POPULARITY
36 episodes with wilmerhale
6 episodes with wilmerhale
3 episodes with wilmerhale
2 episodes with wilmerhale
4 episodes with wilmerhale
6 episodes with wilmerhale
4 episodes with wilmerhale
5 episodes with wilmerhale
4 episodes with wilmerhale
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
This Day in Legal History: Easter RisingOn April 24, 1916, the Easter Rising erupted in Dublin as Irish republicans launched a bold and ultimately tragic insurrection against British rule. The event, intended to establish an independent Irish Republic, had enormous legal and constitutional consequences that would ripple through British and Irish law for years. Roughly 1,200 rebels seized key buildings across Dublin, proclaiming the establishment of the Irish Republic from the steps of the General Post Office.In response, the British government declared martial law and deployed thousands of troops to suppress the rebellion. Courts-martial were swiftly convened, and between May 3 and May 12, fifteen rebel leaders were executed, including Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, and Thomas Clarke. These summary executions, carried out without the protections of civilian trial, shocked many in Ireland and Britain and were later criticized as legally excessive and politically tone-deaf.The use of military tribunals rather than civilian courts raised serious questions about the limits of legal authority during wartime and the rights of those accused of political violence. The Rising also marked a critical turning point in British colonial legal practice, highlighting the inherent tension between empire and constitutional rule.In the wake of the rebellion, the British government passed additional emergency laws to manage dissent in Ireland, but these legal measures only deepened nationalist sentiment. The Easter Rising set the stage for the Irish War of Independence, the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, and ultimately the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922.The legal legacy of April 24 is one of sharp contrast: between the rigid imposition of imperial law and the revolutionary demand for self-determination. It remains a powerful example of how law can be both a tool of control and a symbol of contested legitimacy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has agreed to drop its appeal in a longstanding legal battle with PayPal over a 2019 rule that required digital wallet providers to disclose fees using a standardized form originally intended for prepaid cards. The decision came through a joint filing on April 21 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, following a March 2024 district court ruling in PayPal's favor that limited the reach of the rule.The CFPB's regulation extended fee disclosure mandates for prepaid cards to digital wallets, despite the agency's own acknowledgment that most digital wallets don't charge such fees. PayPal contested the rule soon after its issuance, arguing that digital wallets function differently from prepaid cards since they store payment credentials rather than actual funds. In contrast, prepaid cards are used to store and spend cash directly.The legal journey began when Judge Richard J. Leon initially sided with PayPal in 2020, but his ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit in 2023, prompting a remand. Leon again ruled for PayPal in March 2024, leading the CFPB to appeal before ultimately deciding to drop the case.This withdrawal marks the second recent instance of the CFPB, under acting Director Russell Vought, stepping back from litigation challenging its rules. A week prior, the agency also agreed to halt enforcement of a proposed $8 cap on credit card late fees amid a separate lawsuit. PayPal is represented by WilmerHale which, you will of course remember, has been targeted by a Trump executive order.CFPB Agrees to Halt Appeal of PayPal Win on Digital Wallet RulePresident Trump announced via Truth Social that he is suing the law firm Perkins Coie, accusing it of committing “egregious and unlawful acts,” specifically pointing to the actions of an unnamed individual at the firm. However, it remains unclear whether Trump intends to file a new lawsuit or was referring to ongoing legal disputes.Last month, Trump signed an executive order that aimed to terminate federal contracts with clients of Perkins Coie if the firm had performed any work on them. In response, Perkins Coie sued the administration, claiming the order was unconstitutional.Trump's legal team also requested the recusal of U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell from overseeing that case, alleging a “pattern of hostility” toward the president. Trump repeated his criticism of Judge Howell in his latest post, calling her “highly biased.”The legal conflict adds to Trump's ongoing confrontations with the judiciary and firms linked to Democratic causes. Perkins Coie has historically represented Democratic interests, making the dispute politically charged.Trump says he is suing Perkins Coie law firm | ReutersLaw firms Perkins Coie and WilmerHale asked federal judges in Washington, D.C., to permanently block executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. The firms argue the orders are unconstitutional acts of political retaliation. These orders sought to revoke government contracts held by their clients and restrict the firms' access to federal buildings, citing their ties to Trump's legal and political opponents.The legal battle marks a significant escalation between major law firms and the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell heard Perkins Coie's request for summary judgment, while Judge Richard Leon handled WilmerHale's case later in the day. Both judges had already issued temporary blocks on Trump's orders in March.The Department of Justice defended the executive orders as valid exercises of presidential authority. Meanwhile, other prominent firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps have settled with the White House to avoid similar orders, agreeing to provide pro bono services and other terms reportedly totaling nearly $1 billion in value.The legal community has widely condemned the executive orders. Hundreds of firms and legal organizations argue the moves were designed to chill legal representation against Trump, infringing on the right to counsel and undermining the legal profession's independence. Some attorneys at firms that settled have resigned in protest.Law firms targeted by Trump ask judges to permanently bar executive orders against them | ReutersThe State Bar of California plans to ask the California Supreme Court to lower the passing score for the February 2025 bar exam after a troubled rollout that included technical and logistical failures. The proposed score of 534 is below the 560 recommended by the bar's testing expert. This score adjustment would apply to all test takers, regardless of the specific issues they faced.February's exam marked the first time California administered a hybrid bar test, offered both remotely and in-person, and without components of the long-used national bar exam. Although the change aimed to reduce costs, it resulted in significant problems such as software crashes and intrusive proctoring interruptions. It's unclear how many of the 4,300 examinees were affected, but the State Bar has opened an investigation into the widespread issues.The bar also recommended imputing scores for test takers unable to complete key sections, a process that estimates performance based on completed answers. The Committee of Bar Examiners acknowledged the challenge of crafting a remedy that is both fair and preserves the integrity of the exam.In addition to adjusting scores, the committee is considering provisional licensing programs that would allow affected test takers to practice under supervision while awaiting full licensure. Final test results are due May 2, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the score change request by April 28. The committee will meet again on May 5 to consider further options.California bar seeks to reduce pass score after disastrous exam rollout | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
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.
Dane DeKrey is a criminal defense attorney with the Moorhead-based lawfirm Ringstrom Dekrey. He recently signed onto an amicus brief in a legal fight over an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which exacts retribution on a law firm Trump feels has wronged him. It does so by, among other punitive measures, revoking the firm's security clearances and prohibiting its personnel from entering government buildings. In his order, Trump accused the law firm WilmerHale of engaging "in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders." But from another perspective, that's just engaging in the political process and representing criminal defendants. DeKrey says his support for the law firm isn't about politics. It's about principles. "I couldn't care less that this comes from Donald Trump," he said on this episode of Plain Talk. "I care that the rule of law is being questioned and as lawyers and as my law firm...we defend people who are not sympathetic the vast majority of the time. And if a person who is not sympathetic cannot call out for a lawyer and have someone answer, we are in a dangerous territory and I don't want to be there." Also on this episode, Sen. Kyle Davis, a Republican from Fargo, took a break from his work on the Appropriations Committee to talk to us about the progress toward funding a new state hospital in Jamestown, the challenges the state faces in delivering mental health services, and the debates over school choice policies and property taxes. He also commented on a last-minute amendment to the budget for the Office of Management and Budget to create a "life education committee" that would promote alternatives to abortion. The committee, which would be appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, would have $1.5 million in funding and would be tasked with contracting with a third party entity to provide pro-life education services. "I've always pushed back on bills that get added in the last minute," Davison said of the amendment, adding that he has "a bit of frustration in regards to it not being a standalone bill." "Those standalone bills that make it all the way through have had a minimum of four hearings, two of them in appropriations and they're better pieces of legislation because of it when they pass through like that," he said. "Especially when you're setting something up new and it's a new appropriation." He also said that lawmakers are mindful of last year's state Supreme Court ruling, which struck down the OMB budget from the 2023 session for not complying with the state constitution's single-subject mandate. "There is no question in my mind that we as a legislature are paying attention to that decision made by the Supreme Court in regards to the OMB budget," he said. This episode is brought to you by the North Dakota Petroleum Foundation, providing education and outreach opportunities related to the petroleum industry, advancing quality of life initiatives, and promoting and enhancing the conservation heritage of North Dakota. Learn more at www.NDPetroleumFoundation.org. If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive
This Day in Legal History: Senate Approves Alaska PurchaseOn April 9, 1867, the United States Senate voted to ratify the Treaty with Russia for the Purchase of Alaska, approving the acquisition of the territory for $7.2 million. The deal, championed by Secretary of State William H. Seward, added over 586,000 square miles to U.S. territory. At the time, many Americans viewed the icy, remote land as a barren wasteland, mocking the transaction as “Seward's Folly” or “Seward's Icebox.” Despite public ridicule, Seward pursued the deal partly to prevent British expansion from neighboring Canada and to extend American commercial interests into the Pacific. Russia, for its part, saw little strategic or economic value in Alaska and feared it might lose the territory without compensation in a future conflict.The treaty passed in the Senate by a vote of 37 to 2, reflecting support among lawmakers despite popular skepticism. Legal authority for the purchase came through the treaty-making power of the executive branch, with Senate ratification required under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Once finalized, the transfer of sovereignty occurred in October 1867 in Sitka, with a formal ceremony marking Russia's departure.Criticism of the purchase subsided decades later following the Klondike Gold Rush and, eventually, the discovery of significant oil reserves. These developments drastically changed the public's perception of Alaska from frozen liability to strategic asset. The purchase also helped lay the groundwork for America's growing influence in the Pacific and Arctic regions.President Donald Trump announced that major law firms pledging $340 million in pro bono work would assist his administration with coal industry initiatives and international tariff negotiations. Speaking at a White House event, Trump said these firms—such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie—would provide legal support for leasing and regulatory issues in coal mining, as well as in talks with foreign countries on trade. While he didn't specify which firms would take on specific tasks, Trump emphasized their legal talent and claimed they were offering services “for the right price.”The announcement coincided with Trump signing executive orders invoking the Defense Production Act to increase coal mining and directing investments into advanced coal technology. He also said the Department of Justice would be tasked with challenging state and local regulations he views as harmful to miners. The law firm agreements came after Trump targeted several legal firms with directives that threaten their business, prompting lawsuits from Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block. Trump posted the agreements on Truth Social, stating the firms would work on causes like veterans' rights and combating antisemitism, although details on how their roles will be determined remain unclear.Trump Says He'll Enlist Big Law Dealmakers for Coal, TariffsA group of 67 former top legal executives from companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Eli Lilly filed a legal brief condemning President Trump's executive orders targeting several major law firms. They argue that the orders violate the Constitution and threaten the independence of corporate legal counsel by coercing political loyalty through federal contract threats. The brief supports a lawsuit by Perkins Coie, one of the firms impacted by the orders, which claims the directives bar its attorneys from government buildings and jeopardize its clients' federal contracts.The former general counsels contend that Trump's actions don't just punish individual firms, but undermine the principle that companies should be free to choose their legal representation without fear of political retaliation. The brief highlights how the orders signal to businesses that hiring lawyers linked to Trump's critics could lead to government sanctions. Trump issued similar orders against WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, and all three firms have secured temporary legal blocks against the measures.While some firms like Paul Weiss struck deals with Trump to avoid penalties—agreeing to provide pro bono work for causes aligned with his administration—others have pushed back. Four days prior, hundreds of law firms submitted their own brief supporting Perkins Coie. Trump's administration defends the orders as efforts to stop perceived political bias in Big Law.Former top lawyers at major companies decry Trump orders against law firms | ReutersAn immigration judge has given the U.S. government through today to present evidence justifying the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident. Khalil was arrested in New York and transferred to a detention facility in rural Louisiana, sparking concern over due process and free speech rights. At Tuesday's hearing, Judge Jamee Comans made it clear that if the government cannot prove Khalil is deportable, she will dismiss the case by Friday. She also criticized delays in sharing evidence and emphasized the importance of Khalil's due process rights.Khalil's lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, claims the deportation effort is politically motivated and violates the First Amendment, suggesting that Khalil is being targeted for speaking out in support of Palestinians. The government argues Khalil should be deported under a Cold War-era law that allows removal if an immigrant is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy, and also accuses him of omissions on his green card application—charges he denies.The case has drawn national attention, including a crowded virtual courtroom. A separate habeas petition is also under consideration in federal court, and Khalil cannot be deported while that process plays out. His wife, a U.S. citizen who is expecting their child this month, has been unable to visit him due to her pregnancy.US given one day to show evidence for deporting Columbia University protester Khalil | ReutersA federal judge has ordered President Trump's White House to temporarily lift access restrictions on the Associated Press (AP) while a lawsuit challenging the ban moves forward. The Trump administration had barred AP journalists from events like Oval Office briefings and Air Force One trips after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term, "Gulf of America," instead continuing to refer to the "Gulf of Mexico." U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from excluding journalists based on viewpoint.The ruling, which takes effect Sunday to allow time for appeal, restores the AP's access to White House press events. McFadden emphasized that if some journalists are granted access, others cannot be denied for their editorial stance. The AP sued three senior Trump aides in February, claiming the restrictions were unconstitutional retaliation against protected speech and lacked due process.AP reporters testified that the ban hindered their ability to cover the president, while Justice Department lawyers argued that access to presidential spaces is a privilege, not a right. Press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association welcomed the decision, calling it a win for independent journalism. The case remains ongoing, with a final ruling expected in the coming months.Judge lifts Trump White House restrictions on AP while lawsuit proceeds | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Liz and Andrew sit down with fellow legal podcaster Ken White, AKA “Popehat,” to discuss the Trump administration's attack on law firms. Who's fighting? Who's folding? And who's f—ed? Plus an update on the case of the Maryland man deported to a torture prison in El Salvador, and the legal effort to get him home. And for subscribers: The DC Circuit considers if Humphreys Executor is dead, or just mostly dead? Links: Serious Trouble Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/serious-trouble/id1630160928 Wilcox docket (DC Cir) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69714705/gwynne-wilcox-v-donald-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Abrego Garcia v Noem Docket (4th Cir) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69847836/kilmar-abrego-garcia-v-kristi-noem/ Perkins Coie Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/ Jenner & Block Docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278932/ WilmerHale Docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278933/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod
This Day in Legal History: Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil ServiceOn April 7, 1933, the German government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a key early legal step in the Nazi regime's campaign to marginalize and exclude Jews and political dissenters from public life. The law targeted civil servants, stating that anyone who was not of “Aryan” descent or who held views deemed politically unreliable—especially Communists and Social Democrats—could be dismissed from government service. While phrased in bureaucratic language, the law was a thinly veiled act of political and racial purging. Jewish teachers, professors, judges, and other state employees were removed from their posts, some having served Germany for decades, including veterans of World War I.The law also gave the regime a tool to begin shaping state institutions along Nazi ideological lines. Its vague language about “unreliability” gave officials wide discretion to remove not only Jews but anyone who opposed the Nazis or failed to show sufficient loyalty. Although certain Jewish individuals were temporarily exempted under a “front-line fighter” clause—meant to placate concerns about fairness—the loophole would soon be closed in later legislation.This marked the first legal codification of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, providing a model for further exclusionary laws such as the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. It also demonstrated how laws could be used not only to formalize discrimination but to normalize it, embedding it into the everyday machinery of the state. By disguising oppression as administrative reform, the Nazi government laid the groundwork for a bureaucratic system of persecution that would escalate into far more violent phases in the years to come.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's highest-grossing law firm, is in negotiations with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by an executive order similar to those issued against several of its competitors. The firm reportedly reached out to the White House proactively, hoping to strike a deal that would spare it from the penalties imposed on others—such as revoking security clearances, limiting federal access, or canceling client contracts.Other cowardly firms like Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Milbank have already secured deals involving multimillion-dollar pledges for pro bono legal work aligned with White House priorities. These agreements also include commitments to avoid discriminatory diversity practices and to recruit ideologically diverse attorneys. Kirkland, though not yet the subject of an executive order, is one of 20 firms under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scrutiny following Trump's directives.In 2024, Kirkland earned nearly $9 billion, with its lawyers playing key roles in major private equity and M&A deals, topping Bloomberg Law's transactional rankings. The firm's aggressive style and market dominance have made it a heavyweight in the legal world, and this move signals its intent to shield its interests amid the Trump administration's ongoing pressure campaign against firms seen as politically opposed.$9 billion in earnings is, apparently, not enough to buy a spine. Kirkland Talks Deal With Trump White House, Looks to Avoid OrderMore than 500 law firms have signed onto a court brief supporting Perkins Coie in its legal challenge against a Trump executive order that penalizes the firm over past political work and diversity policies. The brief, filed with U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, criticizes what it describes as a dangerous effort to intimidate the legal profession, warning that legal representation of disfavored causes may now provoke government retaliation. Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on March 11, following Trump's order targeting the firm for its past representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its internal diversity policies. Several firms targeted by similar orders—such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Covington & Burling—have either sued or signed the brief. Others, including once again the aforementioned Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps, reached deals with Trump to avoid formal action.Judge Howell has already blocked parts of Trump's order, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to the legal system's foundations. The White House maintains the orders are lawful exercises of presidential authority. The brief was spearheaded by former Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who now practices at Munger, Tolles & Olson, one of several prominent firms suing the administration over related matters. Many top law firms have stayed silent, but the growing backlash reflects broad concern about the use of presidential power to retaliate against legal opposition. Critics say the executive orders weaponize the law to chill dissent and undercut core legal protections.More than 500 law firms back Perkins Coie suit against punitive Trump order | ReutersA U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been placed on administrative leave after failing to defend the government's actions in a wrongful deportation case that a federal judge described as “wholly lawless.” The case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran migrant with a valid work permit, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that he be returned to Maryland and found no legal basis for his arrest, detention, or deportation, noting he had complied with all immigration requirements and had no criminal record.At a recent hearing, DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni struggled to explain the deportation and admitted he lacked evidence justifying the government's actions. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that Reuveni and his supervisor August Flentje have been sidelined from the case. The administration is appealing the order but has acknowledged in court filings that Abrego Garcia's deportation was a mistake.The deported man is now being held in a high-risk prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration has justified its actions by claiming gang affiliations, though there are no charges against Abrego Garcia. The case highlights broader concerns about due process and immigration enforcement under the current administration, with critics pointing to a pattern of ignoring legal protections in deportation proceedings.US sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: MLK AssassinatedOn April 4, 1968, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. King had traveled to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers, emphasizing his ongoing commitment to economic justice alongside racial equality. His death sent shockwaves through the United States, triggering riots in more than 100 cities and accelerating the passage of key civil rights legislation.King was a central figure in the American civil rights movement, having led campaigns against segregation, voter suppression, and economic inequality. His advocacy relied heavily on nonviolent protest and legal strategies that tested the limits of constitutional protections and federal civil rights enforcement. The assassination drew intense public scrutiny to the federal government's role in protecting civil rights activists.James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, was arrested and charged with King's murder. He pleaded guilty in 1969, avoiding a trial, but later recanted and sought to withdraw the plea. Controversy surrounding the investigation and conviction has persisted for decades, with some—including members of King's own family—questioning whether Ray acted alone or was part of a larger conspiracy.King's assassination directly influenced the U.S. Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited housing discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin. The legislation had faced significant resistance before King's death but was passed just days afterward. His assassination also galvanized greater federal attention to civil rights enforcement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.A group of 12 Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Missouri, has asked 20 major U.S. law firms to provide documentation on their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The request, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, seeks to determine whether the firms' practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In a letter sent Thursday, the states referenced recent concerns raised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had previously asked the same firms for similar information.Paxton cited potential violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that some law firms may use hiring policies that prioritize race, sex, or other protected characteristics. He also pointed to possible state-level violations, including those related to deceptive trade practices. The letter specifically called out programs such as diversity fellowships and hiring goals aimed at increasing representation from historically marginalized groups.The states argue they have authority to investigate and enforce laws that prohibit employment discrimination, including policies that may inadvertently or intentionally favor individuals based on race or other traits. Firms named include top legal players like Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and Skadden, Arps.GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI PracticesRepublicans are considering a significant shift in tax policy by potentially introducing a new top tax bracket for individuals earning $1 million or more annually. The proposed rate, currently under discussion, would range from 39% to 40%, marking a departure from the party's longstanding resistance to tax increases. This idea is part of a broader effort to offset the cost of a multi-trillion dollar tax package being developed by Trump administration allies and Republican lawmakers.Also on the table is a return to the 39.6% top income tax rate previously enacted during the Obama administration, replacing the current 37% rate for high earners. The GOP aims to pass the new tax legislation within months, renewing provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act while incorporating new deductions and reforms to appeal to middle- and working-class voters.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized the urgency of making Trump's earlier tax cuts permanent and stabilizing markets following recent tariff announcements. The evolving plan reflects a broader ideological shift within the Republican Party toward more populist economic messaging.To help pay for the new tax measures, the proposal also includes eliminating the carried interest loophole used by hedge fund and private equity managers and expanding deductions such as those for car loan interest and tipped wages. Trump's campaign promises — including removing taxes on overtime pay and Social Security benefits — are being considered for inclusion as well.Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - BloombergOver 300 law professors from top institutions, along with legal advocacy groups across the political spectrum, have filed court briefs supporting Perkins Coie in its lawsuit against an executive order issued by Trump. The order, signed on March 6, penalizes the law firm for its work with Hillary Clinton and its internal diversity policies by restricting its access to federal buildings, officials, and contracts. Professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford argued the order is unconstitutional and undermines the independence of the legal profession.Their brief warned that targeting a firm for political reasons threatens any lawyer or firm that chooses to oppose the president in court, calling the order a dangerous precedent. Advocacy groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute echoed that concern, labeling Trump's action an attack on the legal system and a threat to Americans' right to legal representation.The White House responded by defending the order as a lawful measure to align federal partnerships with the administration's policies, criticizing the lawsuit as an attempt to preserve "government perks." Meanwhile, the Justice Department has requested that a Washington federal judge dismiss the lawsuit. Other firms named in similar orders — Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have also filed suits, while some, like Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, have made agreements with the White House to avoid sanctions.Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | ReutersThis week's closing music comes from one of the most innovative and influential composers of the 20th century: Igor Stravinsky. Known for revolutionary works like The Rite of Spring and The Firebird, Stravinsky continually reinvented his style throughout his long career. Born in 1882 near St. Petersburg, Russia, and passing away on April 6, 1971, in New York City, Stravinsky's life spanned continents, world wars, and artistic upheavals. While he is best remembered for his large-scale ballets and orchestral works, he also composed for smaller forms, including a fascinating piece titled simply Tango.Composed in 1940, Tango marks Stravinsky's first original composition written entirely in the United States after his move from Europe. At the time, he was living in Hollywood and adapting to a new cultural and musical environment. The piece is short, dark, and rhythmically sharp—more brooding than danceable—and carries the flavor of the tango tradition filtered through Stravinsky's idiosyncratic, angular style. It was originally written for piano, though Stravinsky later orchestrated it.Tango reflects Stravinsky's interest in blending traditional forms with modernist dissonance and unpredictability. It's a brief but compelling listen that offers a very different side of a composer often associated with thunderous orchestras and ballet scandals. Its rhythmic complexity and stark character echo the uncertainties of the time it was written, just as World War II was escalating. The piece serves as a reminder that even in exile, Stravinsky continued to experiment, innovate, and absorb new influences. As we remember his death on April 6, Tango is a fitting close—wry, lean, and unmistakably Stravinsky.Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky's Tango — enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: Smith v. AllwrightOn April 3, 1944, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Smith v. Allwright, reshaping the landscape of voting rights in the American South. The case centered on Lonnie E. Smith, a Black voter from Texas who was denied the right to vote in the Democratic Party's primary election due to a party rule that only allowed white voters to participate. At the time, the Democratic primary was the only meaningful election in many Southern states, as the party dominated politics, making exclusion from the primary tantamount to disenfranchisement.The Texas Democratic Party argued that, as a private organization, it had the right to determine its own membership and voting rules. However, the Court, in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, held that primaries were an integral part of the electoral process and could not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The justices concluded that excluding Black voters from primaries violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.This ruling effectively overturned the Court's 1935 decision in Grovey v. Townsend, which had upheld the use of white primaries. The Smith decision marked a critical step toward dismantling the legal architecture of Jim Crow voter suppression. While states continued to use other tactics to limit Black political power, the ruling energized civil rights activists and laid the foundation for future litigation.By reasserting federal authority over state electoral practices, Smith v. Allwright signaled a turning point in the judicial battle against racial segregation and disenfranchisement. It also demonstrated the Court's growing willingness to confront systemic racism in voting, a commitment that would deepen during the civil rights era. This case is remembered as one of the pivotal moments in the long struggle for voting rights in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld the FDA's authority to deny applications for flavored vaping products, supporting actions taken during the Biden administration under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act. The unanimous ruling rejected arguments from companies like Triton Distribution and Vapetasia LLC, which claimed the FDA unfairly imposed new testing requirements and ignored their marketing plans. These companies had applied to sell flavors like “Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.”The Court found the FDA's approach consistent with its earlier guidance, despite claims from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the agency had pulled a “regulatory switcheroo.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, agreeing with most of the FDA's decisions but sending the case back to the appeals court to reassess whether the agency erred in refusing to consider the companies' marketing plans—an element the FDA had previously called “critical” for evaluating youth appeal.Though the ruling solidifies the FDA's regulatory role, its long-term impact is uncertain. President Trump, in furtherance of his undying effort to always be on the wrong side of everything, has promised to “save vaping,” though his campaign never clarified what that means in terms of future regulation. The case, FDA v. Wages and White Lion, leaves the appeals court to decide whether any procedural missteps by the FDA were ultimately harmless.Supreme Court Largely Backs Biden-Era FDA on Flavored Vapes (1)Elon Musk's time in Washington as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) appears to be nearing its end. Both Musk and President Trump have hinted that his departure is imminent, with Trump noting that DGE itself “will end.” Originally designed as a temporary advisory panel to cut federal costs, DGE has morphed into a more integrated part of the government, staffed with Musk allies tasked with canceling contracts and slashing budgets.However, signs of a wind-down are emerging. DGE staff are being reassigned to federal agencies, layoffs are underway, and the organization's influence seems to be diminishing. Musk, a special government employee limited to 130 working days per year, is approaching that limit, though neither he nor the administration has confirmed when his tenure will end.Musk's recent political involvement also took a hit when his preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court lost, despite significant financial backing and a campaign visit. Tesla's 13% drop in quarterly sales adds further pressure. Trump praised Musk's contributions but acknowledged his corporate obligations, suggesting a graceful exit is likely rather than a public fallout.DGE had once shared leadership between Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy left to run for Ohio governor. While Musk boasted about aiming to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, critics say the group's progress has been overstated. Despite speculation, Trump hasn't committed to keeping DGE operational post-Musk, indicating the administration may be moving to a new phase of governance.Musk could be headed for a Washington exit after turbulent times at Trump's DOGE | AP NewsPresident Donald Trump announced a new agreement with law firm Milbank, marking another chapter in the growing divide among U.S. law firms over how to handle pressure from his administration. According to Trump's Truth Social post, Milbank initiated the deal, which includes a commitment to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes like veterans' support and combating antisemitism.The agreement comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to punish firms that have opposed or challenged his policies. Several law firms—such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have filed lawsuits seeking to block executive orders they claim were retaliatory and violated constitutional protections of free speech and due process. Federal judges recently issued temporary blocks on parts of those orders.In contrast, other firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr have opted for settlement-style deals with the administration to avoid similar sanctions. Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, reportedly described the agreement as aligned with the firm's values and praised the productive talks with the administration.This situation underscores a growing rift in the legal community: some firms are resisting what they see as political coercion, while others are choosing cooperation to preserve their standing with the federal government.Trump reaches agreement with Milbank law firm | ReutersPresident Trump announced a sweeping new tariff policy during a Rose Garden press conference, unveiling a "reciprocal" trade strategy aimed at countering what he described as decades of unfair treatment by U.S. trading partners. Holding a copy of a government report titled Foreign Trade Barriers, Trump declared that the U.S. will now impose tariffs that are approximately half the rate other countries charge American exports—but with a minimum baseline tariff of 10%, and many rates going significantly higher.Countries hit with new tariffs include:* China: 34%* European Union: 20%* Japan: 24%* South Korea: 25%* Switzerland: 31%* United Kingdom: 10%* Taiwan: 32%* Malaysia: 24%* India: 26%* Brazil: 10%* Indonesia: 32%* Vietnam: 46%* Singapore: 10%Trump also confirmed a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles, stacking on the above-referenced rates, effective at midnight, and pointed to motorcycle tariffs as a key example of longstanding trade imbalances. He argued that U.S. manufacturers face rates as high as 75% abroad, while the U.S. imposes just 2.4%.The president justified the move as necessary to protect American jobs and industry, singling out countries like Canada and Mexico for benefiting from U.S. subsidies and defense spending. Detroit autoworker Brian Pannebecker spoke in support, calling Trump's actions a hopeful step toward revitalizing shuttered factories.While Trump emphasized that the tariffs fall short of full reciprocity to avoid overwhelming allies, he made clear the era of what he called “economic surrender” was over. The announcement included plans to sign an executive order formalizing the new tariff regime, which boosted U.S. stock futures as markets reacted positively to the aggressive trade stance. Oh no I'm sorry, I got that wrong: stock futures tanked. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.
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.
A great divide is developing. ----- Following the Paul Weiss surrender we discussed last week, Skadden preemptively followed suit agreeing to commit $100M in pro bono payola to the MAGA cause. Bringing to light some embarrassing email policies in the process. But other Biglaw firms showed a little more life, with Jenner & Block and WilmerHale suing the administration over its retaliatory executive orders. And a major firm announced an end to on-campus recruiting, which seems like a bad policy for both students and the firm. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Beginning in February, President Donald Trump issued a series of orders targeting law firms that he claims have engaged in “conduct detrimental to critical American interests.” The firms named in the orders — Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — have previously represented clients or hired lawyers that opposed Trump and his administration. Several firms have brought lawsuits to challenge the executive actions, while others have sought deals with the White House. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast here, our “Under the Radar” story here and today's “Have a nice day” story here.Take the survey: What do you think about President Trump's orders targeting law firms? Let us know here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
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
This Day in Legal History: Civilian Conservation Corps Created by FDROn this day in legal history, March 31, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Senate Bill S. 598, creating the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) as part of his sweeping New Deal agenda. The CCC was a rapid-response effort to the economic devastation of the Great Depression, designed to provide immediate employment to young, unemployed men. Within weeks of its creation, the program began enrolling thousands, ultimately putting over 3 million men to work during its nine-year run.The CCC operated under the Department of Labor, War Department, and Department of Agriculture, reflecting its blend of social welfare, environmental stewardship, and federal coordination. Workers were paid $30 per month, $25 of which was sent home to support their families—a vital lifeline during a time of widespread poverty. Projects included reforestation, flood control, soil erosion prevention, and the construction of trails and facilities in national and state parks.Legally, the CCC represented an expansion of federal authority into economic and environmental realms, and it raised constitutional questions about the scope of executive power during peacetime. While the Supreme Court would later strike down some New Deal programs, the CCC escaped judicial invalidation, in part due to its voluntary nature and its framing as a public works program rather than a federal jobs guarantee.The CCC's legal structure helped shape future federal employment and environmental programs, and it laid the groundwork for later conservation efforts like the Soil Conservation Service and aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency. March 31, 1933, thus marks not just the birth of a New Deal agency, but a foundational moment in the legal history of federal labor and environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit linked to the Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, seeking a religious exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argues that the state's denial of the exemption violates the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom and church autonomy. Wisconsin law allows such exemptions only for organizations "operated primarily for religious purposes," a standard the state Supreme Court ruled the charities failed to meet due to their primarily secular social service work.The Catholic Charities Bureau, founded in 1917, provides services like job placement and home visits for people with disabilities but does not require employees or service recipients to be Catholic. After one of its affiliates was granted an exemption in a separate case, the Bureau and other affiliates sought similar treatment in 2016. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2024 decision upheld the tax requirement, stating the group's activities were charitable rather than religious.The case has broader implications for how courts distinguish between religious and secular work, with critics warning that a ruling in favor of the charities could allow large religiously affiliated organizations to bypass many government regulations, jeopardizing benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers. The decision is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear a related case on April 30 concerning a proposed taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.US Supreme Court to hear Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | ReutersCatholic Charities Case Poised to Shape Religious Tax ExemptionsTwo federal judges have temporarily blocked major parts of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, which had been involved in legal efforts against his administration. The firms sued the Trump administration, arguing that the orders violated constitutional protections of free expression and due process. U.S. District Judge John Bates criticized Trump's order against Jenner & Block as “reprehensible,” especially for targeting the firm's pro bono work on behalf of immigrants and transgender individuals. He warned the order threatened the firm's existence by aiming to cancel its clients' federal contracts and restrict access to federal facilities and courts.In a separate ruling, Judge Richard Leon blocked similar provisions in the order against WilmerHale, calling it retaliatory and a threat to the public interest and justice system. However, he allowed a clause suspending the firm's security clearances to stand. Trump has signed orders targeting five law firms to date, and several—including Perkins Coie—have already challenged them in court with partial success.Meanwhile, law firms Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss reached deals with the White House to avoid being targeted. Skadden agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal work and implement merit-based hiring, while Paul Weiss pledged $40 million toward mutually agreed causes. The executive orders mainly cited the firms' past involvement in investigations into Trump, especially the Mueller probe. Critics argue the orders are politically motivated attempts to punish opposition and intimidate legal advocates.Judges block Trump orders targeting two law firms as Skadden cuts deal | ReutersTwo labor agency officials fired by President Donald Trump—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board—will not be immediately reinstated, following a decision by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court declined to pause its earlier order that temporarily blocked lower court rulings which had reinstated the officials. Judges Karen Henderson and Justin Walker sided with the administration, while Judge Patricia Millett dissented.This legal battle tests the limits of presidential authority to remove officials from independent agencies, despite statutory protections meant to insulate them from political pressure. While trial courts previously ruled the firings were unlawful, the appeals court has halted those decisions from taking effect for now. The panel's latest order did not include an explanation of its reasoning.Wilcox and Harris may still ask the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the panel's ruling, but Sunday's denial of an administrative stay could influence their next steps. Meanwhile, a broader decision on whether Congress can limit the president's power to fire certain agency officials is expected to be taken up in oral arguments scheduled for May 16. The issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, given its potential to reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.Fired Agency Officials Lose Attempt at Immediate ReinstatementFrench antitrust regulators fined Apple €150 million (about $162.4 million) for abusing its dominant market position through its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) tool, marking the first time any regulator has penalized the company over this feature. The ATT tool, introduced by Apple on iPhones and iPads, allows users to control which apps can track their activity. While Apple framed it as a privacy measure, digital advertisers and mobile gaming companies argued it made advertising more difficult and disproportionately impacted smaller publishers reliant on third-party data.The French Competition Authority found that while privacy protection is a legitimate goal, Apple's implementation of ATT was neither necessary nor proportionate and unfairly favored its own services. The decision followed complaints from several advertising and media associations, who hailed the ruling as a major win for their industries.Despite the fine, Apple is not currently required to change the tool's design. However, regulators emphasized that it is Apple's responsibility to ensure compliance going forward. Apple, expressing disappointment with the decision, noted that investigations into ATT are ongoing in other European countries including Germany, Italy, Poland, and Romania.Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Marc Elias joins to discuss the legal smackdown dealt against Trump's grudge-filled crusade against private law firms. Plus, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons on his call for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to resign for his role in the Signal-gate security fiasco.
*** Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code OPENING at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/opening *** OA1143 - In the past month, Donald Trump has issued a series of truly fascist orders targeting some of the country's best-known law firms for crimes ranging from hiring people Trump doesn't like personally to doing some favors for special counsel Jack Smith to flagrantly hiring non-white non-men. What is actually in these orders, and how bad is it that one of leading litigation firms in the country gave in to Trump's demands without a fight? And what will it mean for the already-overloaded immigration court system when they start going after immigration lawyers as they have also promised? Former NYC Biglaw associate (and current NYC public defender) Liz Skeen joins to help us to understand this uniquely un-American moment in American legal history. (UPDATE: This episode was recorded shortly before news broke about the Trump administration taking action against major US law firms Wilmer Hale and Skadden Arps.) Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block (3/25/25) Addressing Remedial Action by Paul Weiss (3/25/25) Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court (3/22/25) Addressing Risks From Paul, Weiss (3/14/25) Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLC (3/6/25) Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government Contracts (Covington & Burling LLP)(2/25/25) “Complicity in the Perversion of Justice: The Role of Lawyers in Eroding the Rule of Law in the Third Reich,” Cythnia Fountaine, St. Mary's Journal of Legal Ethics (2020) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
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
As I stand outside the courthouse on this chilly March morning in 2025, I can't help but reflect on the whirlwind of legal proceedings that have surrounded former President Donald Trump over the past few months. It's been a rollercoaster ride of verdicts, appeals, and new indictments that have kept the nation on the edge of its seat.Just last week, we saw the conclusion of Trump's New York case, where he was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Justice Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge on January 10th, a surprisingly lenient outcome that left many legal experts scratching their heads.But the drama didn't end there. The federal cases against Trump in Washington D.C. and Florida took unexpected turns after his 2024 election victory. Special Counsel Jack Smith's case in Florida was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department's subsequent appeal was dropped in November, effectively ending that prosecution.Meanwhile, the D.C. case faced its own hurdles. Judge Tanya Chutkan vacated the original trial date while the Supreme Court considered Trump's immunity claim. When the high court remanded the case back to the district court in August, it seemed the trial might proceed. However, in a shocking turn of events, Judge Chutkan granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss the case in December.As if these developments weren't enough, Trump's administration has been busy issuing controversial executive orders. Just yesterday, he signed an order suspending security clearances for employees of the law firm WilmerHale, citing national security concerns and accusing the firm of partisan activities.But perhaps the most intriguing case on the horizon is set to unfold next week. On March 24th, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in a case known as J.G.G. et al. v. Donald Trump et al. While details are scarce, this case could potentially challenge some of Trump's recent executive actions.As I watch the lawyers and journalists rush into the courthouse, I can't help but wonder what new legal twist awaits us today. One thing's for certain: the Trump trials continue to captivate the nation, reshaping our understanding of presidential power and the limits of the law.
This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim ArkOn March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who were legally residing in the U.S. but ineligible for naturalization due to prevailing immigration laws. After a visit to China in 1895, he was denied re-entry on the grounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.The Court rejected the government's argument that children of Chinese immigrants were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship. In a 6–2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. This decision established a major precedent for interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil.The ruling came during a period of intense anti-Chinese sentiment, when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its extensions aimed to restrict Chinese immigration and civil rights. Wong Kim Ark was a significant rebuke to efforts that sought to limit the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants, and it laid the foundation for future interpretations of birthright citizenship.The Senate's vote to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $5 cap on overdraft fees is a clear signal: protecting bank profits matters more to Senate Republicans than shielding consumers from predatory financial practices. With a 52-48 vote, Republicans—joined by only one Democrat—moved to dismantle a regulation designed to curb exploitative overdraft charges that routinely hit working-class Americans the hardest.This isn't a technical policy disagreement—it's a choice to side with an industry that routinely charges Americans up to $35 for covering small shortfalls, even when the overdrafted amount is often less than the fee itself. The CFPB's rule was narrow, targeting only large banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, and still allowed higher fees if justified by actual costs. It was a modest, evidence-based consumer protection measure.The financial industry's immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable.No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They'll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment's reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they're looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity. Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1)Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale's clients, revoke lawyers' security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller's investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.Trump criticized Mueller's investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies.WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump's agenda.Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2)Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a Labor Department rule that would force grant recipients to abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago, halts a two-week enforcement window of a January executive order that required organizations receiving federal funds to certify they don't operate any DEI initiatives—even those unrelated to their grants.The case was brought by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit that trains women for skilled labor jobs and receives federal funding. The judge sided with CWIT's argument that the DEI restriction violates First Amendment protections, noting that such a rule could pressure grantees into self-censorship. Kennelly also blocked the Labor Department from terminating CWIT's funding under Trump's directive to eliminate “equity-related grants,” though this protection applies only to CWIT and not nationwide.Kennelly's order represents a legal pushback against Trump's broader effort to dismantle DEI initiatives across government agencies and contractors. While a federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary ban on DEI programs in federal agencies and contracting businesses, this ruling suggests courts may scrutinize how far the administration can go in policing DEI-related activity outside direct federal oversight.The ruling underscores an emerging legal battleground over free speech, anti-discrimination law, and the limits of executive authority in regulating DEI efforts.Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve Signal messages exchanged by top officials regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The messages, inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic, revealed internal discussions involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about timing and targets of attacks against the Houthi militant group. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling mandates that all Signal messages sent between March 11 and March 15 be retained by the agencies involved.The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a government watchdog group, which argued that the use of auto-deleting messaging apps like Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. The lawsuit doesn't focus on the national security aspects of the disclosure but rather on the legal obligation of government agencies to preserve official communications.The controversy deepened after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized Boasberg, accusing him of political bias and claiming he was attempting to obstruct Trump's agenda. Trump himself has previously called for Boasberg's impeachment after the judge blocked a deportation policy targeting Venezuelan migrants—an action later upheld by an appeals court.The White House has not commented on the matter, but the episode has sparked scrutiny over the administration's handling of sensitive military planning and whether efforts to bypass official communication channels undermine transparency and accountability.Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Sergei Rachmaninoff.This week's closing theme is one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable moments in all of classical music: Variation XVIII from Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 by Sergei Rachmaninoff, in a solo piano arrangement by Schultz. Rachmaninoff composed the Rhapsody in 1934 during his later years in exile from Russia, blending his romantic sensibilities with virtuoso brilliance. The work is a set of 24 variations on the 24th Caprice by Niccolò Paganini, itself a legendary theme known for dazzling technical demands.While most of the piece is fiery and rhythmic, the 18th variation stands apart—lyrical, sweeping, and emotionally expansive. In fact, it's a musical inversion of Paganini's theme, reimagined as a lush romantic melody that seems to rise straight out of the piano's depths. Rachmaninoff himself admitted it was his favorite part of the piece, and it's easy to understand why: it's tender, grand, and full of longing.This solo arrangement by Schultz pares down the orchestral drama but keeps all the expressive power, letting the piano sing with full-hearted warmth. The variation has since transcended its classical origins, appearing in films, commercials, and pop culture, yet it never loses its emotional punch. It's the kind of music that doesn't need explanation—it just resonates.Rachmaninoff, ever the late Romantic in a century veering toward modernism, poured his soul into his music. This variation, placed deep in a virtuosic whirlwind, emerges like a moment of clarity—an unguarded confession in a storm. Let it carry you out this week. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This week, Olivia is joined by Joint Managing Director Ben Girdlestone to discuss the latest updates on Trump's ongoing battle with big law, including his recent executive order against WilmerHale. They also cover the news that Linklaters is on track to meet its gender diversity targets with the promotion of 34 new partners.Thank you for Listening!
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.
The world of business development and marketing in law firms is constantly changing as professionals work to adapt to new challenges, integrate technology, and redefine the ways to meet client needs. Today on the CMO Series Podcast, James Barclay is joined by Joe Palermo, Chief Operating Officer at Crowell & Moring, and Greg Fleischmann, Director of Client Development at WilmerHale, to discuss the major shifts that are shaping the legal marketing profession for the next few years. Joe, Greg and James cover: The last 5 years in legal marketing and the biggest shift within the profession How the role of marketing is changing in law firms The challenges and opportunities of taking on more client-facing roles How the role of CMO will potentially evolve in law firms in the next few years The key skills necessary for CMOs to thrive in 2025 and beyond How integrating AI tools can enhance client services and operational efficiency in legal marketing Advice for law firm leaders looking to adapt and equip their marketing and BD functions in the future
In this episode of the New York City Bar Association podcast, moderated by Jerome Walker, two legal experts, Tiffany Smith from WilmerHale and Stuart Levy from Skadden Arps, analyze President Trump's January 23rd, 2025 Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology. They compare it with President Biden's previous executive order, discussing the balance between innovation and risk, potential impacts on the digital assets industry, regulatory clarifications, and international competition. The experts also emphasize the need for balanced, cautious optimism while engaging with both federal and state regulators. If you're interested in learning more about cryptocurrency and regulatory treatment of digital financial technology, join us for the City Bar's Crypto Institute on March 11 (https://services.nycbar.org/Institute/ and available thereafter on-demand). Visit nycbar.org/events to find all of the most up-to-date information about our upcoming programs and events. 00:29 Overview of President Trump's Executive Order 06:36 Discussion on Regulatory Environment 09:47 Advice for Stakeholders and Lawyers 22:24 State-Level Responses to Executive Order 28:28 International Perspective on Digital Assets 33:17 Policy Debate on Digital Asset Laws 37:23 Comparing Biden and Trump Administration Approaches 40:17 Future of Digital Asset Regulation 51:46 Conclusion and Closing Remarks
For some people, retirement is an opportunity to kick back and finally relax. But for Roger M. Witten, it was a chance to finally tackle that book he'd been thinking about writing. With a little help from longtime friends and colleagues, Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law was born. Witten's aim was to reach a general audience and given them an idea about what a life in the law could look like outside the most well-known bounds of a criminal justice, Law & Order career. The result is a series of short, digestible anecdotes from 20 attorneys, talking about memorable cases, clients and conundrums they had. A reader could flip to any chapter in Legal Briefs and spend an enjoyable 5-10 minutes getting a snapshot from a contributor's career. Witten himself shares how he became an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, he tells host Lee Rawles about defending a wise guy client code-named Ted, who nicknamed Witten "Witless" and threw a party with a banner reading "Ted - 1, FBI - 0" when they reached a successful plea agreement. Many of the contributors to the book of essays were involved in government litigation and complex corporate matters. Witten himself was one of the foremost litigators handling Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, and before his retirement was a senior litigation partner in WilmerHale's New York office. In this episode he also shares his perspective as a former Watergate prosecutor on current events within the federal government since the Trump Administration began, and recounts his experience with the late Sen. John McCain while defending campaign finance reforms.
For some people, retirement is an opportunity to kick back and finally relax. But for Roger M. Witten, it was a chance to finally tackle that book he'd been thinking about writing. With a little help from longtime friends and colleagues, Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law was born. Witten's aim was to reach a general audience and given them an idea about what a life in the law could look like outside the most well-known bounds of a criminal justice, Law & Order career. The result is a series of short, digestible anecdotes from 20 attorneys, talking about memorable cases, clients and conundrums they had. A reader could flip to any chapter in Legal Briefs and spend an enjoyable 5-10 minutes getting a snapshot from a contributor's career. Witten himself shares how he became an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, he tells host Lee Rawles about defending a wise guy client code-named Ted, who nicknamed Witten "Witless" and threw a party with a banner reading "Ted - 1, FBI - 0" when they reached a successful plea agreement. Many of the contributors to the book of essays were involved in government litigation and complex corporate matters. Witten himself was one of the foremost litigators handling Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, and before his retirement was a senior litigation partner in WilmerHale's New York office. In this episode he also shares his perspective as a former Watergate prosecutor on current events within the federal government since the Trump Administration began, and recounts his experience with the late Sen. John McCain while defending campaign finance reforms. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For some people, retirement is an opportunity to kick back and finally relax. But for Roger M. Witten, it was a chance to finally tackle that book he'd been thinking about writing. With a little help from longtime friends and colleagues, Legal Briefs: The Ups and Downs of Life in the Law was born. Witten's aim was to reach a general audience and given them an idea about what a life in the law could look like outside the most well-known bounds of a criminal justice, Law & Order career. The result is a series of short, digestible anecdotes from 20 attorneys, talking about memorable cases, clients and conundrums they had. A reader could flip to any chapter in Legal Briefs and spend an enjoyable 5-10 minutes getting a snapshot from a contributor's career. Witten himself shares how he became an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in the 1970s. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, he tells host Lee Rawles about defending a wise guy client code-named Ted, who nicknamed Witten "Witless" and threw a party with a banner reading "Ted - 1, FBI - 0" when they reached a successful plea agreement. Many of the contributors to the book of essays were involved in government litigation and complex corporate matters. Witten himself was one of the foremost litigators handling Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases, and before his retirement was a senior litigation partner in WilmerHale's New York office. In this episode he also shares his perspective as a former Watergate prosecutor on current events within the federal government since the Trump Administration began, and recounts his experience with the late Sen. John McCain while defending campaign finance reforms.
Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.
Speaker: Gregory Fox, Wayne State UniversityDate: Friday Lunchtime Lecture - Friday 24 January 2025Summary: Does international law place any constraints on a possible Ukraine-Russia peace agreement? While we can only speculate about its contents, two aspects appear certain: Ukraine will be asked to relinquish (at a minimum) territory now occupied by Russia, and it will only contemplate entering into an agreement because Russia invaded its territory. Professor Fox will examine the implications of these and other factors for the validity of an agreement.Gregory H. Fox is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University School of Law, where he is the Director of the Program for International Legal Studies. Professor Fox is an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has been a Visiting Professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City, a Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University, a Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Public International Law and Comparative Public Law in Heidelberg, Germany, and a Fellow at the Schell Center for Human Rights at Yale Law School, among other institutions. Professor Fox has written widely on a variety of international law topics, including civil war peace agreements, the powers of the UN Security Council, international occupation law, international control of territory, and international efforts to promote democratic governance. His most recent article, Of Looting, Land and Loss: The New International Law of Takings, was published in Volume 65 of the Harvard International Law Journal. Professor Fox was co-counsel to the State of Eritrea in the Zukar-Hanish arbitration with the Republic of Yemen concerning the status of a group of islands in the southern Red Sea. He has also served as counsel in several human rights cases in US courts. Professor Fox was the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation/Social Science Research Council Fellowship in International Peace and Security. He began his career in the Litigation Department of the firm Hale & Dorr, now WilmerHale. He is a graduate of Bates College and New York University Law School.
Jeremy Robbins is the Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. Previously, Jeremy spent more than a decade building New American Economy, the think tank and advocacy organization founded by Michael Bloomberg to make the economic case for smarter immigration policies, as NAE's first and sole Executive Director. Prior to that, Jeremy served as a policy advisor and special counsel in the Office of New York City Mayor, a judicial law clerk on the United States Court of Appeals, a Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Fellow working on prisoners' rights issues in Argentina, and a litigation associate at WilmerHale in Boston, where he was part of the firm's team representing six Bosnian men detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Jeremy received a JD from Yale Law School and a BA in political science from Brown University. In this episode, you'll hear about: Challenges and reforms in U.S. immigration policy Examination of border management and immigration efficiency Impact of enforcement spending and immigration court backlogs Role of undocumented workers in the U.S. economy Advocacy for a startup visa and immigration change American Immigration Council's efforts in supporting immigrant communities Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremy-adam-robbins Website - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ Email - jrobbins@immcouncil.org Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 16: E-2 Visa for Founders and Employees Episode 19: Australian Visas Including E-3 Episode 20: TN Visas and Status for Canadian and Mexican Citizens Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Alcorn Academy course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code EAB20 for 20% off the enrollment fee.
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.
Gen X Amplified with Adrion Porter: Leadership | Personal Development | Future of Work
On this episode of Gen X Amplified, I am joined by Stephen Bailey, Stephen is the CEO and co-founder of ExecOnline, a corporate training company that partners with the world's top business schools to offer leadership development on demand to enterprise organizations. ExecOnline is on a mission to connect all leaders to their future potential by disrupting and democratizing corporate learning. Some of ExecOnline's Partner schools include Stanford, Wharton, Berkeley Haas, Chicago Booth, UVA Darden School of Business, Columbia, Duke, MIT-Sloan, Yale, and others. In this episode, Stephen and I unpack: Stephen's career journey from “recovered lawyer” to startup founder and eventually becoming the co-founder and CEO of ExecOnline The “aha moment” from Stephen's experience as the CEO of a previous startup that led to launching ExecOnline Many of the high-impact initiatives the ExecOnline team are currently focusing on Why there is a meaningful difference between mentoring and learning The impact of large language models and generative AI on the learning economy And more! Stephen's Personal Theme Song “Right Above It” (feat. Drake) by Lil Wayne About Stephen Bailey Stephen is the co-founder and CEO of ExecOnline, a B2B corporate training company that partners with the world's top business schools to offer leadership development on demand to enterprise organizations. Its mission is to connect all leaders to their future potential by disprupting and democratizing corporate learning. When Stephen launched ExecOnline, his vision was to combine the engagement of traditional on-campus and role-based applied learning — with the convenience and scale of an online experience—for all levels of leadership. Therefore, creating a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive leadership pipeline within the world of work. ExecOnline has been named to the Global Silicon Valley EdTech 150, and also recognized as a “Technology Company to Watch” by Forbes. Prior to ExecOnline, Stephen served as the CEO of Frontier Strategy Group (FSG), a software and information services business. He grew FSG from an early-stage start-up to a company that served nearly half the Fortune 500 across a range of international markets and business functions. Prior to his role as CEO, he was FSG's first Chief Product Officer. Before joining FSG, Stephen was an associate in the venture capital and private equity group of WilmerHale. Stephen is also the Board Chair of the Truman Center for National Policy and member of the Board of Prospect Schools, a charter school network in NYC. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude from Emory University and holds a JD from the Yale Law School. Stephen has been an EdTech pioneer and champion of the “learning economy” ever since he recognized the vast leadership gap many years ago. Thank you for listening! Thank you so very much for listening to the podcast. There are so many other shows out there, so the fact that you took the time to listen in really means a lot! Subscribe to Gen X Amplified!
Hester M. Peirce (appointed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by President Donald J. Trump), shares insights into the SEC's role in enforcing laws amidst rapid technological advancements. We also explore balancing innovation with consumer protection, and emphasizing the need to rethink outdated legislation along with how regulatory clarity can foster more innovation. Key Takeaways: The importance of public engagement with regulatory bodies to shape future policies constructively Weighing the need for innovation against the risks of misuse and surveillance The role of the SEC within the crypto space and the attitudes of the agency towards emerging technologies The ways technology can advance responsibly, while still safeguarding personal liberties and addressing governmental concerns Guest Bio: Hester M. Peirce was appointed by President Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and was sworn in on January 11, 2018. Prior to joining the SEC, Commissioner Peirce conducted research on the regulation of financial markets at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. She was a Senior Counsel on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where she advised Ranking Member Richard Shelby and other members of the Committee on securities issues. Commissioner Peirce served as counsel to SEC Commissioner Paul S. Atkins. She also worked as a Staff Attorney in the SEC's Division of Investment Management. Commissioner Peirce was an associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (now WilmerHale) and clerked for Judge Roger Andewelt on the Court of Federal Claims. Commissioner Peirce earned her bachelor's degree in Economics from Case Western Reserve University, and her JD from Yale Law School. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this Show: The Brave Technologist is here to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of emerging tech. To make it digestible, less scary, and more approachable for all! Join us as we embark on a mission to demystify artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo, and empower everyday people to embrace the digital revolution. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a curious mind, or an industry professional, this podcast invites you to join the conversation and explore the future of AI together. The Brave Technologist Podcast is hosted by Luke Mulks, VP Business Operations at Brave Software—makers of the privacy-respecting Brave browser and Search engine, and now powering AI everywhere with the Brave Search API. Music by: Ari Dvorin Produced by: Sam Laliberte
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
