The idea is that this podcast can accompany you on your commute home and will render you minimally competent on the major legal news stories of the day. The transcript is available in the form of a newsletter at www.minimumcomp.com.
Legal News for Fri 4/4 - GOP States Target Law Firm DEI Practices, Proposed Millionaire Tax Hike and Law Professors Behind Perkins Coie
vendredi 4 avril 2025 • Durée 12:06
This Day in Legal History: MLK Assassinated
On 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.
Republicans 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.
Over 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.
This 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.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Legal News for Thurs 4/3 - SCOTUS Backs FDA on Vapes, Musk to Exit DGE, Milbank Joins the Shameful and Trump Announces "Reciprocal" Tariffs That Aren't
jeudi 3 avril 2025 • Durée 07:11
This Day in Legal History: Smith v. Allwright
On 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.”
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Weds 4/2 - Willkie Farr Folds, Adams Case Dismissed, SCOTUS and Planned Parenthood, Mass Federal Firings Blocked and Trump Tariff Stupidity Incoming at 4pm
mercredi 2 avril 2025 • Durée 08:12
This Day in Legal History: MA Enacts Anti-Vietnam War Legislation
On April 2, 1970, Massachusetts enacted a bold piece of legislation challenging the U.S. government’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The law stated that no resident of Massachusetts, whether inducted or already serving in the military, could be compelled to participate in armed hostilities abroad unless Congress had formally declared war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. At the time, the Vietnam War had escalated significantly without such a formal declaration, raising widespread constitutional concerns. This state-level defiance of federal military policy was one of the clearest legal confrontations to emerge from domestic antiwar sentiment during the era.
Supporters of the law aimed to provoke a judicial review of the war’s legality by forcing the issue into the courts. The ultimate hope was that the U.S. Supreme Court would accept the case and directly address whether the war was unconstitutional due to the lack of a Congressional declaration. However, the Court declined to exercise original jurisdiction, a move that disappointed advocates but was consistent with the Court's cautious approach to politically sensitive war powers questions. The case was instead relegated to the lower federal courts, where it lost much of its political and legal momentum.
This episode underscored the tension between state sovereignty and federal authority, especially in areas of foreign policy and military engagement. It also highlighted the ongoing ambiguity surrounding the War Powers Clause and the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. Although the Massachusetts law was largely symbolic and never led to a judicial rebuke of the Vietnam War, it marked a significant moment in the legal resistance to undeclared wars.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher has agreed to commit at least $100 million in pro bono legal services supporting causes aligned with conservative ideals, according to a public announcement by President Trump. This move follows similar flagrant displays of cowardice by other major law firms, Paul Weiss and Skadden, in the face of Trump’s recent executive orders targeting firms based on political associations and past legal work. The deal allows Willkie to avoid a potentially damaging executive order by committing to initiatives like supporting veterans, promoting fairness in the justice system, and fighting antisemitism.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Tues 4/1 - SCOTUS Hears Religious Exemptions in WI, Amazon and Nokia Settle Patent Issue, Union Sues Trump Over Fed Worker Rights and a Helicopter Tax in NY
mardi 1 avril 2025 • Durée 07:20
This Day in Legal History: Federal Minimum Wage Increase
On this day in legal history, April 1, 1991, the federal minimum wage in the United States increased to $4.25 per hour. This followed an earlier increase on April 1, 1990, when the wage rose from $3.35 to $3.80 per hour. These back-to-back adjustments marked the first changes to the federal minimum wage since 1981, when it had been set at $3.35 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The 1990 and 1991 hikes were part of a broader legislative effort to address inflation and stagnating wages for low-income workers, especially in service industries.
The wage increase was included in the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1989, signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. The law aimed to gradually raise wages while minimizing economic disruption for employers. Despite concerns from some business groups, the phased approach allowed companies time to adjust. Labor advocates, meanwhile, argued the increase was still insufficient for workers to meet basic living expenses, particularly in urban areas with high costs of living.
The minimum wage has long been a point of contention in U.S. labor policy, seen alternately as a lifeline for workers or a constraint on small businesses. While federal adjustments have been relatively infrequent, many states and municipalities have set higher local minimum wages. As of this writing, the last federal minimum wage increase occurred on July 24, 2009, when it rose to $7.25 per hour—where it remains today. This stagnation has reignited debates over the role of the federal government in ensuring a living wage. The April 1, 1991 increase remains a reminder of the complex balancing act between economic policy, labor rights, and legislative compromise.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit affiliated with the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, seeking an exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argued that being denied the exemption violates their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and church autonomy. While federal and state laws do allow religious organizations to opt out of unemployment insurance if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes,” Wisconsin determined the group’s services were primarily secular and charitable. The organizations involved provide support such as job training and care services for people with disabilities but do not require staff or clients to be religious.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Mon 3/31 - SCOTUS Catholic Charities Tax Case, Trump Law Firm Orders Blocked, Independent Agency Officials Not Reinstated, Apple Fined Over APP
lundi 31 mars 2025 • Durée 07:32
This Day in Legal History: Civilian Conservation Corps Created by FDR
On 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.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Fri 3/28 - Republicans Gut Overdraft Fee Caps, Trump Whines About WilmerHale, Attacks DEI Grants and a Judge Orders Yemen War Chat Logs Preserved
vendredi 28 mars 2025 • Durée 12:46
This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim Ark
On 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.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Thurs 3/27 - BNPL Rule Walk Back, Trump Fails to Disqualify Judge Howell, Mass Federal Worker Reinstatement, and Italy's Social Media VAT Tax
jeudi 27 mars 2025 • Durée 08:04
This Day in Legal History: President Johnson Vetoes Civil Rights Act of 1866
On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an extraordinary move that underscored his deep hostility to racial equality and his resistance to Reconstruction efforts. The bill, which Congress had passed in the wake of the Civil War, aimed to grant full citizenship to formerly enslaved people and guarantee their basic civil rights. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who remained loyal to the Union, used his veto power to block progress for freedmen, claiming the bill infringed on states' rights and unfairly favored Black Americans over whites. His justification was steeped in racism, couching white supremacy in the language of constitutional interpretation.
Johnson's veto message argued that Black Americans were not yet qualified for citizenship and that extending such rights would “operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.” He blatantly ignored the atrocities of slavery and the urgent need for federal protections, given the widespread violence and oppression freedmen faced in the South. His opposition wasn’t just a political miscalculation—it was a moral failure and a betrayal of the Union victory. Johnson actively emboldened white supremacist groups and Southern legislatures seeking to reassert control through Black Codes and racial terror.
Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto—marking the first time in American history that a major piece of legislation was enacted over a presidential veto. This moment laid the groundwork for the 14th Amendment, which enshrined birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. Johnson’s veto, however, remains a stark example of how executive power can be wielded to delay justice and reinforce structural racism.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) plans to revoke a controversial interpretive rule that applied certain credit card protections to “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) products. This move follows a lawsuit filed by the Financial Technology Association (FTA), which represents major BNPL providers like PayPal, Klarna, Block, and Zip. In a joint court filing, the CFPB and FTA asked a federal judge to pause litigation while the agency works on rolling back the rule.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Weds 3/26 - Trump Targets Jenner & Block, SCOTUS Eyes FCC USF Fund, Musk-backed PACs Spend Big in WI, Exit Gas Taxes, Enter kWh Taxes
mercredi 26 mars 2025 • Durée 07:47
This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O’Connor
On this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O’Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court’s composition.
O’Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity.
Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O’Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer’s disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O’Connor’s presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation’s highest judicial institution.
President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm’s access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block’s former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Tues 3/25 - SCOTUS LA Redistricting Case, Judge Slams Trump's Deportations, DOJ Targets Law Firms Mean to Trump, State Corporate Tax Sharing Agreements
mardi 25 mars 2025 • Durée 08:30
This Day in Legal History: Scottsboro Boys Arrested
On this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation.
Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants’ right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform.
At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
Legal News for Mon 3/24 - Paul Weiss Trump Deal Fallout and "Explanation," 23andMe BK Filing, Judge Rebukes Trump Lawyers and Novel Clearview AI Privacy Settlement
lundi 24 mars 2025 • Durée 07:09
This Day in Legal History: Last Quaker Executed for Religious Beliefs in US
On March 24, 1661, William Leddra was executed in Boston, becoming the last Quaker in the American colonies to be put to death solely for his religious beliefs. Leddra, a devout Quaker, had previously been banished from Massachusetts under the colony's anti-Quaker laws but returned in defiance of the order. His return led to his arrest, imprisonment in harsh conditions through the winter, and eventual execution by hanging on Boston Common. His death marked the culmination of a brutal period of religious persecution in Puritan-controlled Massachusetts, where Quakers were seen as heretical threats to civil and religious order.
Between 1659 and 1661, four Quakers—Marmaduke Stephenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra—were executed under laws banning Quakers from the colony. Their trials and punishments drew condemnation from other colonies and even from England. Leddra’s hanging, in particular, caught the attention of King Charles II, who soon after issued a royal order halting capital punishment for religious dissent in Massachusetts. This effectively ended the execution of Quakers in the colonies.
The persecution stemmed from Puritan authorities’ intolerance of dissent and fear of Quaker evangelism, which rejected formal clergy and embraced equality, pacifism, and direct spiritual experience. Quakers continued to face fines, whippings, and imprisonment, but the death penalty was no longer enforced. Leddra’s martyrdom, like that of his fellow Friends, became a symbol of religious freedom’s cost and the struggle for tolerance in early America. His execution helped galvanize early opposition to theocratic rule and contributed to evolving colonial attitudes toward religious liberty.
Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp alleged in a firmwide email that rival law firms attempted to take advantage of the firm's vulnerability following a March 14 executive order from President Donald Trump. The order directed federal agencies to sever contracts with Paul Weiss clients, prompting the firm to negotiate a deal with Trump rather than pursue litigation. Karp expressed disappointment that instead of receiving support, competitors tried to poach both clients and attorneys during the turmoil.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
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.
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.
President 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.
President 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.
Willkie’s leadership acknowledged the difficult nature of the decision in a firmwide email, saying they evaluated the risks of resistance versus cooperation and ultimately chose to protect the firm’s interests and stakeholders. The firm also pledged to uphold laws on employment practices, maintain bipartisan client representation, and continue work for underrepresented groups. Trump emphasized that Willkie will commit to “merit-based hiring” and avoid what he called “illegal DEI discrimination,” with the firm agreeing to outside legal oversight for compliance.
Doug Emhoff, a partner at Willkie and husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly opposed the deal and urged leadership to resist. Just before the announcement, Emhoff warned students at Georgetown Law that democracy and the rule of law are under threat, and that lawyers must defend both.
A federal judge has dismissed the U.S. Justice Department’s corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be filed again. Judge Dale Ho rejected the DOJ’s request for a dismissal without prejudice, citing concerns that leaving the case open could make Adams appear beholden to the Trump administration, especially on immigration enforcement. The decision aligns with an independent legal opinion commissioned by the court, which warned that the threat of reindictment could create the perception that Adams’ actions were motivated by federal pressure rather than public service.
The original charges accused Adams of accepting illegal contributions and favors from Turkish officials, but Adams pleaded not guilty and maintained that the case was politically motivated retaliation for his criticism of President Biden’s immigration policies. In a surprising turn, the Trump administration backed Adams, arguing the prosecution interfered with his re-election efforts and hindered cooperation on deportation efforts.
The case became a political flashpoint in the run-up to the November mayoral election, with Adams facing low approval ratings and a field of Democratic challengers, including former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Multiple prosecutors resigned rather than follow the DOJ directive to drop the case, raising concerns about politicization within the department. Judge Ho’s ruling effectively ends the legal battle but leaves lingering questions about Justice Department independence and the political forces behind the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a major case that could determine whether South Carolina can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. The state, led by Republican officials, wants to exclude the organization from the Medicaid program because it provides abortions, even though federal funds cannot be used for abortion services. At issue is whether Medicaid recipients have the right to sue states under federal law to access care from any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood.
The case stems from a 2018 decision by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, who ordered Planned Parenthood’s removal from the state’s Medicaid program. The organization and a patient sued under an 1871 civil rights law, arguing that the move violated patients’ rights to choose their healthcare providers. Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that South Carolina’s actions were unlawful.
Planned Parenthood clinics in South Carolina offer a range of services to Medicaid patients, including cancer screenings, contraception, and general health exams. The state, supported by the Trump administration and represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that the Medicaid law does not grant individuals the right to sue.
The Supreme Court has addressed elements of this dispute before but has not yet ruled on the key legal question: whether Medicaid enrollees can challenge states that exclude providers for political or ideological reasons. A decision is expected by June.
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from carrying out mass firings of federal employees still in their probationary period, ruling that the government must follow established procedures for large-scale layoffs. The case stems from the administration’s February dismissal of about 24,500 workers without prior notice to states or local governments. U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland found the move likely violated federal law and ordered that only those employees living or working in the 19 suing states and Washington, D.C. must be reinstated.
This decision narrows an earlier, broader ruling and will remain in effect while the lawsuit continues. The plaintiffs, led by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, argue the firings were politically motivated and part of a broader effort to dismantle the federal workforce. While the administration claims poor performance was behind the dismissals, the judge noted that probationary status alone doesn't justify bypassing legal protections.
The Trump administration has appealed the decision, arguing Bredar overstepped his authority. An appellate court has so far declined to pause the ruling. The case highlights growing tension between the Trump administration’s push to reshape the federal government and the legal limits on executive power over civil service employment.
President Trump is expected to announce a sweeping new set of tariffs today at 4 p.m. ET, but no one seems to know exactly what the nut job in chief has in store. Speculation is rampant, with previous threats including 200% duties on European alcohol imports, and reports suggesting a possible 20% universal tariff. Businesses, investors, and world leaders are on edge, bracing for what could be a dramatic escalation in global trade tensions.
Confusion reigns across industries—from winemakers in Spain who feel caught in a trade war they never asked for, to U.S. auto suppliers now recalculating their costs under layered tariffs that could exceed 50%. Manufacturing data shows signs of contraction, and fears of stagflation are emerging. Stocks are slipping, gold is surging, and key trading partners like the EU, Mexico, and Canada are preparing potential countermeasures. Trump, meanwhile, has dubbed today “Liberation Day,” further muddying the policy waters.
With the exact scope and structure of the duties still unknown, the only certainty right now is uncertainty.
During arguments, both conservative and liberal justices questioned whether Wisconsin's approach unfairly favored some religious organizations over others. Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the state seemingly picking winners among religious groups. Catholic Charities contends their mission is rooted in faith, even if their services don’t explicitly promote religious doctrine. Wisconsin previously granted a similar exemption to one of their subsidiaries, prompting the current challenge.
Critics, including me, warn that granting the exemption could allow large religiously affiliated organizations, including major hospital systems, to bypass various regulations and potentially strip employees of benefits like unemployment insurance. A ruling is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear another major case involving Catholic interests on April 30, regarding the proposed creation of a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.
Yesterday, Nokia and Amazon announced they had resolved an international legal battle over alleged patent infringement related to video streaming and cloud computing technologies. The dispute centered on Nokia’s claims that Amazon improperly used its patented technology to power high-quality video on platforms like Prime Video and Twitch. Nokia had filed lawsuits in several jurisdictions, including the U.S., Germany, the UK, India, and the European Unified Patent Court.
Amazon, in turn, countersued in Delaware, accusing Nokia of infringing its cloud computing patents related to Amazon Web Services (AWS), including infrastructure and security technologies. A German court had previously ruled in Nokia’s favor, finding that Amazon had used its technology without proper licensing, though Amazon stated the decision wouldn’t affect its Prime Video users in Germany.
The companies have now signed a multi-year patent agreement, resolving all pending litigation under confidential terms. The agreement brings an end to multiple lawsuits and suggests ongoing cooperation between the two tech giants moving forward.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing 150,000 federal employees, filed a lawsuit aiming to stop President Donald Trump from eliminating collective bargaining rights for a large segment of the federal workforce. The suit, filed in Washington, D.C. federal court, challenges an executive order Trump issued the previous week that exempted over a dozen federal agencies from having to negotiate with employee unions. The NTEU argues that the order violates federal labor laws and the U.S. Constitution.
Trump’s order was followed by legal action from eight federal agencies against multiple union affiliates, attempting to invalidate existing contracts. The administration claims the move is necessary for national security and to streamline agency operations, including the ability to discipline or terminate employees more easily, particularly amid budget cuts.
The NTEU counters that the national security rationale is a pretext, accusing Trump of using the order to pursue political goals and retaliate against unions that have opposed his policies. The union seeks a court ruling to block the order and prevent agencies from enforcing it, warning that the action would severely undermine federal workers' rights and job protections.
My column for Bloomberg this week looks at a well-meaning but flawed proposal in New York: a so-called “noise tax” aimed at reducing helicopter sound pollution. The bill would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for aircraft that exceed a fixed noise threshold, but it doesn’t actually tax sound. Instead, it taxes occupancy—a fundamental mismatch if the goal is to reduce the auditory burden on residents.
If noise is the harm, we should tax noise directly. A static decibel cutoff misses how sound actually impacts people—context matters. A helicopter flying over the harbor at noon is not the same as one hovering over a quiet park at 6 a.m., but under this bill, both would be taxed identically if they’re equally loud. Worse, there’s no incentive to alter flight paths or schedules to reduce disruption, nor any reward for operators who try to minimize their noise without hitting the “quiet” threshold.
A well-designed externality tax should reflect actual social harm and promote behavior that reduces it. Congestion pricing in New York does this well by varying fees based on time and place. France’s noise tax on planes is another good example—it charges more for louder aircraft flying at more sensitive times. New York’s bill, by contrast, is more of a symbolic luxury tax that may make air travel slightly pricier but won’t make the skies meaningfully quieter.
If the goal is truly to reduce noise, the city needs to tax decibels—not passengers.
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.
Two 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.
Two 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.
French 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.
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.
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.
A 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.
A 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.
This 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.
The rule, issued in May 2024, treated BNPL plans like credit cards under the Truth in Lending Act, requiring providers to offer billing statements, handle disputes, and process refunds. It officially took effect in July, but the CFPB allowed a grace period for compliance. The FTA argued the CFPB overstepped its authority by reclassifying pay-in-four products—short-term, no-interest loans—without formal rulemaking or understanding the distinct nature of BNPL.
Despite some early industry cooperation and encouragement from the CFPB for other regulators to follow suit, fintech firms claimed the rule created regulatory confusion by misapplying standards meant for revolving credit. House Republicans tried to overturn the rule legislatively last year but failed.
The case, Financial Technology Association v. CFPB, remains on hold while the CFPB prepares formal steps to rescind the rule.
A federal judge in Washington, Beryl Howell, denied the Justice Department’s attempt to disqualify her from overseeing Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case challenging a Trump executive order targeting the law firm. The DOJ accused Howell of bias, pointing to remarks she made in public settings that criticized Trump and referenced his ties to Fusion GPS. In their motion, DOJ officials claimed she showed “partiality” and “animus” toward the president, citing her characterization of Trump having a “bee in his bonnet” over past political investigations.
Howell sharply rebuked the motion, calling it an “ad hominem” attack intended to undermine judicial integrity rather than engage with the legal merits. She emphasized that the parties would receive fair treatment and dismissed the disqualification effort as an attempt to preemptively discredit an unfavorable outcome.
The case stems from a Trump executive order aimed at punishing law firms perceived as politically hostile, including Perkins Coie, by restricting their federal building access and terminating government contracts with their clients. Perkins Coie argued the order caused immediate and severe business harm, including the loss of a long-standing client. Trump has since issued similar orders against other firms, such as Jenner & Block.
The DOJ’s attempt to remove Howell reflects a broader pattern of politicized efforts to delegitimize judicial rulings unfavorable to Trump. Meanwhile, a prior ethics complaint against Howell, filed by Rep. Elise Stefanik over earlier comments she made about the erosion of truth in public discourse, is still pending.
A federal appeals court has refused to pause a lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate over 17,000 federal workers fired during a mass purge of probationary employees across six government agencies. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had not shown that the district judge erred in finding the firings were likely unlawful. At issue is the role of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which Judge William Alsup said overstepped its authority by ordering the firings despite lacking the legal power to do so.
The affected agencies include the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. Some agencies claimed to have fired only a few hundred employees, while others—such as the Treasury and Agriculture Departments—terminated thousands. The fired employees were mostly probationary workers, often with less than two years in their roles, though some had longer federal service.
The ruling doesn’t prevent agencies from terminating probationary workers entirely, but it criticizes the centralized, OPM-directed method used. The Trump administration said it is working to reinstate the workers, placing them on paid leave for now, and has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
This case parallels another decision out of Maryland, where a judge ordered 25,000 similar reinstatements across 18 agencies, though on different legal grounds. That ruling has also been allowed to stand while under appeal.
In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, Italy is attempting to tax the illusion of “free” on the internet—and I wrote about why that’s a dangerous turn in VAT policy. In this piece, I walk through a recent move by Italian tax authorities to treat signing up for social media accounts as taxable barter transactions. The core claim is that when users hand over their personal data in exchange for access to a platform like Facebook or LinkedIn, a “supply for consideration” has occurred under EU VAT law. That would make the transaction taxable—even though no money changes hands.
I argued that while user data undeniably has value, the theory stretches the purpose of VAT well beyond its policy design. VAT is supposed to be a consumption tax on goods and services, not a levy on intangible exchanges of attention or personal information. If this theory holds, Italy wouldn’t just be taxing social media—it would be opening the door to taxing nearly every online interaction where data changes hands.
I also pointed out that VAT requires a tax base, and valuing user data at the point of account creation is speculative at best. The market value of data depends on aggregation and use over time, not on the individual transaction. Plus, data isn’t “consumed” in the way goods or traditional services are—it’s copied, repurposed, and monetized indefinitely. That doesn’t sit comfortably with the core logic of a consumption tax.
Finally, I highlighted how this approach could ripple across the EU, creating regulatory chaos. If a cookie consent or an email sign-up becomes a taxable event, we risk converting the very architecture of the internet into a VAT trap. Italy’s frustration with digital tax avoidance is understandable—but this isn’t the right solution.
This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner’s attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation.
Trump’s broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC’s funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund.
The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress’s broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC’s subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution’s assignment of legislative powers to Congress.
The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June.
A high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump’s support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state’s top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford.
Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel’s campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally.
Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he’s made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications.
A piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it’s time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn’t been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap.
I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs.
Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today’s drivers can choose where to fuel up.
Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition.
Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque.
The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg’s court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment.
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana’s congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering.
Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting.
The Justice Department, under President Trump’s direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession.
Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who’s dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn’t end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we’re being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it.
Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump’s order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ’s probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration.
Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn’t just threatening lawsuits—it’s undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check.
California’s new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it’s not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California’s sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world’s richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don’t create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land.
While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won’t solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city’s budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development.
We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don’t need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now.
The deal Paul Weiss struck included backing off diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and committing $40 million to pro bono work aligned with Trump administration priorities. Karp stressed that the administration is not selecting or approving the firm’s matters. He acknowledged internal backlash and intense emotions over the firm’s course of action but maintained that litigation would have likely jeopardized the firm's future, even with a legal victory.
Perkins Coie, targeted by a similar March 6 order, has chosen to sue and has already lost clients as a result. On March 21, Trump issued an additional executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to sanction attorneys and firms pursuing what the administration deems frivolous or vexatious litigation against the government.
23andMe Holding Co. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as it seeks to restructure and pursue a sale of the business. Despite financial challenges, the company plans to keep operating during the court-supervised process. The move is intended to help reduce costs, address legal and lease obligations, and stabilize operations.
Once valued at $3.5 billion after going public in 2021, the DNA testing company has since struggled financially. Court filings list $277.4 million in assets and $214.7 million in liabilities. It secured up to $35 million in debtor-in-possession financing from JMB Capital Partners to support its operations during the bankruptcy.
Co-founder Anne Wojcicki, who attempted unsuccessfully to take the company private earlier this month, has stepped down as CEO but will remain on the board. Joe Selsavage has been named interim CEO. The board's special committee chair, Mark Jensen, expressed hope that the bankruptcy process will allow 23andMe to address its challenges more effectively.
At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg criticized Trump administration lawyers for being “intemperate and disrespectful” in filings related to a case blocking the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The administration used the rarely invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify removing alleged members of Tren de Aragua without immigration court orders. Boasberg issued a 14-day freeze on those deportations, questioning the administration’s interpretation of the law and whether the individuals had any real opportunity to challenge their designation as gang members.
The administration filed documents accusing Boasberg of a "judicial fishing expedition," prompting his public rebuke. Boasberg emphasized the importance of professional conduct in court and asked the Justice Department to explain by Tuesday whether it had violated his order by allowing two deportation flights to land in El Salvador after his ruling.
Though Trump has said he would not defy court orders, the situation has raised constitutional concerns about executive overreach. Some deportees were reportedly refused by El Salvador’s government for not fitting the criteria or being the wrong nationality or gender. Lawyers for the migrants argue the administration’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act could lead to broad and discriminatory applications.
A U.S. federal judge in Chicago has approved a highly unusual class-action settlement against facial recognition firm Clearview AI that doesn’t include an immediate cash payout for affected individuals. Instead, under the agreement, class members—estimated to number between 65,000 and 125,000—may receive a 23% equity stake in the company. This could eventually translate into monetary compensation if Clearview is sold, merges, or goes public.
The lawsuit accused Clearview of violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by scraping billions of facial images from the internet and using them without consent. Clearview denied any wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman called the settlement “novel” but fair, emphasizing that the equity share isn’t speculative, given the company’s estimated valuation of up to $225 million. Based on that figure, the fund could reach $51.75 million.
As an alternative to equity, a court-appointed official may require Clearview to pay 17% of its post-settlement revenue in cash by 2027. The deal also drew criticism from 22 states and D.C., which argued that the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees—nearly 40% of the settlement value—were excessive. Coleman defended the fees, noting that such awards are typical in the 7th Circuit.
The judge further noted that continuing the litigation would be complex, costly, and time-consuming, justifying the settlement’s structure.
Découvrez des podcasts liées à Minimum Competence. Explorez des podcasts avec des thèmes, sujets, et formats similaires. Ces similarités sont calculées grâce à des données tangibles, pas d'extrapolations !
