS.  Thank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Sat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovementMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Adam KlasfeldAll Rise NewsAll Rise News - BlueskyAdam Klasfeld (@klasfeldreports.com) - BlueSkyAdam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) - TwitterFederal judge on Trump DOJ's defense of orders targeting BigLaw: "Give me a break" | AllRiseNewsStories:Immigration courts are dismissing cases of those sent to El Salvador, potentially cutting off their return | NBC NewsUS judge allows states' lawsuit against DOGE to proceed | ReutersUS judge grants Russian-born Harvard scientist bail in immigration case | ReutersJudge temporarily blocks Trump from retaliating against New York over congestion toll | ABC Action NewsTate brothers face rape and trafficking charges in the UK | AP NewsSpaceX launches another Starship rocket after back-to-back explosions, but it tumbles out of control | AP NewsNancy Mace's Former Staff Claim She Had Them Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her | WIREDTrump's not happy about Wall Street's name for tariff flip-flops | POLITICOCongressional Agency Rebuffs Trump Bid to Expand Power Grab | Democracy DocketU-Haul bans Patriot Front members after trucks rented in KC for march | The Kansas City StarGood Trouble: Trump's HHS urges therapy for transgender youth, departing from broader gender-affirming health care | PBS NewsLet HHS Know how you feel: Whistleblower Tips and Complaints Regarding the Chemical and Surgical Mutilation of Children | HHS.govProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and CelebrationSchedule F comments deadline extended to June 7th Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal 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. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWroteDana GoldbergBlueSky|@dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, Twitter|@DGComedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsTurning Cereal boxes into postcards - YouTubeNew York State Democratic PartyPatrons Sponsoring Patrons - The Daily BeansReminder - 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! patreon.com/muellershewrote 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, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana 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

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss this week's Supreme Court decision that validates Trump's firing of 2 officials without cause thus stealth-overruling a key check on presidents, the power dynamics around who benefits from Trump's attempts to destroy Harvard, and the challenges and rewards of male friendship in modern life.  Here are this week's chatters:   Emily: Emily Davies for The Washington Post: Trump's clemency spree extends to ex-gangster, artist, former congressmen; Aaron Blake for CNN: ‘No MAGA left behind': Trump's pardons get even more political   John: Jason DeParle for The New York Times: How a Generation's Struggle Led to a Record Surge in Homelessness; Malu Cursino for the BBC: Ancient human fingerprint suggests Neanderthals made art; Cara Tabachnick for CBS News: Last living grandson of 10th U.S. President John Tyler, a link to a bygone era, dies at 96; the Miller Center at the University of Virginia: President John Tyler (1790-1862); Sherwood Forest: More About Sherwood Forest and John Tyler.   David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: The ‘Man Eater' Screwworm Is Coming   Listener chatter from Jody Litvak in Los Angeles: The Stamp Thief (trailer video 1:58)   For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss WilmerHale's court win this week, in which Judge Leon struck down the president's politically-motivated executive order against the law firm as unconstitutional.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with author Susan Dominus about her new book, The Family Dynamic: A Journey into the Mystery of Sibling Success.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John discusses the news that happened over the holiday weekend. Trump's unhinged, ego laden Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery - Trump suddenly whining about Vladmir Putin following a mass Russian air attack on Kyiv - the Trump Administration directing federal agencies to withdraw ALL remaining funding for programs based at Harvard, totaling more than $100 Million AND the White House halting student visa interviews, demanding an expansion of social media reviews for each potential applicant. Then, he speaks with Professor Corey Brettschneider about a federal judge blocking Trump's retaliatory sanctions against law firm WilmerHale; the Supreme Court's troubling debate about ending nationwide injunctions amid arguments on birthright citizenship, and a court temporarily halting the Trump administration's ban on foreign students at Harvard. Next, John interviews Michigan State Representative Joe Tate. His policy priorities focus on putting people first by making life more affordable, investing in a world-class education system, delivering on better public safety, addressing the housing crisis, and improving the criminal justice system. Joe Tate is running to be the next Democratic Senator from the State of Michigan, following Sen. Gary Peters announced he would not seek reelection. And finally, John welcomes back comedian Keith Price to chat with listeners about current trends and the latest Trump news.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Howie Kurtz on Trump's recent pardons of convicted felons raising eyebrows, judge striking down Trump order that targeted law firm WilmerHale and Broadway star Patti LuPone saying the Trump-led Kennedy Center 'should get blown up'. Follow Howie on Twitter: ⁠@HowardKurtz For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History:  Frederic William Maitland BornOn this day in legal history, May 28, 1850, Frederic William Maitland was born in London. Maitland would go on to become one of the most influential legal historians of the 19th century, widely regarded as the father of modern English legal history. Educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, Maitland initially studied moral sciences before turning to the law. He was called to the bar in 1876 but soon found his true calling in historical scholarship. In 1888, he was appointed Downing Professor of the Laws of England at Cambridge, a post he held until his death in 1906.Maitland's most enduring contribution came through his collaboration with Sir Frederick Pollock on The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, published in 1895. This seminal work remains a cornerstone of English legal historiography, notable for its rigorous use of original sources and its narrative clarity. Maitland brought a historian's eye to legal development, emphasizing the role of institutions and the evolution of legal ideas over time. His scholarship reshaped the understanding of English common law, highlighting its medieval roots and its organic, often non-linear, development.Beyond his academic writings, Maitland played a critical role in editing and publishing primary legal texts, including year books and medieval court rolls, through his work with the Selden Society, of which he was a founding member. His meticulous editing practices set new standards for legal historical methodology. Despite a relatively short life—he died at 56—Maitland's intellectual legacy continues to influence the study of common law traditions worldwide.A federal judge ruled that a lawsuit brought by 14 states against Elon Musk and the federal agency DOGE could proceed, while dismissing claims against President Donald Trump. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found that the states had presented a plausible argument that Musk's aggressive cost-cutting measures lacked legal authorization, though she emphasized that courts cannot interfere with a president's official duties.The lawsuit, initiated in February by attorneys general from states including Oregon and New Mexico, argues that Musk has been given sweeping, unchecked authority over federal operations without Senate confirmation or congressional authorization. The states contend this violates constitutional requirements, as Musk has not been formally appointed or confirmed for any federal office.DOGE, a newly formed government efficiency agency led by Musk, has been rapidly eliminating jobs and programs deemed wasteful, sparking significant legal pushback. Since its inception under Trump's second-term reforms, roughly 20 related lawsuits have emerged, with courts issuing mixed rulings. Critics argue the agency operates outside constitutional bounds, while supporters claim it is essential to fiscal reform.US judge allows states' lawsuit against DOGE to proceed | ReutersA federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order against law firm WilmerHale was unconstitutional, marking the third time courts have rejected such orders targeting legal opponents. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded that Trump's order retaliated against WilmerHale for hiring Robert Mueller, violating the firm's rights to free speech and due process. Mueller, a former special counsel, led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—a probe Trump has long criticized.The executive order sought to strip WilmerHale's attorneys of security clearances, ban the firm from federal buildings, and block its clients from receiving government contracts. Judge Leon described the move as a “staggering punishment” that undermined the firm's ability to function and penalized it for protected political expression. WilmerHale celebrated the ruling, asserting that it upholds critical constitutional principles.This decision follows similar rulings by Judges Beryl Howell and John Bates, who struck down Trump's executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, respectively. A fourth ruling is pending regarding Susman Godfrey. The Department of Justice has defended the orders, insisting they fall within the president's authority, and may appeal Leon's decision.Some firms, such as Paul Weiss and Latham & Watkins, reached agreements with the Trump administration to avoid penalties by pledging nearly $1 billion in pro bono services. These deals have sparked concern within the legal industry, with critics warning they reflect dangerous capitulation to political pressure.Judge bars Trump order against law firm tied to Robert Mueller | ReutersWilmerHale Wins Quick Ruling Against Trump's Executive Order (2)U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman temporarily blocked the Trump administration from rescinding federal approval and funding related to New York City's congestion pricing program. The judge's order came just one day before the U.S. Department of Transportation, under Secretary Sean Duffy, was set to begin withholding environmental approvals and project funds from the city and state. The Trump administration had revoked the program's federal green light in February, arguing it unfairly burdened drivers and lacked a free highway alternative. New York officials, including Governor Kathy Hochul and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), sued to stop the federal rollback, calling the move politically motivated and unconstitutional.The congestion pricing program, which began in January, charges most vehicles $9 during peak hours to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. Designed to reduce traffic and fund transit improvements, the initiative has shown clear signs of success in its first 100 days. Traffic congestion has dropped significantly, with up to 6 million fewer cars entering lower Manhattan compared to the same period a year ago. Commutes through bottlenecks like the Holland Tunnel have seen delays cut by nearly half, and traffic-related injuries in the zone have also declined by about 50%.Other measurable benefits include a 70% drop in complaints about excessive car-honking and improved bus speeds to the point that some drivers have to slow down to stay on schedule. Economic indicators like Broadway ticket sales and pedestrian foot traffic are up, suggesting that the tolls haven't deterred business as critics warned. Public transit ridership has also increased, particularly on the LIRR and Metro-North, reinforcing that many former drivers are switching to trains.Despite early skepticism and political backlash—including Trump's own social media mockery of the program—the numbers show that congestion pricing is working. The MTA expects to raise about $500 million this year, funding upgrades like subway elevators, electric buses, and the next phase of the Second Avenue Subway. While final legal outcomes remain uncertain, for now, both traffic and funding are moving in the right direction.US judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from killing New York congestion program | ReutersHow Well Is Congestion Pricing Doing? Very. 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

As ransomware attacks grow more sophisticated, health care organizations face not just massive data privacy risks, but real-time threats to operations, patient safety, and regulatory compliance. Dave Bailey, Vice President of Security Services, Clearwater, speaks with Kirk Nahra, Partner, Wilmer Hale, and Paul Schmeltzer, Member, Clark Hill, about how ransomware impacts everything from hospital workflows to enforcement actions, and what health care organizations can do to prepare and respond to the threat. Kirk and Paul spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2025 Advising Providers: Legal Strategies for AMCs, Physicians, and Hospitals conference in Austin, TX. Sponsored by Clearwater. AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here! AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.

This Day in Legal History: Petition of RightOn May 8, 1628, the English Parliament formally presented the Petition of Right to King Charles I, marking a key moment in the development of constitutional law and the rule of law in England. This pivotal document emerged in response to growing discontent over the king's use of extrajudicial practices—most notably, the levying of taxes without Parliament's approval and the imprisonment of individuals without cause. Parliament asserted that such actions violated established legal norms rooted in Magna Carta and the common law. The Petition of Right articulated four principal grievances: non-Parliamentary taxation, arbitrary imprisonment, the quartering of soldiers in private homes, and the imposition of martial law during peacetime.Rather than draft new laws, Parliament framed the Petition as a reaffirmation of ancient liberties, underscoring that even the monarch was not above the law. Although Charles initially resisted, political pressure forced him to accept the Petition—though he would later undermine its principles, contributing to the constitutional crises that led to the English Civil War. The Petition became a foundational text in the Anglo-American legal tradition, influencing later legal milestones such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the United States Constitution.Its insistence on due process, the separation of powers, and limits on executive authority laid early groundwork for modern democratic governance. In rejecting the idea that the king could rule by prerogative alone, the Petition of Right helped to establish Parliament's role as a co-equal branch of government. The document continues to be cited in legal and political discourse as a seminal assertion of civil liberties. It was a bold challenge to monarchical absolutism at a time when questioning royal authority was fraught with danger. Through its articulation of legal limits on state power, the Petition of Right remains a cornerstone in the long evolution of constitutional democracy.Jenner & Block continues to take on high-profile legal battles against the Trump administration while awaiting a ruling in its own lawsuit challenging one of Trump's executive orders. The firm recently filed a suit in Massachusetts federal court on behalf of universities challenging cost caps imposed by the National Science Foundation on federally funded research. This is one of several legal actions Jenner has brought since Trump's return to the presidency, including lawsuits over restrictions on gender-affirming care and funding cuts to scientific research.Jenner is also seeking to permanently block a Trump executive order that targets the firm due to its ties to Andrew Weissmann, a former partner involved in the Mueller investigation. A judge has already temporarily blocked parts of the order, and other firms like Perkins Coie have secured similar rulings. Critics worry these orders could deter law firms from opposing the administration for fear of retaliation.Jenner is collaborating with former Solicitor General Paul Clement and his firm Clement & Murphy in its newest lawsuit on behalf of major research universities. They've previously teamed up to challenge medical research funding cuts, winning a preliminary court victory. Clement is also representing WilmerHale in its legal fight against Trump. The core argument in these cases is that the administration's actions infringe on constitutional rights, including free speech, due process, and equal protection.Jenner Adds Trump Fights While Fending Off Executive Order (1)The EPA under the second Trump administration is making Superfund site cleanups a central priority, aiming to accelerate remediation efforts across over 1,300 contaminated locations nationwide. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin emphasized a push for expedited timelines and tangible outcomes, positioning Superfund cleanups as visible and community-focused work that garners public support. The administration has highlighted early actions like major soil removals, enforcement efforts that secured nearly $300 million in cleanups, and the removal of four sites from the Superfund National Priorities List.Observers say this mirrors the Trump EPA's first term, which also emphasized efficiency and redevelopment of polluted sites, often encouraging private investment. However, budget constraints remain a challenge. Superfund appropriations have dropped significantly since 1999, and while the 2021 Infrastructure Act provided a temporary funding boost and reinstated taxes on chemical companies, the current administration's 2026 budget proposes a $254 million cut, claiming tax revenue will suffice.Industry groups oppose the chemical tax, while environmental experts warn that funding and staffing shortfalls could stall progress. Critics caution that setting aggressive timelines without sufficient resources could backfire, leading to missed goals and wasted efforts. To improve the program, experts suggest reforms such as more collaboration with local entities and clearer guidance on common cleanup approaches to reduce delays.Trumps' EPA Shifts to Make Superfund Cleanups a Central MissionFormer Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has retired from the law firm Paul Weiss to take on a leadership role at Columbia University, where he was elected co-chair of the board of trustees. Johnson, who served under President Obama and spent four decades at Paul Weiss, said he will miss his colleagues but is ready for the new challenge. His departure comes amid tensions between both Paul Weiss and Columbia with the Trump administration.Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order limiting Paul Weiss's access to federal agencies, citing its ties to a prosecutor from the Russia investigation. To resolve the issue, the firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with the administration's goals—a move criticized by some legal professionals for not challenging the order in court. Paul Weiss's chairman defended the agreement as necessary to protect the firm's future.Columbia University has also faced pressure from the Trump administration, which cut $400 million in federal funding over allegations that the school failed to address antisemitism on campus. In response, Columbia has made concessions to regain funding and recently laid off nearly 180 researchers due to financial strain. The university continues to operate without a permanent president following protests over the Israel-Gaza conflict.Johnson, a known critic of Trump's immigration policies and supporter of Kamala Harris in 2024, becomes the second high-profile departure from Paul Weiss following the firm's controversial deal with the administration.Ex-Obama cabinet secretary leaves law firm Paul Weiss for Columbia post | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Los Angeles RiotsOn April 29, 1992, the Los Angeles riots erupted following the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, an African American motorist. The brutal 1991 beating had been captured on video and widely broadcast, leading to public outrage. However, when a largely white jury in suburban Simi Valley found the officers not guilty of assault and use of excessive force, it sparked immediate and widespread unrest. Over six days, riots, looting, arson, and violence resulted in more than 60 deaths, thousands of injuries, and nearly $1 billion in property damage. The events prompted a national conversation about police accountability, racial injustice, and the legal standards for the use of force.Legally, the case led to significant developments: the U.S. Department of Justice later brought federal civil rights charges against the officers, resulting in two convictions. The riots also accelerated efforts to reform policing practices, sparked lawsuits, and influenced federal legislation concerning police oversight. The King case remains one of the most prominent examples in American legal history where video evidence, jury perception, and civil rights law collided in dramatic fashion.On Monday, U.S. law firm Jenner & Block is asking a federal judge to permanently block an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that penalizes the firm for its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor involved in the Russia investigation. Trump's order, issued on March 25, aims to restrict Jenner's access to federal facilities and terminate government contracts held by its clients. Jenner argues the order violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Republican appointee, in Washington. Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — have also sued to block similar executive orders. So far, judges have temporarily halted major parts of Trump's orders in these cases. The broader context involves Trump's pressure campaign against law firms he views as politically opposed. Meanwhile, other major firms have pledged significant pro bono support to White House causes to avoid being targeted. Jenner is also suing the administration over its actions concerning transgender rights and agency funding freezes.US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to compile a list within 30 days of cities and states that are not complying with federal immigration laws. The move escalates Trump's ongoing battle against so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This follows a federal judge's recent decision blocking the administration from withholding funds from these jurisdictions. Trump officials highlighted a sharp drop in illegal border crossings since he took office, though deportations have fallen compared to Biden's administration. ICE detention centers are over capacity, leading the government to prepare facilities like Fort Bliss and to continue using Guantanamo Bay for migrant detention. Separately, controversy arose after a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly helping a defendant avoid immigration authorities, an action defended by the Trump administration. Despite divided public opinion, Trump's immigration policies maintain relatively strong approval ratings compared to his handling of other issues.Trump to sign order requiring list of sanctuary cities, states, official says | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that if Congress wants professional sports to be more equitable, accountable, and less reliant on taxpayer subsidies, it should rethink a looming tax change that would punish the Atlanta Braves—the only MLB team subject to full public oversight. A new cap on salary deductions for public companies under Section 162(m) is set to take effect in 2027, and while not aimed directly at sports teams, it would hit the Braves with an estimated $19 million annual tax hike. Meanwhile, billionaire-owned private teams would continue enjoying deduction benefits without similar transparency obligations.I explain that public ownership brings clear benefits: the Braves are required to file audited financials, face investor scrutiny on major spending decisions, and have less flexibility to threaten cities with relocation demands. Unlike private ownership groups that can easily pressure municipalities for stadium subsidies, publicly traded teams must answer to broader stakeholder interests. Moreover, public teams can raise capital through stock or bonds instead of leaning on taxpayers.Rather than penalizing the only team operating under these conditions, Congress should create incentives—like a targeted entertainment industry carveout—to encourage more public ownership. The goal isn't to give special treatment to the Braves, but to promote a model that favors transparency, accountability, and financial independence from taxpayers. Letting the current tax rule stand would send the wrong message: rewarding secrecy while punishing openness—and that's bad policy not just for baseball, but for public trust. 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: United States v. Carolene Products Co. DecidedOn April 25, 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, a seemingly mundane case about a federal law banning the interstate shipment of “filled milk.” But beneath its surface lay one of the most consequential footnotes in American constitutional history. The Court upheld the statute under a rational basis review, affirming Congress's authority to regulate economic activity. However, in Footnote Four of the majority opinion, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone proposed a bold and lasting idea: not all legislation should be treated equally when it comes to judicial review.Stone suggested that while economic regulations would generally be upheld if they had a rational basis, laws that appeared to conflict with specific constitutional prohibitions or aimed at "discrete and insular minorities" might require stricter scrutiny. This footnote planted the seed for what would become the modern system of tiered judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny—used to assess the constitutionality of laws under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.Though Footnote Four was not binding, it became one of the most cited and influential passages in constitutional law. It signaled a shift away from the Lochner-era deference to economic liberty and toward more robust judicial protection of civil rights and liberties. The idea that courts have a special role in protecting politically powerless groups fundamentally shaped later decisions in cases involving racial discrimination, free speech, and voting rights.In this way, a case about dairy regulation became a cornerstone of modern constitutional doctrine. Carolene Products illustrates how even minor legal disputes can produce major legal revolutions—one footnote at a time.In a rare display of bipartisan unity, the U.S. government is making significant legal advances against Big Tech, with Meta and Google facing tough antitrust scrutiny in simultaneous court cases. In separate proceedings in a Washington federal courthouse, the FTC is attempting to break up Meta, while the DOJ is pressing Google over illegal monopoly practices, including deals to pre-install its AI on smartphones. These efforts reflect years of legal groundwork laid across both the Trump and Biden administrations, showing that concerns over Big Tech's power and influence transcend party lines—even if the motivations differ. While Democrats emphasize market concentration and data control, Republicans have focused on censorship and political bias. Despite court momentum, legislative action remains stalled, hindered by political polarization and disagreements over broader issues like content moderation and China policy. The bipartisan front could fracture as political dynamics shift, especially with Trump signaling a more cooperative stance toward tech companies–or at least a willingness to extract rents from them.Meta, Google Hammered in Court in Sign of Rare Left-Right Unity - BloombergThe American Bar Association (ABA) laid off over 300 employees after the Trump administration cut $69 million in federal grant funding, according to a new lawsuit filed by the ABA against the Department of Justice. The organization alleges the cuts were politically motivated retaliation for its support of diversity initiatives and criticism of the administration. The terminated grants had funded legal aid programs for domestic violence victims and immigrants, as well as global rule of law initiatives. The layoffs affected about a third of the ABA's staff, including workers in its South Texas ProBar program and international legal development projects. The DOJ ended the grants shortly after barring its attorneys from participating in ABA events. The ABA is being represented by Democracy Forward in the suit, which also names Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants.ABA Lays Off 300 Employees, Blaming Trump Grant Funding Cuts (1)Richard Lawson, the lawyer defending President Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, has faced repeated courtroom defeats while offering vague, evasive answers under judicial questioning. In four separate cases, courts have temporarily blocked Trump's orders, which aimed to punish firms like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale for their roles in legal actions against him by revoking security clearances and threatening government contracts. Judges have openly criticized the orders as retaliatory and politically motivated. Despite this, Lawson has often appeared alone in court, prompting speculation that even the Justice Department is reluctant to back the arguments he's tasked with presenting. His vague responses and visible discomfort have drawn scrutiny, especially given his political ties to Attorney General Pam Bondi and his role at the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute. While some law firms have settled by agreeing to large pro bono commitments, others are pushing forward in court, where permanent injunctions against the executive orders now seem likely.Trump Attorney for Big Law Attacks Says Little as Losses Rack UpIn a piece for Forbes earlier this week, I argue that the state and local tax (SALT) deduction is fundamentally flawed and difficult to defend. Though often framed as a benefit to the middle class or a protection against double taxation, the deduction overwhelmingly favors wealthy households and creates inequities in the federal tax system. It allows states to impose high taxes without facing full political accountability, effectively outsourcing part of the cost to the federal government. The 2017 cap of $10,000 was a step in the right direction, and data shows that repealing it would benefit primarily the top 20% of earners—not typical working families. Unlike other personal expenses like rent or groceries, which aren't deductible, SALT gets special treatment without clear justification. If we care about fairness, progressivity, and honest budgeting, it's time to seriously consider scrapping the deduction altogether.Reconsidering The SALT Deduction: Is It Defensible?This week's closing theme is the final section of Finlandia, Op. 26, by the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius, performed here in its piano version. Composed in 1899 during a time of intense political censorship and rising nationalist sentiment, Finlandia was Sibelius's defiant musical response to Russian oppression. The tone poem was originally part of a series of historical tableaux performed as a protest against censorship, with Finlandia serving as the rousing finale.While the early passages of Finlandia are turbulent and stormy—meant to evoke struggle—the final section is a striking contrast: serene, solemn, and deeply moving. This lyrical closing, often referred to as the Finlandia Hymn, became an unofficial anthem of Finnish resistance and later a national symbol of unity and perseverance. In this week's selection, we hear a solo piano arrangement that strips the music to its essence, allowing the melody's dignity and quiet strength to shine through.Sibelius once said, “Music begins where the possibilities of language end,” and in Finlandia's final moments, words do indeed fall away. What remains is a profound expression of hope and resilience—qualities that have made this music resonate far beyond Finland's borders. Though Sibelius composed in the late Romantic tradition, his voice is unmistakably his own: direct, elemental, and rooted in the landscape and soul of his homeland.As we close out the week, let Finlandia remind us that even in times of turbulence, grace and resolve can still find their voice. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In recent weeks, President Trump has embarked on a campaign of extortion against law firms, pushing major firms to either reach agreements with the White House or face executive orders in retribution. A number of major firms have chosen to negotiate—agreeing to deals that are already under pressure as the White House seeks to extract more. Four firms—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey—have chosen to fight retaliatory executive orders in court and have secured temporary restraining orders against the administration. John Keker and Bob Van Nest joined the podcast to discuss these events. They're partners at the firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, and—along with their fellow partner Elliot Peters—published an op-ed in the New York Times urging law firms to stand up for themselves. In conversation with Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic, they discussed why the Trump administration's efforts pose such a threat to the rule of law and shared their insights into the dynamics inside law firms right now, what pressures might move a firm to capitulate, and what the firms that have chosen to fight are risking in the process.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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  

And then there were three. Two more big law firms have sued the Trump administration for issuing executive orders punishing firms that Donald Trump doesn't like for one reasons or another. Paul Clement, former United States Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration, is representing WilmerHale, one the the punished law firms. Attorney Clement wrote: " The President's sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional." Glenn discusses these new legal developments and the implications for the rule of law if Trump is allowed to abuse his power by bullying law firms of his choice.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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.  

And then there were three. Two more big law firms have sued the Trump administration for issuing executive orders punishing firms that Donald Trump doesn't like for one reasons or another. Paul Clement, former United States Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration, is representing WilmerHale, one the the punished law firms. Attorney Clement wrote: " The President's sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional." Glenn discusses these new legal developments and the implications for the rule of law if Trump is allowed to abuse his power by bullying law firms of his choice.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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.

Time to round up the latest in lawsuits against the Trump administration. The trans military ban is blocked. Renditioning Venezuelans to El Salvador without due process is blocked. The shutdown of the CFPB is blocked. The shutdown of the US Inst of Peace … not blocked. Yet! Liz and Andrew run down a bunch of the Trump cases and explain why it seems like every day brings another restraining order. (Hint: It's because Trump wants to do lots of illegal stuff in a hurry.)   Links: Name & Shame https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/name-and-shame   Shilling v. Trump Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69617888/shilling-v-trump/   Jenner & Block v. DOJ Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/   WilmerHale v. Executive Office of the President  Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/   Georgetown students' letter to Skadden https://bsky.app/profile/heidilifeldman.bsky.social/post/3llon26enmc2o   US v. Sanders (5th Cir. 2025) https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-31114-CR0.pdf   Eakin v. Adams County Board of Elections Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65738841/eakin-v-adams-county-board-of-elections/   J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C. - Judge Boasberg - Alien Enemies Act) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/   Trump v. JGG (SCOTUS Docket) https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a931.html   US Institute for Peace v. Jackson Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69754533/united-states-institute-of-peace-v-jackson/    NTEU v. Vought (DDC docket) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69624423/national-treasury-employees-union-v-vought/?   NTEU v. Vought (DC Cir Appeal) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69821739/national-treasury-employees-union-v-russell-vought/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

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!

Today's Headlines: The Group Chatgate saga escalates—WSJ reports that classified Israeli intelligence, including details on a Houthi missile expert, was leaked in the Signal chat before a U.S. strike. Meanwhile, the White House says Elon Musk and his DOGE team will “investigate” how this chat leak happened. Trump's latest executive order targets law firm WilmerHale over its ties to Robert Mueller, stripping its federal clearances and contracts. Meanwhile, his administration continues its crackdown on foreign students—two PhD candidates with legal visas were detained, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted to revoking 300+ student visas for alleged protest involvement. Trump also announced sweeping 25% tariffs on foreign cars and parts, which analysts warn will hike prices by $4,000–$15,000 per vehicle. Over at HHS, RFK Jr. is slashing another 10,000 jobs and restructuring key health agencies. In Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson suggested defunding entire federal courts in response to rulings against Trump. The administration is withdrawing Elise Stefanik's UN nomination to keep her in Congress amid two competitive Florida special elections. Finally, the Florida state legislature is moving to weaken child labor laws—allowing 14-year-olds to work overnight and removing meal break guarantees for teens—just as labor shortages grow under Trump's immigration policies. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: The Independent: Trump names ‘first buddy' and DOGE head Elon Musk to investigate Signal blunder WSJ: Trump Targets Robert Mueller's Former Law Firm in Latest Executive Order CNN: Rumeysa Ozturk: What we know about the Tufts University student detained by federal agents  NY Times: ICE Agents Detain University of Alabama Doctoral  Reuters: StudentRubio says US may have revoked more than 300 visas  CNBC: Trump's new auto tariffs will likely drive up car prices by thousands of dollars  WSJ: RFK Jr. Plans 10,000 Job Cuts in Major Restructuring of Health Department  Mike Johnson: Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges  Axios: Trump pulls Elise Stefanik's nomination after last-minute panic  CNN: Florida debates lifting some child labor laws to fill jobs vacated by undocumented immigrants  Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnso Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For law students, a summer associate position can help define the kind of law they practice and the path they forge through the legal profession. From building connections with associates and prominent partners to taking on challenging assignments, the experiences of a summer associate can provide a preview of the work they will take on in the future. In the first-ever live recording of In the Public Interest, co-hosts Felicia Ellsworth and Michael Dawson are joined by Partners Tiffany J. Smith, Nana Wilberforce and Drew Dulberg—who started their careers as summer associates at the firm—and over 100 of the firm's summer associates from offices across the country. During their conversation, all three partners offer an inside look into the firm's summer associate program and offer advice for law students and attorneys early in their careers. They also discuss their experiences as summer associates and how these experiences and the lessons they learned have shaped their careers.

Years after they published the Mueller investigation findings, lawyers Aaron Zebley and Andrew Goldstein take the public behind the scenes. Zebley has served as an Assistant US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, an FBI agent, and chief of staff to Robert Mueller at the FBI. He's now a partner at Wilmer Hale. Goldstein is the former chief of the public corruption unit at SDNY, and is now a partner at the law firm Cooley. They're co-authors of the new book, Interference: The Inside Story of Trump, Russia, and the Mueller Investigation.  Plus, can prosecutors prove the second would-be assassin's intent to kill former President Trump? How long is too long for legal briefs? And… can I ask you a question?  For show notes and a transcript of the episode head to: https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/trump-mueller-report-interference-zebley-goldstein/  Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on Threads, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Itsiq Benizri, counsel in WilmerHale's Brussels office, joins Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to review the shocking and significant resignation of former European Commissioner Thierry Breton. Breton served as the EU's commissioner for the internal market and played a major role in shaping and enforcing the EU's digital regulations.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.