Podcasts about wilmerhale

black home search new jersey nyu black man two americas aspen ideas festival preet bharara wilmerhale jonathan capehart capehart

Play Episode Listen Later May 15, 2026 6:56

This Day in Legal History: Abe Fortas Resigns SCOTUSOn May 15, 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first justice to leave the Court under the threat of impeachment. Fortas had been appointed to the Court in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a close friend and political ally. His reputation had already been damaged in 1968, when Johnson tried to elevate him to Chief Justice and the nomination failed after senators criticized his outside income and ties to the president. The controversy deepened when it became public that Fortas had accepted a financial arrangement from the family foundation of Louis Wolfson, a financier who was later convicted of securities violations. Although Fortas returned the money, the arrangement created the appearance that a sitting Supreme Court justice might be financially entangled with someone who had legal troubles. That appearance alone was enough to cause a major crisis for the Court's legitimacy.Members of Congress began discussing impeachment, and Fortas ultimately resigned before a formal impeachment process could remove him. His departure became an important example of how judicial ethics are not limited to actual corruption, but also include conduct that undermines public confidence in judicial independence. The episode also showed the tension between life tenure and accountability for federal judges. Article III judges are protected from political pressure through lifetime appointments, but they can still face removal through impeachment for serious misconduct.Fortas's resignation left a lasting mark on debates over Supreme Court ethics, outside income, recusals, and financial disclosure. More than fifty years later, the Fortas controversy is still cited when questions arise about whether Supreme Court justices should follow clearer and more enforceable ethics rules.Closing arguments ended Thursday in Elon Musk's federal trial against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft, with the case now headed to a nine-member jury. Musk's lawyer argued that OpenAI violated its charitable mission by shifting assets, employees, and value from its nonprofit structure into a for-profit enterprise now worth hundreds of billions of dollars. He focused heavily on Altman's credibility, telling jurors that OpenAI's defense depends on believing Altman and pointing to testimony and documents that Musk says show dishonesty, conflicts, and self-enrichment. Musk's side also attacked Brockman's large equity stake and cited old journal entries as evidence that OpenAI insiders were thinking about personal wealth while controlling a nonprofit mission. Microsoft was portrayed by Musk's team as helping the alleged breach by investing billions and gaining major access to OpenAI's intellectual property and business structure. OpenAI's lawyers responded that Musk's claims are late, unsupported, and driven by his status as a competitor rather than by concern for charitable law. They argued Musk's donations were not legally restricted gifts, that he once sought control of OpenAI himself, and that he did not object to earlier restructuring documents. OpenAI also emphasized that the nonprofit remains in control and now holds a stake worth roughly $200 billion, which its lawyers described as enormous value created for the charity, not stolen from it. Microsoft's lawyer argued the company did not know of any specific conditions on Musk's donations and was not involved in the core events Musk complains about. In rebuttal, Musk's lawyer said OpenAI and Microsoft were distracting the jury from documents and texts showing that Musk funded OpenAI based on a specific nonprofit safety mission. The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations Monday.‘Who's Telling The Truth?' Musk-OpenAI Fight Goes To Jury - Law360 UKMusk accused of ‘selective amnesia,' Altman of lying as OpenAI trial nears end | ReutersThe Senate Banking Committee advanced the Clarity Act, a major crypto regulation bill that would set clearer rules for digital assets and define which regulators oversee different parts of the industry. The Republican-led committee approved the bill with support from all Republicans and two Democrats, Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, giving the measure a better chance of reaching the full Senate. Even so, both Democrats warned they may not support the final version unless negotiations change. The bill is important to the crypto industry because it would help determine when tokens are treated as securities, commodities, or something else, which companies say is necessary for growth and legal certainty. Several Democrats objected that the proposal does not go far enough on anti-money laundering protections and should do more to stop public officials from profiting from crypto ventures. Banks are also fighting part of the bill because they fear crypto companies could use stablecoin rewards to compete with traditional deposits. The dispute led to tense committee negotiations, including a late compromise that Chairman Tim Scott allowed while rejecting some other Democratic amendments. Crypto groups have pushed hard for the legislation after spending heavily to support pro-crypto candidates in 2024. The White House is also backing crypto reform, and the House already passed its version of the Clarity Act last year. Supporters see the committee vote as a milestone after years of work, while critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, warn the bill favors the crypto industry at the expense of consumers, investors, national security, and the financial system. The bill now moves to the full Senate, where lobbying from crypto companies, banks, and consumer-protection advocates is likely to intensify.US Senate committee advances crypto bill in milestone for digital assets | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments over the Trump administration's attempt to revive executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. The firms had previously won in lower court, where judges found the orders unconstitutional. The executive orders punished the firms over issues including their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies, and political connections. They also sought to restrict the firms' lawyers from federal buildings, cancel government contracts held by their clients, and remove security clearances from firm employees. The Justice Department argued that the firms' business relationships and hiring decisions are not protected by the First Amendment, and that courts should not second-guess presidential decisions involving national security. Judges on the D.C. Circuit appeared skeptical of the administration's broad view of presidential authority, especially the claim that security clearance decisions are unreviewable even when allegedly made for improper reasons. Paul Clement, arguing for the firms, said the orders threatened the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to represent unpopular clients without government retaliation. He warned that accepting the administration's theory could allow presidents to punish lawyers or firms based on political affiliation. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, seemed more receptive to the administration's argument that courts have limited power to review security clearance decisions. The case is part of a broader fight over presidential power and whether the government can use executive authority to punish lawyers and firms viewed as political opponents. The appeals court also heard a related case involving lawyer Mark Zaid's security clearance. Any ruling from the D.C. Circuit could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.US appeals court questions Trump's push to punish major law firms | 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

Are the Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms and Lawyers Constitutional? (Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ)

Free Speech Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later May 14, 2026 186:24

Episode 51: Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of JusticePerkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026. Argued by Paul Clement (on behalf of the Law Firm Appellees), Abbe Lowell (on behalf of Appellee Mark Zaid), and Abhishek Kambli (on behalf of the federal government).Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP: One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes “dishonest and dangerous” and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, “settled” with the President. But Perkins, followed by Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman, sued to defend themselves and their clients. Four different district judges recognized the President's executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same.The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Yet here, the President did not hide his intent to punish Perkins for its expression and that of its clients. He openly declared that he targeted Perkins because it represented his “failed” opponent in the 2016 election, challenged election laws alongside so-called “activist donors,” and brought purportedly “partisan lawsuits,” including “against the Trump Administration.” The President designed the Order to do more than just damage Perkins; he intended to intimidate the bar into submission.Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo. This case concerns an unconstitutional policy enacted to do just that. Shortly after taking office, the President issued a memorandum (the Presidential Memorandum) targeting the security clearances of a sprawling group of his perceived enemies, their lawyers, and their family members. As interpreted by the relevant agencies, the Presidential Memorandum constituted a directive to disregard then-existing procedures and institute a blanket revocation of the security clearances of those it named. Appellant Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who has represented government whistleblowers, is among those whose clearances were revoked...Rather than contesting whether they retaliated against Mr. Zaid or deprived him of the processes to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations, Appellants double down on the extraordinary position that their unlawful actions are entirely insulated from judicial review.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP: Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Whether Perkins is entitled to summary judgment on the additional ground (raised but not reached below) that Sections 1, 3, and 5 violate the separation of powers.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: Whether a court may review a policy providing for the revocation of a group of security clearances without process or individualized review.Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.Resources:    Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLPBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings for the law firms' cases)Brief of Appellee Mark ZaidBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings in the appeal of Mark Zaid v. Executive Office of the President)

president donald trump state executives lawyers statement targeting trump administration appeals circuit perkins constitutional law firms sections jenner executive office united states court perkins coie argued wilmerhale trump executive orders paul clement mark zaid this court abbe lowell appellants

Between Two Americas with Jonathan Capehart

Aspen Ideas to Go

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2026 54:10

Growing up in New Jersey without any connections to media, it wasn't obvious that Jonathan Capehart would become the successful journalist and commentator he is today. But the MS NOW co-host was focused and driven, and kept asking questions until he landed where he wanted to be. He tells the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival audience how he got from one world to another, and how as a Black gay man he's often felt between spaces. His memoir, “Yet Here I Am: Lessons from A Black Man's Search for Home” came out just before the festival. Preet Bharara, NYU law scholar and attorney at Wilmer Hale, interviews Capehart.

Trump Legal Battles April 2026: Supreme Court Cases, Law Firm Disputes and Citizenship Challenge

LessWrong Curated Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2026 3:49 Transcription Available

# Legal Matters Involving Donald Trump: April 2026 UpdateWelcome back, listeners. We're diving straight into some significant legal developments that are unfolding right now involving former President Donald Trump and his administration's actions in 2026.The most pressing issue centers on an executive order that's creating waves across the legal establishment. According to reporting from a legal industry update on April 6th, 2026, the Trump administration has accused several major law firms of weaponizing the legal system against the former president. The firms in question include Perkins Coey, Wilmer Hale, Jenner and Block, and Susman Godfrey. What's remarkable here is the overwhelming response from the legal community itself. More than 800 law firms filed what's called Friends of the Court briefs with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, urging the court to reject the administration's appeal related to this executive order. That's not all. Over 200 law professors and more than 50 law student organizations also filed amicus briefs supporting these firms. Only five conservative groups filed briefs backing the administration's position. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled to begin on May 14th, making this one of the most closely watched legal battles of the moment.Another major legal issue involves citizenship itself. According to Rutgers Law School's analysis of 2026 legal issues, the Supreme Court is currently considering whether President Trump's Executive Order 14160 violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. This executive order seeks to redefine who may acquire U.S. citizenship by birth, representing one of the most consequential legal questions the high court will address this term.Meanwhile, in Florida specifically, there's an unusual development regarding gun rights. According to WUSF's reporting on Florida legal issues, the state's Attorney General James Uthmeier has taken the unusual step of refusing to defend a Florida law that prevents people under age 21 from buying rifles and other long guns. This law passed nearly eight years ago following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The National Rifle Association has challenged this law, and the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to take up that challenge. The fact that Florida's own attorney general won't defend the state's law adds a remarkable layer of complexity to this case.These developments paint a picture of an administration actively engaged in multiple legal battles, from questions about executive authority and citizenship to disputes with the legal profession itself. The coming weeks and months will reveal how these cases unfold and what implications they'll have for the broader legal landscape.Thank you so much for tuning in, listeners. Be sure to come back next week for more legal updates and analysis. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit 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

"Dispatch from Anthropic v. Department of War Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing" by Zack_M_Davis

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 6, 2026 12:01

Dateline SAN FRANCISCO, Ca., 24 March 2026— A hearing was held on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case of Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War et al. in Courtroom 12 on the 19th floor of the Phillip Burton Federal Building, the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin presiding. About 35 spectators in the gallery (journalists and other members of the public, including the present writer) looked on as Michael Mongan of WilmerHale (lead counsel for the plaintiff) and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton (lead counsel for the defendant) argued before the judge. (The defendant also had another lawyer at their counsel table on the left, and the plaintiff had six more at theirs on the right, but none of those people said anything.) For some dumb reason, recording court proceedings is banned and the official transcript won't be available online for three months, so I'm relying on my handwritten live notes to tell you what happened. I'd say that any errors are my responsibility, but actually, it's kind of the government's fault for not letting me just take a recording. The case concerns the fallout of a contract dispute between Anthropic (makers of [...] --- First published: March 25th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CCDQ7PdYHXsJAE5bi/dispatch-from-anthropic-v-department-of-war-preliminary --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

war hearing motion courtroom dispatch anthropic preliminary injunction wilmerhale

Legal News for Mon 3/30 - Bank of America Settles with Epstein Victims, Law Firms Challenge Trump EOs, Elizabeth Holmes Sentence Reduced

Lunch Hour Legal Marketing

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 30, 2026 6:24

This Day in Legal History: Ronald Reagan Assassination AttemptOn March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt outside the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The attack was carried out by John Hinckley Jr., who fired multiple shots as the president exited an event. Reagan was seriously wounded but survived after emergency surgery, while others, including Press Secretary James Brady, were also injured. The incident immediately triggered a high-profile federal criminal case against Hinckley. During trial, Hinckley's defense team argued that he was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. This outcome shocked the public and sparked widespread debate about the use and limits of the insanity defense in criminal law.Critics argued that the standard allowed dangerous individuals to avoid accountability, while supporters emphasized the importance of recognizing severe mental illness in legal responsibility. In response, Congress and many states moved to tighten the rules governing insanity defenses. One major reform was the passage of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which made it harder for defendants to succeed with such claims in federal court. The law shifted the burden of proof to defendants and narrowed the definition of legal insanity. The case also influenced how courts evaluate expert psychiatric testimony. Over time, Hinckley remained confined to a psychiatric institution rather than a traditional prison. His gradual release decades later continued to raise legal and ethical questions about mental illness and public safety. This event remains a defining moment in modern criminal law because it reshaped how courts balance mental health and criminal responsibility.Bank of America has agreed to pay $72.5 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking activities. The agreement, filed for preliminary approval in New York federal court, does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the bank. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, described the settlement as a meaningful recovery for survivors. The proposed class includes women and girls who were abused by Epstein or his associates, including those who received compensation tied to sexual activity. Payments to class members will vary based on factors such as the severity and duration of abuse and any cooperation with investigations.Doe alleged that Bank of America ignored warning signs and allowed suspicious financial transactions linked to Epstein's operations, including accounts opened in her name despite red flags. The bank denied facilitating any illegal conduct but stated the settlement allows it to resolve the matter and provide closure. The plaintiff's attorneys may seek up to 30% of the settlement fund in fees. The court had previously dismissed claims against another defendant, Bank of New York Mellon, and narrowed the case against Bank of America. The judge also rejected an effort by the bank to pause proceedings while related government matters were clarified.The plaintiff and her legal team weighed the risks of trial, including the possibility of a lengthy appeals process that could delay compensation for survivors. As part of the settlement process, a fund administrator will determine individual awards using specific criteria tied to each claimant's experience. The case highlights ongoing legal efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for their potential role in enabling trafficking networks.BofA Will Pay $72.5M In Deal Ending Epstein Ties Allegations - Law360Four major law firms—Jenner & Block LLP, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP—have asked the D.C. Circuit to uphold lower court rulings that invalidated executive orders issued by Donald Trump targeting them. The firms argue the orders were unconstitutional, claiming they violated the First Amendment and other protections by restricting their ability to practice law. The measures included suspending security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and penalizing the firms for their clients and legal work.The firms contend the orders were retaliatory, pointing to Trump's criticism of their pro bono work and connections to investigations involving him. They argue the government cannot punish lawyers for representing certain clients or expressing particular viewpoints. Each firm emphasized that the orders interfere with core legal principles, including the right to counsel, free association, and access to the courts.The U.S. Department of Justice initially sought to drop its appeal of the lower court decisions but quickly reversed course and is now defending the executive orders. The firms highlighted this reversal as evidence that the orders are legally weak. They also argue that the government has failed to meaningfully dispute claims that the orders were motivated by retaliation.The dispute is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for May. The outcome could have significant implications for executive power and the independence of the legal profession.Firms Targeted By Trump Urge DC Circ. To Uphold EO Rulings - Law360Law firms targeted by Trump ask court to uphold rulings blocking executive orders | ReutersA federal judge reduced the prison sentence of Elizabeth Holmes by one year, lowering her term from just over 11 years after applying updated federal sentencing guidelines. Holmes had requested a two-year reduction, but the court granted only a partial decrease despite opposition from prosecutors. The judge found that although her fraud caused approximately $452 million in investor losses, prosecutors failed to show that any individual victim suffered “substantial financial hardship,” which is required under the revised guidelines.The court emphasized that financial harm must be evaluated relative to each victim's wealth, noting that large losses do not automatically qualify as substantial hardship for wealthy investors. Because the government did not provide specific evidence of such harm, Holmes qualified for a reduced sentence as a nonviolent, first-time offender. However, the judge limited the reduction to one year to maintain deterrence and reflect the seriousness of her conduct.Holmes was convicted in 2022 of defrauding investors in Theranos, the blood-testing startup she led alongside Ramesh Balwani. While her conviction included four counts of investor fraud, she was acquitted or not convicted on other charges. She began serving her sentence in 2023.Prosecutors argued against reducing her sentence, citing the scale of the losses, her limited restitution payments, and concerns about potential future misconduct. Holmes countered that investors knowingly took risks and were not financially devastated. The judge ultimately agreed that the legal standard for “substantial financial hardship” was not met.Elizabeth Holmes Gets 11-Year Prison Sentence Cut By A Year - Law360 UK 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

Robert Mueller

popular Wiki of the Day

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 23, 2026 2:25

pWotD Episode 3246: Robert Mueller Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 510,191 views on Sunday, 22 March 2026 our article of the day is Robert Mueller.Robert Swan Mueller III (; August 7, 1944 – March 20, 2026) was an American lawyer who served as the sixth director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 2001 to 2013.A graduate of Princeton University and New York University, Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving a Bronze Star for heroism and a Purple Heart. He later attended the University of Virginia School of Law. Mueller was a registered Republican in Washington, D. C., and was appointed or reappointed to Senate-confirmed positions by presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.Mueller worked in both government and private practice. He served as an Assistant U. S. attorney, a U. S. attorney, the U. S. assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division, a homicide prosecutor in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, acting U. S. deputy attorney general, a partner at the Washington D. C. law firm WilmerHale, and director of the FBI. He was the only FBI director permitted by Congress to serve more than the statutory 10‑year term limit since the death of J. Edgar Hoover in 1972, receiving a special two‑year extension.In 2017, Mueller was appointed special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U. S. presidential election and related matters. He submitted his report in 2019, after which the Office of the Special Counsel was closed and Mueller resigned.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 03:37 UTC on Monday, 23 March 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Robert Mueller on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Amy.

Beets, Berries, and Better Paralegals

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2026 16:10

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.

time donald trump chapters berries jenner beets dirty hands perkins coie wilmerhale paralegals gyi

Legal News for Weds 3/4 - Epstein Testimony Request for Gates, DOJ Reversal in EO Law Firm Litigation, Abbott's Premature Infant Formula Trial and CA's SALT Workaround

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2026 10:19

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

Trump Legal Battles 2026: Supreme Court Gun Cases, War Powers Debates, and 298 Active Lawsuits Challenge Presidential Authority

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2026 4:06 Transcription Available

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

Leaders in Law: Life Sciences and Technology Transactions with Jekkie Kim

technology leaders silicon valley transactions life sciences palo alto public interest wilmerhale

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2026 14:19

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.

Legal New for Mon 2/9 - Big Tech on Trial for Addictive Design, Trump's NY/NJ Tunnel Fund Fight, Immigration Detention Without Bond Upheld and Law Firms Battle Executive Orders

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2026 7:14

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

Legal News for Mon 2/2 - TOSTracker Launches, FTC Warnings on DEI, ICE Warrantless Home Entries and Don Lemon Arrested

Inspired Nonprofit Leadership

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 2, 2026 8:22

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

390: Leadership, Capital, and the Long View with Elyse Cherry

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2026 38:18

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.

ceo president leadership navigating staying white house capital financial times longview wellesley college boston business journal wilmerhale boston foundation bluehub

AI Governance and the Role of Boards of Directors f/t Joshua Geltzer and Jessica Lewis of WilmerHale

In AI We Trust?

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 22, 2026 47:37

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.

director ai technology tech board artificial intelligence playbook governance boards ai policy ai literacy wilmerhale jessica lewis

Headline: Tracking Trump's Legal Battles: A High-Stakes Supreme Court Showdown in 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 18, 2026 4:19 Transcription Available

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

In the Public Interest LIVE: Beyond the Summer Associate Experience

speaking practice massachusetts associate professor lesser public interest live beyond bratt wilmerhale

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 9, 2026 18:06

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.

Headline: Courtrooms Become Battlegrounds: Trump's Legal Wars Grip America's Future

Great Women in Compliance

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 7, 2026 4:23 Transcription Available

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

WTKA Roundtable 12/11/2025: About to Find Out

MGoBlog: The MGoPodcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 11, 2025 44:43

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.

washington nfl michigan arizona alabama math stanford roundtable new mexico louisville argument athletics nil nick saban hc saban harbaugh john harbaugh psu minter diego pavia hoke bryce underwood wilmerhale warde brohm mel pearson dave brandon

Insights from the 42nd Annual ACI FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption Conference

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 12, 2025 31:07

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.

Leaders in Law: Crisis Management with Siddharth Velamoor

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2025 19:23

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.

crisis office leaders boeing crisis management senior counsel ellsworth us attorneys public interest siddharth wilmerhale computer hacking

In That Case: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2025 18:41

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.

partner washington dc court supreme court charge vice chair us supreme court corp mauritius public interest ninth circuit appellate devas bowker wilmerhale fsia

In That Case: United States v. Skrmetti

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2025 17:05

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.

united states tennessee supreme court constitution hiv davies aclu us supreme court public interest senior attorney equal protection clause wilmerhale josh block

In That Case: Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 11, 2025 18:50

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.

united states thompson us supreme court public interest wilmerhale tom saunders

In That Case: Glossip v. Oklahoma

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2025 16:38

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.

partner court oklahoma united states supreme court anwar public interest waxman appellate wilmerhale richard glossip glossip

Episode 182: Waging Lawfare Against Democracy

Broken Law

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 2, 2025 47:55

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 That Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor