Minimum Competence – Détails, épisodes et analyse

This Day in Legal History: 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution 

On February 27, 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, formally limiting the president to two terms in office. This amendment was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency, which spanned the Great Depression and World War II. Before Roosevelt, no president had served more than two terms, following the precedent set by George Washington. However, there was no constitutional restriction preventing a president from seeking additional terms.  

Roosevelt’s long tenure raised concerns about excessive executive power and the potential for an elected leader to hold office indefinitely. After his death in 1945, Congress moved to ensure that no future president could serve more than two terms. The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the required number of states in 1951. It states that no person may be elected president more than twice or serve more than ten years in cases where a vice president assumes the role due to a predecessor’s death or resignation.  

Since its ratification, the 22nd Amendment has shaped U.S. presidential politics, preventing any leader from holding office for more than eight years. Some have argued that it protects democracy by preventing the concentration of power, while others believe it limits voter choice. Despite occasional calls for repeal, the amendment remains in effect, reinforcing the principle of regular transitions of power.

A federal court is scrutinizing the role of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) in cutting U.S. government spending, raising questions about transparency and legality. At a hearing, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer on Musk’s authority but received vague answers. Multiple lawsuits argue that DGE, which operates with secrecy, wields power beyond what is constitutionally allowed for agencies that require congressional approval or Senate confirmation.

Despite Musk’s public claims of leadership, the White House insists he is not an official DGE employee. Courts have been divided on the issue, with some judges refusing to block DGE’s actions due to a lack of clear evidence of immediate harm. However, Judge Jeannette Vargas temporarily restricted DGE’s access to Treasury Department systems over concerns about unauthorized data access.

The Trump administration’s shifting characterizations of DGE—sometimes calling it an agency, other times not—have further complicated legal battles. One judge described it as a “Goldilocks entity,” molded to fit legal needs. While some courts are hesitant to act without stronger evidence, ongoing lawsuits seek to bring DGE’s operations into clearer legal scrutiny.

'Where is Mr. Musk in all of this?' Judges question secrecy of DOGE's activities | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who claims she was denied a promotion and later demoted due to her sexual orientation. Ames alleges that in 2019, her gay supervisor promoted a less qualified gay woman and replaced her with a gay man. The case challenges a legal standard that requires plaintiffs from majority groups—such as white or heterosexual individuals—to provide extra evidence of workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

Ames’ lawyer argued that Title VII protects all individuals from discrimination, not just historically marginalized groups. The state of Ohio, her former employer, countered that Ames had not proven bias, noting that decision-makers may not have even known her sexual orientation. Some justices expressed concern that ruling for Ames could flood the courts with discrimination claims. Others questioned whether the heightened standard for majority-group plaintiffs improperly excludes valid cases.  

The case comes amid increasing lawsuits from white and straight workers alleging "reverse discrimination," as well as political pushback against diversity and inclusion programs. A ruling in Ames' favor could make it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to challenge employment decisions, potentially reshaping workplace discrimination law.

US Supreme Court hears straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case | Reuters

President Donald Trump’s decision to designate Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations introduces new legal risks for U.S. businesses and migrants. The February 19 designation applies to groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua, allowing the Justice Department to prosecute cartel leaders for terrorism. However, legal experts warn that U.S. and foreign companies operating in cartel-controlled regions could also face prosecution if they make payments to these organizations, which could be considered material support for terrorism.  

This concern is not hypothetical—similar cases have occurred before. In 2022, French cement company Lafarge pleaded guilty and paid $778 million in fines for making payments to terrorist-designated groups in Syria to keep its operations running. Given Mexico’s status as the U.S.’s largest trading partner, businesses must reassess their dealings in high-risk areas.  

Beyond corporate liability, migrants who pay cartels for border crossings or send money to cartel-influenced regions could also be prosecuted. Additionally, drug-related offenses linked to designated cartels could carry harsher penalties, including a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for narcoterrorism—double the usual drug trafficking penalty. The designation thus has sweeping implications for both corporate compliance and immigration enforcement.

Trump's terrorist label for cartels raises prosecution risks for companies | Reuters

In a piece I wrote for Forbes, I review the latest misguided foray into tech policy from the Trump administration. The White House has issued a memorandum condemning foreign digital services taxes (DSTs), arguing that they unfairly target American tech companies. The memo warns that unless these taxes are repealed, retaliatory tariffs will be imposed. However, this stance appears to protect Big Tech rather than uphold economic fairness, as these taxes exist to counter profit-shifting tactics that allow tech giants to avoid local taxation. The U.S. frequently applies its own extraterritorial laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the CLOUD Act, yet objects when other countries enforce similar policies on American firms.

The memorandum frames the issue as an attack on U.S. businesses, but every country has the right to tax corporations operating within its borders. DSTs primarily ensure that companies pay taxes where they generate revenue rather than in low-tax havens. The U.S. position ignores the broader global tax landscape and the rationale behind these policies, opting instead to shield Silicon Valley from accountability.

If the U.S. enacts tariffs in response, it could trigger a trade war that harms American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers while preserving Big Tech’s profits. The memorandum’s real purpose seems to be maintaining an uneven playing field where American firms operate abroad without the same obligations as local businesses.

Big Tech Protection: U.S. Picks A Trade Fight To Defend Tech Firms

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Signs Grand Canyon National Park Act

On February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Grand Canyon National Park Act, officially designating the Grand Canyon as a national park. This landmark decision aimed to preserve the canyon’s breathtaking landscapes, unique geological formations, and rich biodiversity for future generations. Prior to its national park status, the Grand Canyon had been a federally protected reserve, but conservationists pushed for stronger protections. The designation marked a significant victory for the early environmental movement, ensuring that the canyon would be safeguarded from mining, logging, and other commercial exploitation.

The Grand Canyon, carved over millions of years by the Colorado River, is one of the world’s most iconic natural wonders. Its layered rock formations offer a window into Earth’s geological history, dating back nearly two billion years. Beyond its scientific significance, the canyon holds deep cultural importance for Indigenous tribes, including the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo, who have lived in and around the area for centuries. The national park designation helped protect these cultural and historical sites, though it also led to conflicts over land rights.

The creation of Grand Canyon National Park was part of a broader movement in the early 20th century to protect America’s natural landscapes. This movement, championed by figures like President Theodore Roosevelt, laid the foundation for the modern National Park System. Today, Grand Canyon National Park attracts millions of visitors annually, serving as a testament to the enduring importance of conservation efforts.

President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances and government contracts for the law firm Covington & Burling due to its legal assistance to special counsel Jack Smith. In a memo signed in the Oval Office, Trump accused law firms of using pro bono work to obstruct the government. The directive specifically targets Peter Koski, a Covington partner, and calls for a review of the firm’s federal contracts.  

Smith recently disclosed that Covington provided him with $140,000 in pro bono legal services as he faces government scrutiny. Covington stated that it represents Smith in a personal capacity and will continue to defend his interests. Legal experts note that security clearances are crucial for private attorneys handling national security matters.  

Trump, who has been indicted in two cases led by Smith, referred to the order as the "Deranged Jack Smith signing" and mocked the prosecutor after signing the memo.

Trump Targets Covington Security, Contracts Over Work With Smith

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional rights. In a rare win for a capital defendant, two conservative justices joined the court’s three liberals to overturn Glossip’s conviction. Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general had also acknowledged errors in the case, including prosecutors withholding evidence and failing to correct false testimony.  

Glossip was convicted for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, though the actual killer, Justin Sneed, was the state’s key witness. Newly disclosed documents revealed that Sneed had considered recanting, was coached by prosecutors, and lied about his mental health history. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that correcting Sneed’s false testimony would have significantly damaged his credibility.  

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the ruling, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially agreed but wanted the state court to decide if a new trial was warranted. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the case should have been left to Oklahoma courts. Glossip’s execution had been blocked nine times before, and his attorney emphasized the ruling as a crucial step toward justice. It remains uncertain whether Oklahoma will retry the case or pursue the death penalty again.

Justices Order New Trial in Rare Win for Death Row Inmate (2)

A U.S. judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump’s administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funding, citing concerns that the policy could be reinstated. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that despite the administration’s withdrawal of an initial memo pausing grants and loans, statements from White House officials suggested the freeze was still in effect.  

The funding pause, announced in January, aimed to review federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Trump’s executive orders, including those ending diversity initiatives and pausing climate-related projects. Nonprofits and small business groups sued, arguing the freeze would cause widespread harm.  

AliKhan criticized the policy as legally baseless and impractical, saying it would either halt up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or force agencies to review all grants within a day. She called the administration’s actions “irrational” and warned of a potential national crisis. The ruling prevents the government from reimposing the freeze under a different name, marking a legal setback for Trump’s efforts to reshape federal spending priorities.

Trump blocked from imposing sweeping federal funding freeze | Reuters

In my weekly Bloomberg Tax column, I examine Washington State’s new data broker tax, a well-intended but ultimately insufficient approach to curbing exploitative data practices. The legislation treats consumer data like a natural resource, imposing a severance tax on its collection. However, this framework fails to address the real issue: long-term data retention and reuse.  

A more effective solution would be a retention tax, which would discourage firms from hoarding personal data indefinitely. Under the current bill, companies pay a tiered tax based on the number of residents whose data they collect. While this sounds like a fair approach, it risks consolidating data power in the hands of large platforms that can absorb the tax and continue selling consumer information without restriction. Worse, the tax may encourage firms to store data longer, giving it an artificial market value that promotes hoarding rather than limiting collection.  

Unlike oil or minerals, personal data is not depleted upon use—it can be endlessly repackaged and resold. A retention tax would align economic incentives with privacy concerns, forcing firms to justify prolonged data storage and pay accordingly. Without it, Washington’s proposal does little to curb long-term privacy risks and may ultimately entrench the very data exploitation it seeks to prevent.

Washington’s Data Broker Tax Is a Promising but Inadequate Move

This Day in Legal History: Milošević Stands Trial

On February 12, 2002, the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević began at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. It was the first time a former head of state was tried for war crimes by an international tribunal. Milošević faced 66 charges, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws of war, stemming from conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo during the 1990s. Prosecutors accused him of orchestrating ethnic cleansing campaigns that led to mass killings, deportations, and atrocities, particularly against Bosniaks, Croats, and Kosovar Albanians. 

Defiantly refusing to recognize the tribunal’s legitimacy, Milošević insisted on representing himself in court. The trial, one of the most complex in modern history, lasted over four years, involving thousands of documents and hundreds of witnesses. His defense centered on denying personal responsibility, blaming NATO, and portraying himself as a protector of Serbs. However, the proceedings never reached a conclusion—Milošević died of a heart attack in his prison cell on March 11, 2006, before a verdict could be issued. His death frustrated victims who sought justice and left legal scholars debating whether the trial had succeeded in advancing international accountability. The case, despite its abrupt end, set a precedent for prosecuting heads of state for war crimes and influenced later trials, including those of Charles Taylor and Omar al-Bashir.

The U.S. Justice Department under President Donald Trump has significantly reduced its anti-corruption enforcement, halting prosecutions and weakening key laws. Officials have pulled back on enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans corporate bribery abroad, arguing that American companies should not be penalized for standard international business practices. Prosecutors were also ordered to drop a criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat with ties to Trump, citing his re-election campaign and other priorities. 

In addition, the department has disbanded efforts to sanction Russian oligarchs and dismissed veteran prosecutors who handled cases against Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed these actions as an attempt to root out political bias in the justice system. Ethics officials and independent government watchdogs have been fired or reassigned, including inspectors general and whistleblower protection leaders. Critics, including legal scholars and former officials, warn that these moves align law enforcement with Trump’s political agenda and weaken anti-corruption safeguards established after Watergate. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has expressed concern and vowed to investigate, while some Democrats and former prosecutors see the changes as an effort to dismantle legal mechanisms designed to hold public officials accountable.

Trump's Justice Department hits the brakes on anti-corruption enforcement | Reuters

Gail Slater, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Justice Department's antitrust division, is set to face tough questioning from the Senate during her confirmation hearing. As a former economic adviser to Vice President JD Vance and a veteran antitrust attorney, Slater would oversee major cases against tech giants like Google and Apple if confirmed. Senate Democrats are expected to press her on maintaining enforcement and independence, especially amid concerns that the administration is undermining the DOJ’s traditional nonpartisanship. Senator Cory Booker has raised alarms about potential staffing cuts at the DOJ’s antitrust division, warning they could weaken protections for consumers. Other Democrats, including Senators Peter Welch and Amy Klobuchar, plan to question Slater on her commitment to continuing efforts to lower prices in healthcare, housing, and agriculture. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Mike Lee has voiced support for Slater, expecting her to carry on Trump’s push against Big Tech monopolies. Slater’s background includes roles at Fox Corp, Roku, and a now-defunct tech industry lobbying group, raising further concerns about her potential ties to the companies she would regulate. Her confirmation will be a key test of the administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement and corporate consolidation.

Trump's DOJ antitrust nominee to be grilled on enforcement | Reuters

Tom Goldstein, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, has asked to be released from jail after prosecutors accused him of violating his release conditions by secretly moving millions in cryptocurrency. Goldstein was arrested after a Maryland federal court found probable cause that he had misled officials about his finances. The government claims he used undisclosed crypto wallets for large transactions while arguing in court that he needed his home's equity to fund his defense.  

Goldstein’s attorneys argue the government is mistaken, stating that he does not own the wallets in question. They claim text messages cited by prosecutors actually show Goldstein directing funds to a third party to settle a debt, not controlling the wallets himself. Goldstein faces charges of tax evasion, aiding false tax returns, failing to pay taxes, and lying on a loan application, with prosecutors alleging he concealed gambling income and misused his firm’s funds. He has pleaded not guilty and maintains he will be exonerated at trial. His legal team, including lawyers from Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, has filed an emergency motion for his release, and he has also been permitted to represent himself in court.

Tom Goldstein Seeks Release, Denies Control Over Crypto Wallets

New Jersey’s proposed bill, S1756, is a smart adjustment to the state’s senior property tax relief system, allowing older homeowners to downsize without losing their eligibility for tax benefits. Right now, seniors who move must restart the tax reimbursement process, which can mean higher property taxes and a financial disincentive to selling. By making these benefits portable, the bill removes an unnecessary barrier to housing mobility, freeing up larger homes for younger families without adding excessive costs to the state budget.  

This approach is a model for other states struggling with housing shortages and inefficient tax incentives, but it’s not perfect. The bill’s $500,000 income cap is too high, providing relief to seniors who may not need it. A more reasonable threshold—like 500% of the federal poverty level—would better target those on fixed incomes. Additionally, a cap on home values would ensure benefits don’t go to wealthy homeowners with expensive properties but low taxable income. A reasonable solution would be to apply tax relief only to the first 150% of a state’s median home price, preventing subsidies from disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.  

Ultimately, this bill corrects a major flaw in New Jersey’s tax policy without overhauling the system or eliminating relief for seniors who need it. But states following this example should refine their programs to ensure they help those who truly need assistance, rather than offering broad-based entitlements that distort housing markets.

NJ Senior Property Tax Relief Needs Nuance to Be Most Effective

This Day in Legal History: Bill of Rights Sent to US States for Ratification

On September 25, 1789, the United States Congress sent twelve proposed constitutional amendments to the state legislatures for ratification. These amendments were designed to safeguard individual liberties and limit the power of the federal government, addressing concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution. By 1791, ten of the amendments were ratified, becoming the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights includes fundamental protections, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to a fair trial, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Notably, two of the twelve proposed amendments were not immediately ratified. One related to Congressional representation and never received the necessary support from the states. The other, concerning Congressional pay, lay dormant for over two centuries before finally being ratified in 1992, becoming the 27th Amendment. This long-delayed ratification demonstrated the lasting nature of the constitutional amendment process. The Bill of Rights has since served as a cornerstone of American democracy, influencing both U.S. law and constitutional frameworks worldwide.

A Houston bankruptcy court has approved the sale of assets from Alex Jones’ Infowars media platform, marking a significant step in liquidating Jones’ estate. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Lopez authorized Chapter 7 trustee Christopher R. Murray to employ a sales broker and begin auctioning the assets of Free Speech Systems LLC, Infowars' parent company. 

This liquidation aims to help Jones pay $1.5 billion in defamation judgments from lawsuits related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. The auction will primarily focus on Infowars’ intellectual property, including domain names, trademarks, and social media accounts, with bidding set to end on Nov. 8 and an auction on Nov. 13. Murray may later include Jones’ personal intellectual property in the sale. The bankruptcy court previously converted Jones' personal Chapter 11 case into a Chapter 7 liquidation, enabling the victims' families to pursue their claims. Disputes remain over how funds from the sale will be distributed to creditors.

Alex Jones’ Infowars IP Heads to Auction After Judge Approval

A new medical report by neurosurgeon Aaron Filler has concluded that 97-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman is "fully capable" of performing her judicial duties. Released by Newman’s lawyers, the report follows her suspension by the court’s Judicial Council after she refused a neurological exam with an independent doctor. 

Filler, a physician and attorney, used advanced brain scans and cited objective data to support his findings, dismissing concerns over subjective interpretation. Filler also compared Newman’s current verbal and analytical abilities with his prior interactions with her during legal cases in 2019 and 2022. This report counters previous exams that raised questions about the independence of Newman's physicians, as her colleagues suggested potential conflicts of interest. Newman’s legal team has consistently defended her health and capacity, and this latest report is a key piece in their efforts to overturn her suspension. The Judicial Committee has not yet commented on the new findings.

Judge Newman Fully Capable to Serve, New Physician Report Says

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California claims that law firm Dentons assisted vape distributor Next Level Holdings in sabotaging vape manufacturer Avid Holdings. The complaint alleges that Dentons, through its offices in Salt Lake City and Shanghai, helped orchestrate a scheme to take control of Avid's assets, cut out its founder, and drain its resources. As part of this plan, Avid claims that Dentons hacked into the laptop of its founder, citing Google Drive logs linking the firm's IP address to the breach. Next Level allegedly used the stolen information to mislead judges in prior legal disputes with Avid. Dentons has not yet commented on the lawsuit. Avid's attorney, Colin Hagan, declined to provide further remarks. The lawsuit follows Dentons’ recent severing of ties with its Chinese affiliate, Dacheng Law Offices.

Dentons Assisted Laptop Hack, Vape Manufacturer Lawsuit Claims

Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research and ex-girlfriend of Sam Bankman-Fried, was sentenced to two years in prison for her involvement in the $8 billion fraud linked to FTX's collapse. 

Despite her cooperation with prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan emphasized that remorse and cooperation shouldn't serve as a "get out of jail free card" in such a serious case. Ellison had pleaded guilty to seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, which could have carried a sentence of up to 110 years. Her testimony was pivotal in securing Bankman-Fried's conviction, as she revealed that he directed her to misappropriate customer funds. 

While the prosecution acknowledged her critical role in convicting Bankman-Fried, who is serving 25 years, the judge still deemed her "gravely culpable" in the fraud. Ellison expressed deep regret for her actions and will begin serving her sentence in November. Other FTX executives who cooperated, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, are scheduled for sentencing later in 2024.

Bankman-Fried's ex-girlfriend Ellison gets two-year sentence over FTX fraud | Reuters

A federal judge has ruled that a New York City law requiring food delivery companies to share customer data with restaurants is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres sided with DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats, determining that the law violated the First Amendment by improperly regulating commercial speech. 

The law, enacted in 2021 to support restaurants recovering from the pandemic, required delivery services to share customer names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, and order details with restaurants. The companies argued that this violated customer privacy and data security and hurt their business by allowing restaurants to use the data for marketing purposes. The judge found the city had less invasive ways to help restaurants, such as letting customers opt to share their data or offering incentives. While DoorDash welcomed the ruling, restaurant industry representatives criticized it, arguing it harms small businesses, and urged the city to appeal.

Judge declares NYC law on sharing food delivery customers' data unconstitutional | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789

On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, laying the foundation for the federal judiciary as we know it today. This landmark legislation established a three-tiered court system, consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court at its pinnacle. The Act also created the position of Attorney General to represent the federal government in legal matters. One of its most critical provisions was the authorization of six justices for the Supreme Court, marking the Court's formal establishment.

The Judiciary Act granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear appeals from state courts, ensuring the supremacy of federal law. Additionally, it gave lower federal courts jurisdiction over specific types of cases, including those involving the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. Perhaps most famously, the Act's Section 25 allowed the Supreme Court to review decisions of state courts when federal issues were at stake, further centralizing federal judicial power.

This Act played a pivotal role in shaping the balance of powers between the federal government and the states. It ensured that federal laws would have a uniform interpretation across the country. While it has been amended many times, the Judiciary Act of 1789 remains a cornerstone of U.S. legal history, establishing the basic framework for the judicial branch.

In 2021, Eric Adams promised to reform New York City's flawed property tax system, which many blame for exacerbating housing inequality. The current system results in tax disparities, with upscale Manhattan properties often taxed at lower rates than homes in the outer boroughs. Despite Adams’ campaign pledges, his administration has yet to introduce significant reforms. Instead, it has fought a 2017 lawsuit filed by Tax Equity Now New York, which argues the system unfairly burdens minority communities and renters. 

The lawsuit was revived in 2023, and the court ruled that the city has the authority to address these tax inequalities. Adams, however, faces a political dilemma. Any changes would likely increase taxes for many homeowners, threatening key voting blocs. Property taxes are a critical revenue source, generating $32.7 billion in the last fiscal year. City officials prefer state-led reforms, but without a strong push from Adams, the state is unlikely to act. The ongoing lawsuit may force the city to respond more directly. The next court hearing is set for October 2024, where the city will be required to submit documents explaining its tax assessments.

Eric Adams Fights Legal Challenge to NYC’s ‘Unfair’ Property Tax

And on the subject of NYC and the need to focus on state-based reforms, in my column this week, I discuss New York City’s retreat from a proposed partnership tax, emphasizing how it reveals the limitations local governments face in tax policy. 

Municipalities like New York operate under state control, making meaningful tax reform at the city level nearly impossible. Even when a city attempts to innovate, its tax policies must align with state rules, or risk legal and administrative challenges. In this case, New York City’s plan to depart from the state’s method of taxing partnership income posed significant compliance difficulties and potential capital flight. 

Ultimately, the city reverted to the state's tax model, acknowledging the practical benefits of consistency. This outcome reflects broader issues cities face: compliance costs, capital mobility, and state-imposed restrictions all limit local tax initiatives. In states like Wisconsin and Colorado, further limitations on local taxation exist through caps or voter approval requirements. The core message is clear: real tax reform must happen at the state level, as municipalities lack the autonomy to make meaningful changes on their own.

NYC Partnership Tax Retreat Shows Change Must Come at State Level

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard arguments in Garfield County v. Biden, a case challenging President Joe Biden’s authority to restore the boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments. The plaintiffs, including Utah and Garfield County, argue that the monuments, covering over 3 million acres, violate the Antiquities Act by exceeding the “smallest area compatible” for preserving historical sites. The monuments, initially designated by Presidents Clinton and Obama, were reduced in size by President Trump before Biden reinstated them in 2021.

The central question before the court is whether presidential actions under the Antiquities Act can be reviewed by courts. A lower court had dismissed the case, ruling that Biden’s actions were not subject to judicial review. The Tenth Circuit must now decide if courts can assess the legality of these presidential designations.

The case could set a precedent on whether future presidents can use the Antiquities Act to protect vast expanses of land, affecting federal land management and resource development. The lawsuit may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Roberts has previously expressed interest in revisiting the scope of the Antiquities Act.

Biden’s National Monuments Power Set for Tenth Circuit Scrutiny

Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research and ex-girlfriend of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, is set to be sentenced for her role in the $8 billion fraud linked to FTX's collapse. Ellison, who has pleaded guilty to seven counts of fraud and conspiracy, cooperated with prosecutors in Bankman-Fried’s trial, where he was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Ellison’s sentencing is expected to be more lenient, as her cooperation was deemed "extraordinary" by prosecutors, who highlighted her remorse.

Ellison’s cooperation involved meeting with prosecutors around 20 times to assist in building the case against Bankman-Fried, whom she testified had directed her to misuse FTX customer funds to cover losses at Alameda Research. Her testimony revealed she felt relief after the fraud was exposed, lifting a burden of lies. While Ellison could face up to 110 years in prison, her lawyers have argued for no jail time due to her extensive assistance. Two other FTX executives, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, are also awaiting sentencing later this year.

Bankman-Fried's ex-girlfriend Ellison to be sentenced over crypto fraud | Reuters

Taft Stettinius & Hollister, a U.S. law firm with 925 attorneys, announced its merger with Denver-based Sherman & Howard, which has 125 lawyers across the Mountain West region. The merger, effective January 1, 2025, is part of a broader trend of law firm consolidations in 2024. This merger will bring the combined firms' projected revenue to $810 million. Taft has been expanding over the past 16 years, targeting high-growth markets like Denver and Phoenix. Sherman & Howard, facing challenges competing with larger firms, sought the merger to gain broader expertise and ensure long-term business viability. Several other law firm mergers have been announced in September, signaling increased consolidation in the legal industry.

US law firm merger streak continues with Taft tie-up | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: McKinley Assassin Stands Trial

On September 23, 1901, the trial of Leon Czolgosz began for the assassination of President William McKinley. Czolgosz, an anarchist, had shot McKinley on September 6 at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. Despite efforts to save him, McKinley died eight days later from gangrene caused by the bullet wounds. The trial was swift, lasting only eight hours over two days, as Czolgosz had already confessed to the crime. His defense team, appointed by the court, argued that Czolgosz was insane, but he refused to cooperate with his lawyers or plead insanity.

The prosecution presented overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and the fact that Czolgosz shot McKinley at point-blank range in a public setting. The jury deliberated for less than 30 minutes before finding him guilty of first-degree murder. Czolgosz was sentenced to death and was executed by electric chair on October 29, 1901. His trial and execution sparked discussions about the influence of anarchism in the U.S. and led to increased efforts to suppress political radicalism in the early 20th century.

From a presidential assassin from history to a would-be modern day presidential assassin, Ryan W. Routh, a 58-year-old suspect accused of attempting to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, is set to appear in court on Monday. Routh allegedly hid near Trump's Florida golf course on September 15, pointing a rifle through the tree line while Trump played golf. Although he did not fire a shot and lacked a direct line of sight to Trump, who was several hundred yards away, Routh was charged with two gun-related crimes: possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Additional charges may follow.

A Secret Service agent spotted the weapon and fired in Routh’s direction, causing him to flee. He was later arrested on a nearby highway. Prosecutors are expected to argue for his detention, citing public safety concerns. The FBI is investigating the incident as an apparent assassination attempt ahead of the upcoming November presidential election. Authorities have not yet disclosed a motive, though Routh, a convicted felon with a history of supporting Ukraine, previously made statements in a self-published book suggesting that Trump could be a target for assassination. Cellphone data shows Routh may have been in the area for 12 hours before being apprehended.

Trump attempted assassination suspect Ryan Routh to appear in court | Reuters

An appeals court panel recently reviewed procedural issues in Stephen Thaler’s attempt to copyright an AI-generated image, raising concerns that the court may avoid larger questions about AI and copyright law. Thaler argued that his AI, the "Creativity Machine," autonomously created the work in question, but the U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application, and a lower court dismissed his case. The court found that Thaler had waived the argument that he was the author by continuing to claim the machine was the creator.

During the appeal, the judges suggested that Thaler’s argument may be barred since his appellate brief did not challenge the lower court's finding that he had waived his authorship claim. Legal experts fear this focus on procedural flaws could prevent the court from addressing significant issues about the role of human creativity in AI-generated works.

If the court rules that AI-created works cannot be copyrighted, it could have far-reaching effects, leaving AI-generated content like images and text unprotected and placing them in the public domain. The court’s decision may not close the door on AI-assisted works, but it raises questions about where the line is drawn between human and machine-generated creativity. The case highlights ongoing uncertainties about how copyright law will adapt to AI’s growing role in creative industries. 

The key legal issue here is the court's focus on procedural waiver, which may limit the scope of the ruling and leave broader questions about AI and copyright unresolved.

AI Art Appeal’s Procedural Flaws Put Broader Ruling in Doubt

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—UnitedHealth's Optum, CVS Health's Caremark, and Cigna's Express Scripts—accusing them of inflating insulin prices to gain larger rebates from pharmaceutical companies. The FTC claims that these PBMs steered patients towards higher-priced insulin by excluding cheaper alternatives from coverage, harming those with coinsurance or deductibles who couldn't benefit from the rebate. Together, these three companies control 80% of U.S. prescriptions.

The PBMs denied the allegations, arguing that their practices have lowered insulin costs for businesses and patients. The case represents a significant step in the Biden administration's push to lower drug prices, particularly insulin, which has seen soaring costs over the past decade. FTC Deputy Director Rahul Rao labeled the PBMs as "medication gatekeepers," accusing them of profiting at the expense of diabetic patients.

The lawsuit did not target insulin manufacturers like Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk but criticized their role in the system. The drugmakers supported reforms to lower patient costs and highlighted their programs to cap insulin prices at $35. The FTC’s suit aims to address broader concerns about the U.S. healthcare system's structure and the rising cost of life-saving medications like insulin.

US FTC sues drug 'gatekeepers' over high insulin prices

FTC Sues CVS, Cigna, UnitedHealth Over Rising Insulin Costs (1)

Jackson Walker LLP is facing disciplinary action after a federal judge found the Texas law firm breached its ethical duties by failing to disclose a secret relationship between one of its attorneys, Elizabeth Freeman, and former Houston bankruptcy judge David R. Jones. Judge Marvin Isgur issued a scathing letter on Friday, criticizing the firm for concealing the affair, which he said violated professional responsibilities and "defiled the very temple of justice." Isgur recused himself from cases involving the firm following this recommendation.

The relationship came to light after Freeman, a former partner at Jackson Walker, continued to see Jones despite telling the firm in 2021 that the relationship had ended. Isgur accused the firm of knowingly withholding this information from clients and the court, calling it an "inconceivable" ethical breach. The U.S. Trustee is now attempting to recover up to $18 million in fees earned by Jackson Walker in cases overseen by Jones while he was dating Freeman.

The disciplinary case has been referred to Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, and Jackson Walker faces potential penalties, including disbarment or suspension. The firm denies violating ethical rules and claims Freeman misled them. However, Isgur emphasized that the firm's decision to protect itself at the expense of its clients and professional obligations was "intolerable." A public hearing is expected to follow, giving Jackson Walker a chance to respond to the charges.

Jackson Walker ‘Defiled the Very Temple of Justice,’ Judge Says

This Day in Legal History: Equal Rights Party Formed

On September 20, 1884, a group of American suffragists formed the Equal Rights Party in San Francisco, marking a significant moment in the fight for gender equality in the United States. The party was established with the goal of securing "equal and exact justice" for all citizens, regardless of color, sex, or nationality. A key focus was on amending state laws to recognize women as voters and to ensure equal property rights, aiming to empower women to become self-sufficient rather than remain dependent. 

In a bold move, the party nominated Mrs. Belva Lockwood as its candidate for U.S. President and Marietta Snow for Vice-President. Lockwood, a lawyer and prominent suffragist, became one of the first women to actively campaign for the presidency. While Grover Cleveland ultimately won the election, Lockwood’s candidacy broke new ground. She garnered around 4,149 votes, all cast by male voters, as women did not yet have the right to vote nationally. 

This event showcased the growing momentum of the women’s suffrage movement, which would eventually lead to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, granting women the right to vote. The Equal Rights Party's formation highlighted the early intersection of gender, legal rights, and political advocacy in American history.

An Alaska man, Panos Anastasiou, has been indicted for sending over 450 threatening messages to six U.S. Supreme Court justices and two of their family members. The threats, which began in March 2023 and escalated in January 2024, included violent, racist, and homophobic language, as well as calls for assassination and torture. Federal prosecutors allege that the messages were intended to intimidate and retaliate against the justices for their legal decisions. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized that the threats undermine the judiciary’s independence and public officials' safety. While the indictment did not name the specific justices targeted, details in court filings suggest that some threats were directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, referencing racist tropes and his wife’s political activism. Anastasiou has been temporarily detained, with prosecutors expressing concern that he poses a flight risk and a continued danger due to his history of threats against public officials. The case follows a growing concern for the security of federal judges, highlighted by recent threats against other Supreme Court justices, including an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022.

Alaska Man Charged With Threatening Supreme Court Justices (1)

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to ban race-conscious admissions, Harvard Law School saw a drop in students of color, with the percentage decreasing from 51% in 2023 to 43% in the new class. This is the first class admitted after the ruling, which stemmed from cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The data from Harvard does not break down racial groups, leaving unclear how different minority groups were affected. The overall decline translates to about 45 fewer non-white students out of a class of 560, marking the lowest diversity percentage since 2017. Other top law schools have reported mixed results, with some maintaining or increasing their diversity. The University of California, Berkeley School of Law, which has been under a state affirmative action ban since 1996, also reported a decline in students of color. More detailed racial breakdowns from law schools will be provided by the American Bar Association in December.

Harvard Law School says enrollment of students of color dropped after affirmative action ban | Reuters

In a long-running lawsuit accusing Google of secretly tracking internet browsing in "incognito" mode, a major dispute remains over legal fees. Plaintiffs' lawyers from firms like Boies Schiller Flexner and Morgan & Morgan are seeking $217 million in fees for securing a settlement that mandates Google to delete billions of records and update privacy disclosures. 

Google has countered, arguing the fees should be capped at $40 million, claiming the settlement offers no monetary relief for consumers since the lawsuit failed to gain class-action status. Plaintiffs’ attorneys claim their work, valued at $62.4 million in time, provides $3 to $6 billion in privacy benefits to consumers. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presides over the case, noted the plaintiffs were not entirely successful but did acknowledge the significance of the privacy reforms. She also questioned some of the billing rates, calling $667 per hour for document review “excessive.” The case is awaiting a final ruling on the fee dispute. Other recent legal fee awards include $107.8 million in a separate Apple settlement and $102 million for attorneys in a stock-lending conspiracy case.

Legal Fee Tracker: Google, privacy lawyers clash over $217 million fee bid | Reuters

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has increased its offer to over $8.2 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging that its talc-based baby powder caused cancer, up from a previous $6.5 billion offer. This increase reflects a potential $1.7 billion hike to resolve the litigation, with claimants expected to receive larger payouts and $650 million allocated to cover legal fees. Despite continuing settlement talks, J&J maintains its baby powder is safe and has been marketed appropriately for over 100 years. 

The company has already secured over 75% support from claimants for a settlement covering cases related to ovarian and other gynecological cancers, which may expedite resolution through bankruptcy courts. Some plaintiffs, however, have yet to agree to the terms. J&J has also settled 95% of claims alleging that its baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, leading to mesothelioma. Analysts expect the additional $1.1 billion increase to be within acceptable limits for investors, contributing to a recent rise in J&J’s stock. Total payouts related to the baby powder litigation now exceed $13.4 billion.

J&J Lifts Baby Powder Settlement Bid to More Than $8.2 Billion

Aviation executive Farhad Azima has settled a lawsuit with law firm Dechert and two of its former senior attorneys, Neil Gerrard and David Hughes, over claims they participated in a scheme to hack Azima's emails and use the information in court to harm his business. The terms of the settlement, which was reached in New York, were not disclosed, and Dechert denied any liability in the case. This marks another legal victory for Azima, who previously had British judgments against him thrown out after it was revealed that hackers had been used by Dechert's client, the Gulf emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. Earlier in 2024, Dechert paid Azima £3 million ($3.8 million) to settle a separate case in the U.K. without admitting liability. The firm also settled with journalist Jay Solomon, another hacking victim, last year. Azima continues to pursue legal action against other parties involved in the hacking, including Israeli private investigator Amit Forlit, who faces extradition to the U.S. on related charges.

Aviation executive Farhad Azima settles with law firm Dechert over hacking claim | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Franz Liszt.

Franz Liszt was one of the most influential and innovative composers and pianists of the 19th century. Known for his breathtaking piano technique and wide-ranging compositions, Liszt's musical legacy includes both virtuosic showpieces and deeply spiritual works. While his early career was defined by dazzling performances across Europe, his later years saw a profound religious transformation. This turn towards spirituality is epitomized by his ordination as a cleric on this date, September 20, 1865, a significant date in his life that influenced his compositional direction.

One of Liszt's most introspective and spiritual compositions from this period is Via Crucis, written between 1878 and 1879. It is a moving meditation on the Stations of the Cross, combining minimalistic textures and religious themes. The work strips away the flamboyance of his earlier pieces, reflecting a profound inner contemplation. The opening movement, Vexilla Regis, captures the solemnity and grandeur of Christ's procession to the crucifixion, using austere harmonies and chant-like melodies to evoke deep reflection.

As we close this week's program, we'll leave you with Vexilla Regis, the opening theme of Via Crucis. This haunting and reverent piece sets the tone for Liszt’s spiritual masterpiece, inviting listeners into a quiet, reflective space. Without further ado, Franz Liszt's Vexilla Regis, from Via Crucis, enjoy.

This Day in Legal History: Lord Haw-Haw Sentenced to Hang

On September 19, 1945, William Joyce, infamously known as "Lord Haw-Haw," was sentenced to death by a British court for treason. Joyce, an American-born British subject, became notorious for his English-language radio broadcasts during World War II, where he spread Nazi propaganda designed to demoralize Allied forces and sway public opinion. His broadcasts, aired from Germany, ridiculed Britain and encouraged defeatism, earning him the mocking nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" due to his affected, sneering tone.

Interestingly, before aligning with Nazi Germany, Joyce had served as an informant for the British government on Irish Republican Army (IRA) activities. In the 1920s, Joyce had strong anti-communist and anti-Irish Republican sentiments, and his knowledge of far-right politics in the U.K. led him to assist British authorities in monitoring IRA movements. However, his extreme right-wing views eventually drew him to fascism, and by the late 1930s, he joined Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists before fleeing to Germany at the onset of World War II.

The nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" was coined by British journalist Jonah Barrington in reference to the exaggerated aristocratic accent of an anonymous broadcaster. Though it initially referred to another German propagandist, the label stuck to Joyce, who became the most infamous voice behind Nazi broadcasts. His broadcasts, filled with mockery of the British government and predictions of their downfall, made him a household name in Britain, and the face of enemy propaganda. Despite his American birth, Joyce's use of a British passport for his travels was enough for the court to convict him of treason. His execution in January 1946 marked the end of one of the most infamous figures of wartime propaganda.

The Compton Courthouse in Los Angeles suffered two major floods in January 2024, caused by burst water valves, resulting in closures and significant disruptions to court operations. Nearly 5,000 cases were impacted, and emergency repairs cost California almost $2.6 million. This courthouse, along with many others in L.A. County, is deteriorating due to a "run to failure" maintenance approach, where repairs are made only after systems break. Budget constraints have forced the California Judicial Council to prioritize only critical repairs, leaving many courthouses vulnerable to failure. Compton is a "medium priority" for repairs, raising concerns about more urgent locations, such as the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, which has also faced severe plumbing and hazardous material issues.

Los Angeles has 36 courthouses, many of which are well past their 50-year lifespans, and costly maintenance bills continue to rise. The challenges are compounded by seismic safety risks, as many of these buildings are not built to withstand earthquakes, presenting a significant danger to the public. Renovation and replacement of courthouses are progressing slowly, with only a few new facilities funded each year. Experts suggest modernizing courthouse designs and incorporating technology to reduce the need for large, outdated structures. However, without substantial investment, L.A.’s court infrastructure remains vulnerable to both natural disasters and everyday wear and tear.

L.A. Courthouses Crumble With ‘Run to Failure’ Maintenance

Second indoor flood causes Compton Courthouse to close until further notice

COMPTON COURTHOUSE CLOSED FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS DUE TO ADDITIONAL FLOODING ISSUES AFFECTING ELEVATORS AND LOBB

Also in California legal news, a judge has denied a request to reopen Golden Gate University’s law school, which closed after 123 years of operation. California Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer ruled against the plaintiffs, a group of former students and alumni, who had sought an injunction to reinstate the school. The plaintiffs had sued for breach of contract, claiming the university kept students in the dark about its financial struggles before announcing the closure.

Golden Gate University cited declining enrollment, poor bar exam pass rates, and a weak job market as reasons for shutting down its law program. While most of the affected students have transferred to other American Bar Association-accredited schools, such as the University of San Francisco School of Law and Mitchell Hamline School of Law, the plaintiffs argue that the school failed to provide adequate transfer options.

Although the school will not reopen, the plaintiffs can still pursue monetary damages for claims such as breach of contract and false advertising. A hearing is scheduled for October 22 to determine whether their case will proceed. Golden Gate Law is the latest in a series of law schools nationwide facing closures due to similar challenges.

California judge rejects bid to reopen 123-year-old law school | Reuters

Mark Esper, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, joined Squire Patton Boggs as a part-time senior adviser, where he will focus on advising clients on national security and foreign policy. Although Esper has extensive experience in government and previously worked for defense contractor Raytheon, he will not lobby for the firm's clients in Congress or executive branch agencies. His role will leverage his public policy expertise from over 30 years in high-level government positions.

Esper’s move comes after his public break with Donald Trump in 2020, particularly over disagreements about invoking the Insurrection Act during protests following George Floyd’s murder. He has since emerged as a critic of Trump, calling him a “threat to democracy” while also critiquing President Biden. While at Squire Patton Boggs, Esper will continue his work with venture capital firm Red Cell Partners and European think tank GLOBSEC.

The firm views Esper’s hire as a key step toward becoming a leader in national security advisory services. His work is expected to focus more on helping multinational corporations navigate the intersection of economic policy and national security rather than direct governmental advocacy.

Trump Defense Secretary Esper Joins Squire Patton Boggs

Ex-Trump defense secretary Esper joins law firm Squire Patton Boggs | Reuters

Senate Democrats are working to strike a deal with Republicans to confirm a backlog of President Biden’s judicial nominees before the end of the year. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin is hopeful that Republicans will agree to a package of nominees, a practice that was more common in less partisan times. With the Senate's slim Democratic majority, confirmations have been challenging, particularly for nominees like Rebecca Pennell and Mustafa Kasubhai, whose votes were delayed due to attendance issues and GOP opposition.

Some nominees, such as Charnelle Bjelkengren, faced significant hurdles, with Bjelkengren withdrawing earlier this year due to a failed confirmation hearing. Kasubhai, who is still awaiting a vote, has been scrutinized by Republicans over his stance on diversity and past writings. Additionally, Democrats have faced internal opposition, with key senators refusing to support Adeel Mangi’s nomination due to allegations of affiliations with controversial groups. The Senate faces a tight deadline, with a limited five-week "lame duck" session following the upcoming election recess, during which they must juggle these nominations alongside other legislative priorities.

Democrats Look to Strike Deal With Republicans on Judicial Picks

EU antitrust regulators have initiated proceedings to ensure Apple complies with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which requires the company to open its closed ecosystem to rivals. The European Commission aims to clarify what Apple must do to meet its obligations, focusing on iOS interoperability for devices like smartwatches, headphones, and VR headsets, as well as how Apple handles third-party and developer requests for connectivity. The Commission expects to finalize the guidelines within six months, with Apple at risk of fines up to 10% of its annual global turnover if it fails to comply. Apple has expressed willingness to cooperate but warned that opening its systems could expose users to security risks.

EU antitrust regulators tell Apple how to comply with tech rules | Reuters

And something of a double-dip in the Apple news bowl, in a piece I wrote for Forbes I spoke about the European Union’s recent win in a legal battle requiring Ireland to collect €13 billion in unpaid taxes from Apple–a significant victory in the fight against multinational tax avoidance. Although the EU's highest court upheld the decision, Ireland remains reluctant to claim the windfall, as doing so could threaten its status as a low-tax haven that attracts large corporations. Ireland had argued, alongside Apple, that the taxes were not owed, reflecting its desire to maintain control over its tax policies.

This case highlights the tension between national tax sovereignty and EU regulations aimed at curbing unfair competition through favorable tax deals. While the EU can force Ireland to reclaim the unpaid taxes, it cannot dictate how the country spends the money, leaving the Irish government with a difficult decision. Ireland’s low corporate tax rate has been key to its economic growth, but the Apple ruling could have global ramifications as more countries adopt minimum tax frameworks to address tax avoidance by multinational corporations.

The case underscores broader issues in international tax law, as countries like Luxembourg and the Netherlands, also known for favorable tax policies, may face similar pressures. While Ireland is legally obligated to collect the money, its cautious approach reflects a concern about maintaining its attractiveness to global businesses. The funds remain in escrow, and Ireland has yet to reveal how it plans to utilize the money, which is equivalent to 2.43% of its GDP.

You Can Give Ireland Tax Revenue—But Can You Make Ireland Spend It?

This Day in Legal History: Fugitive Slave Act Signed

On September 18, 1850, U.S. President Millard Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law, a key and highly controversial component of the Compromise of 1850 and a dark moment in American history – unfortunately, one among many in the 19th century. The Act required that escaped slaves, even if they had reached free states, be captured and returned to their enslavers. It also imposed heavy penalties on anyone who aided a fugitive slave, including fines and imprisonment. Disturbingly, the law authorized federal marshals and local law enforcement to arrest individuals based on little more than a slaveholder's claim, placing free Black men and women at risk of being falsely accused and sold into slavery.

The Fugitive Slave Act enraged abolitionists and free states in the North, who viewed the law as a gross infringement on their legal sovereignty and moral principles. Northern citizens were now legally obligated to participate in the enforcement of slavery, a practice many detested. Conversely, slaveholders in the South celebrated the law as a victory, seeing it as essential for the preservation of their economic system. 

This deepened the divide between North and South, escalating tensions that would eventually lead to the Civil War. The Act's passage not only exposed the fragility of compromises between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions but also galvanized the abolitionist movement. It showed how far the federal government was willing to go to protect the institution of slavery, making resistance increasingly inevitable.

In a piece I wrote for Forbes, I weighed in to a tax policy proposed by former President Donald Trump. Floated by Trump at a rally in Arizona, the "No Tax on Overtime" policy aims to eliminate income tax on overtime pay, echoing a previous proposal to end taxes on tips. While the policy is presented as a way to relieve tax burdens on hourly workers, a closer analysis reveals several potential issues. By creating a tax-free incentive for overtime, the policy could favor workers able to put in extra hours, leaving others—like working parents—disadvantaged. This could deepen income inequality, as those unable to work overtime would continue paying taxes on their standard wages, while others benefit from a lighter tax burden. 

Additionally, employers may shift compensation structures to push for longer working hours, leading to lower base wages and a culture of overwork. Implementation of the policy would also create administrative challenges for employers and the IRS. Instead of targeted tax breaks, broader reforms like increasing the federal minimum wage might better address wage inequities without distorting the labor market.

‘No Tax On Overtime’ Policy Would Be Even Worse Than ‘No Tax On Tips’

In the first 10 days of Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, lawyers contributed more to her than they did to Donald Trump’s campaign over nearly two years, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data. Harris received nearly $8.3 million from around 26,000 contributions from individuals listing "attorney" or "lawyer" as their occupation after Joe Biden endorsed her in July 2024. In comparison, Trump’s campaign, which began in November 2022, raised about $6.88 million from lawyers over that entire period. Lawyers have historically favored Democratic candidates, with Harris’s and Biden’s campaigns together raising significantly more from the legal profession than Trump’s campaign. In previous elections, Democratic candidates like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden have all received much more financial support from lawyers than their Republican counterparts. The data reflects a broader trend where large law firms and individual lawyers increasingly lean toward Democratic candidates.

Lawyers Give More to Harris in 10 Days Than Trump in Entire Race

Donald Trump recently pledged to restore the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a tax break he limited during his presidency as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In a post on Truth Social, Trump promised to reverse the $10,000 cap on SALT deductions, which has disproportionately impacted residents in high-tax areas like New York, especially in suburban areas where property values are high. The cap was initially supported by Republicans as it helped balance tax cuts elsewhere in the law. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump’s reversal, pointing out that Trump himself had imposed the cap. Repealing the limit could add an estimated $1.2 trillion to the cost of extending the tax law. Trump's focus on this issue, particularly in Long Island, reflects the area’s significance in ongoing battles for control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Trump Pledges to Restore SALT Write-Off, Tax Break He Curbed (1)

Yesterday, on September 17, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills designed to protect actors and performers from unauthorized use of their digital likenesses by artificial intelligence. One bill mandates that contracts specify when AI-generated replicas of a performer's voice or image will be used, requiring the performer to have professional representation in contract negotiations. The other bill prohibits the commercial use of digital replicas of deceased performers without consent from their estates. These laws respond to growing concerns in the entertainment industry about AI’s potential to exploit performers’ likenesses without permission, part of broader fears about AI’s ethical and legal implications.

California governor signs legislation to protect entertainers from AI | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Fort Pitt

On September 17, 1778, the newly independent United States and the Lenape (Delaware) Nation signed the Treaty of Fort Pitt, marking the first formal treaty between the U.S. and a Native American tribe. The treaty established a military alliance during the American Revolutionary War, with the Lenape agreeing to assist the U.S. in its fight against the British. In return, the U.S. promised protection and the possibility of creating a 14th state for Native Americans in the future.

Despite its significance as a symbol of diplomacy, the treaty was quickly undermined. U.S. forces often ignored the agreement, and American expansion continued to threaten Lenape lands. The promise of a Native American state was never realized, and tensions between the two sides worsened. This violation of the treaty set a precedent for many future treaties between the U.S. government and Native American tribes, where promises were made but rarely honored. The Treaty of Fort Pitt highlights the complex and often troubled relationship between Native nations and the U.S. government during the early years of American independence.

The Biden administration is launching a new initiative to combat the smuggling of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potent greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, across U.S. borders. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and other agencies are collaborating, using new tools like artificial intelligence to identify suspicious shipments. HFC smuggling has surged as the U.S. phases out these chemicals under the 2019 American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, which mandates an 85% reduction by 2036. Since fiscal year 2024 began, about 25 illegal shipments have been stopped, but the scale of smuggling remains large.

Smugglers use various methods, such as relabeling containers and falsifying import documents, to sneak HFCs into the country. The black market for these refrigerants mirrors the illicit trade of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1990s after their global ban. Enforcement efforts include developing human intelligence sources, new AI technologies, and enhanced collaboration between government agencies. However, enforcement challenges persist, as it's difficult to catch every shipment and distinguish legal from illegal HFCs once they enter the market.

Biden Fights Smugglers Trafficking Climate-Warming Refrigerants

Cigna Group’s Express Scripts is suing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over a July report that it claims unfairly portrays pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). In its lawsuit, filed in Missouri, Express Scripts calls the report “unfair, biased, erroneous, and defamatory” and demands the agency retract it. This legal action intensifies the ongoing conflict between PBMs and the FTC, which has been investigating the industry for over two years.

The FTC's report accuses PBMs of steering patients to their own pharmacies and charging higher rates. Express Scripts, along with other PBM giants like CVS Health and UnitedHealth Group, disputes these claims, arguing that PBMs help control drug prices and counteract pharmaceutical companies' power. Cigna’s lawsuit also accuses the FTC of ignoring data it submitted, favoring instead what it calls “unsupported innuendo.” The FTC has rejected these accusations and stands by its report, stating that it aims to clarify the complexities of the PBM market. The case is now before the U.S. District Court in Missouri.

Cigna Sues Federal Trade Commission Over ‘Defamatory’ Report

The U.S. antitrust trial over Kroger's $25 billion bid to acquire rival grocer Albertsons is wrapping up, but the legal battles are far from over. Following the Portland trial, where the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and several states argued that the merger would harm shoppers and unionized grocery workers, two more trials are set to challenge the deal. Washington state's attorney general began a separate trial on Monday, arguing that the merger would raise prices, reduce competition, and allow Kroger to close unionized stores. Later this month, Colorado will bring its own case, focusing on the impact on local farmers and consumers.

Kroger and Albertsons, which have already spent $864 million on merger-related costs this year, argue that the deal would lower prices and allow them to compete better with retail giants like Walmart and Amazon. Despite their assurances that no stores will close due to the merger, critics warn that closures could occur in the future. The ongoing legal challenges could prolong the merger process and add significant costs for the companies.

Kroger-Albertson's US anti-trust trial to end but other legal blocks loom | Reuters

In my column for Bloomberg this week, I explore how land value taxes (LVTs) can address the inequities in the current property tax systems across the U.S.

Property taxes, especially in economically disadvantaged areas, have been scrutinized for burdening low-income homeowners. A land value tax, which taxes only the land's value and not any structures or improvements, could provide a fairer alternative. LVTs can stabilize tax burdens, promote development, and reduce land speculation. This tax system would also allow for income-adjusted progressivity, helping municipalities create more consistent revenue streams while avoiding the boom-and-bust cycles tied to real estate.

In contrast, traditional property taxes—which tax both land and buildings—can disincentivize property improvements, make it cheaper to hold vacant land, and unfairly burden residents in areas with declining commercial property values. This is especially evident in places like Chicago’s south suburbs, where declining commercial revenue is pushing low- and middle-income homeowners to the brink. Similar stories are unfolding in towns like Harvey, Illinois, and Wake County, North Carolina, where property taxes have surged beyond many residents' ability to pay.

Shifting to an LVT would alleviate these problems by taxing land rather than improvements, encouraging landowners to develop or sell underused land, and ensuring more financial stability for homeowners. The switch could be an important step in revitalizing economically depressed areas, promoting development, and creating a more equitable tax system.

Land Value Taxes Can Resolve Property Tax Systems’ Inequities