Explorez tous les épisodes du podcast Minimum Competence

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.

GOP-Led States Want 20 Law Firms to Disclose Their DEI Practices

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.

Republicans Debate Hiking Top Tax Rate to 40% For Millionaires - Bloomberg

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.

Law professors, legal groups back Perkins Coie in lawsuit over Trump order | Reuters

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.

Without further ado, Igor Stravinsky’s Tango — enjoy!

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.”

The Court found the FDA’s approach consistent with its earlier guidance, despite claims from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the agency had pulled a “regulatory switcheroo.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, agreeing with most of the FDA’s decisions but sending the case back to the appeals court to reassess whether the agency erred in refusing to consider the companies’ marketing plans—an element the FDA had previously called “critical” for evaluating youth appeal.

Though the ruling solidifies the FDA’s regulatory role, its long-term impact is uncertain. President Trump, in furtherance of his undying effort to always be on the wrong side of everything, has promised to “save vaping,” though his campaign never clarified what that means in terms of future regulation. The case, FDA v. Wages and White Lion, leaves the appeals court to decide whether any procedural missteps by the FDA were ultimately harmless.

Supreme Court Largely Backs Biden-Era FDA on Flavored Vapes (1)

Elon Musk’s time in Washington as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) appears to be nearing its end. Both Musk and President Trump have hinted that his departure is imminent, with Trump noting that DGE itself “will end.” Originally designed as a temporary advisory panel to cut federal costs, DGE has morphed into a more integrated part of the government, staffed with Musk allies tasked with canceling contracts and slashing budgets.

However, signs of a wind-down are emerging. DGE staff are being reassigned to federal agencies, layoffs are underway, and the organization’s influence seems to be diminishing. Musk, a special government employee limited to 130 working days per year, is approaching that limit, though neither he nor the administration has confirmed when his tenure will end.

Musk’s recent political involvement also took a hit when his preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court lost, despite significant financial backing and a campaign visit. Tesla’s 13% drop in quarterly sales adds further pressure. Trump praised Musk’s contributions but acknowledged his corporate obligations, suggesting a graceful exit is likely rather than a public fallout.

DGE had once shared leadership between Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy left to run for Ohio governor. While Musk boasted about aiming to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, critics say the group’s progress has been overstated. Despite speculation, Trump hasn’t committed to keeping DGE operational post-Musk, indicating the administration may be moving to a new phase of governance.

Musk could be headed for a Washington exit after turbulent times at Trump's DOGE | AP News

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.

Trump reaches agreement with Milbank law firm | Reuters

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. 

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.

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.

Trump Strikes Deal With Willkie, Law Firm of Doug Emhoff (2)

Doug Emhoff's law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher reaches deal with Trump | Reuters

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.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case dismissed, cannot be brought again | Reuters

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.

US Supreme Court mulls South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood | Reuters

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.

US judge blocks Trump administration from firing federal employees on probation | Reuters

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.

Trump Tariffs Live: Global stock market and trade war fears as April 2 announcement looms | Reuters

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.

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.

US Supreme Court leans toward Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | Reuters

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.

Amazon, Nokia settle international patent dispute | Reuters

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.

Union sues to block Trump from ending collective bargaining for many federal workers | Reuters

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.

New York’s helicopter noise tax misses the target

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.

The Catholic Charities Bureau, founded in 1917, provides services like job placement and home visits for people with disabilities but does not require employees or service recipients to be Catholic. After one of its affiliates was granted an exemption in a separate case, the Bureau and other affiliates sought similar treatment in 2016. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2024 decision upheld the tax requirement, stating the group’s activities were charitable rather than religious.

The case has broader implications for how courts distinguish between religious and secular work, with critics warning that a ruling in favor of the charities could allow large religiously affiliated organizations to bypass many government regulations, jeopardizing benefits for hundreds of thousands of workers. The decision is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear a related case on April 30 concerning a proposed taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.

US Supreme Court to hear Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | Reuters

Catholic Charities Case Poised to Shape Religious Tax Exemptions

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.

Judges block Trump orders targeting two law firms as Skadden cuts deal | Reuters

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.

Fired Agency Officials Lose Attempt at Immediate Reinstatement

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.

Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool | Reuters

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.

The financial industry’s immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable.

No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They’ll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment’s reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they’re looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity. 

Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1)

Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale’s clients, revoke lawyers’ security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller’s investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block.

Trump criticized Mueller’s investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies.

WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump’s agenda.

Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2)

Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | Reuters

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.

Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | Reuters

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.

Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | Reuters

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.

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.

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.

CFPB Plans to Revoke Buy Now, Pay Later Rule Fintechs Fought (1)

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.

Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Oust Her From Perkins Coie Fight (2)

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.

Appeals court won't pause ruling that forced US to reinstate federal workers | Reuters

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.

​​Italy—Where Creating A Social Media Account May Be A Taxable Event

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 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.

Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | Reuters

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.

US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | Reuters

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.

Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | Reuters

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.

It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax

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.

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.

Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | Reuters

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.

US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | Reuters

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.

DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump Memo

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.

Transparency Alone Won’t Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain

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.

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.

Paul Weiss Chairman Accuses Rival Firms of Pursuing Clients (1)

Law firm Paul Weiss defends deal with Trump as lawyers sound alarm | Reuters

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.

23andMe Starts Chapter 11 Process, Co-Founder Steps Down - Bloomberg

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.

Judge in deportations case says Trump administration lawyers were 'disrespectful' | Reuters

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.

US judge approves 'novel' Clearview AI class action settlement | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery March

On March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.

The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.

There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. 

Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I’m wise – I survived.”

The boot replied, “You’re not wise. You’re soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” 

Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. 

In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration’s political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.

Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA’s prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.

Karp’s public gratitude for the order’s withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.

This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump’s icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.

Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)

Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.

The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.

Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.

The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.

New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax Noise

A federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk’s anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.

The data in question comes from the SSA’s “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.

The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk’s authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump’s administration has defended DGE’s mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order’s breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.

Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans’ data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE’s aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.

Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | Reuters

Chief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump’s second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.

Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump’s return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden’s term, Sykes’s departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.

Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin’s voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.

This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.

The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It’s unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach’s time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.

The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It’s structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn’t declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.

This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach’s Prelude accompany us out.

Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. Enjoy!

This Day in Legal History: LBJ Federalizes Alabama National Guard

On March 20, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson took a decisive step in the fight for civil rights by federalizing the Alabama National Guard to protect marchers participating in the Selma to Montgomery march. This action followed the brutal events of "Bloody Sunday" on March 7, when peaceful demonstrators advocating for Black voting rights were violently attacked by Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. A second attempt to march on March 9, known as "Turnaround Tuesday," ended without violence but still lacked sufficient protection.

Johnson’s decision to federalize the National Guard came after Alabama Governor George Wallace refused to ensure the safety of demonstrators, despite mounting national pressure. With federal troops in place, the march proceeded on March 21 under the protection of U.S. Army units, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Over five days, thousands of demonstrators walked the 54-mile route to Montgomery, with their numbers growing to 25,000 by the time they reached the Alabama State Capitol on March 25.

This federal intervention was a turning point in the civil rights movement, demonstrating the government's willingness to enforce constitutional rights against state resistance. The Selma marches galvanized public support for voting rights and led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. Johnson’s decision highlighted the power of federal authority to challenge systemic racism and protect fundamental freedoms.

Thousands of probationary federal employees ordered reinstated by federal courts remain in limbo as the Trump administration fights lawsuits over workforce changes. Courts in Maryland and California ruled that roughly 25,000 employees must be rehired, but many are on paid leave instead of actively working. Some workers fear they may have to return their back pay if an appeals court overturns the rulings.

Attorneys representing federal employees say agencies are slow to restore full duties or compensation. Ashley Ashworth, a reinstated Health and Human Services worker, said she was rehired but given no work, making her uncertain about her future. Adding to concerns, Trump’s broader federal agency reorganization plans could lead to further layoffs, with probationary employees at the highest risk.

Judges have pressed the administration for details on when affected employees will return, emphasizing that indefinite paid leave is not permitted. While agencies claim they are taking steps to reinstate workers, some employees have only received vague instructions about returning to duty. With legal battles ongoing, many fear their reinstatement—and pay—may be temporary.

Fired Federal Workers Stuck in Limbo After Judges Order Return

Disney shareholders are set to vote on a proposal urging the company to withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which ranks businesses based on LGBTQ-friendly policies. The proposal, backed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, follows similar exits by companies like Lowe’s, Ford, and Harley-Davidson, which faced conservative pressure to scale back diversity initiatives.

This effort aligns with broader conservative pushes, including those from the Trump administration, to dismantle corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Disney, which holds a perfect score on the index, has previously faced scrutiny for its opposition to Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay" law.

Similar shareholder proposals in the past have received little support, typically failing to reach more than 2% backing. The proposal also references backlash against brands like Bud Light and Target over LGBTQ marketing. Disney has defended its transparency in such matters and called the proposal unnecessary.

Anti-DEI Disney Investors Press Vote on Abandoning LGBTQ Index

A federal judge warned the Trump administration of potential consequences if it violated his order temporarily halting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Judge James Boasberg expressed skepticism that revealing deportation details would compromise national security, especially after Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly shared flight information. Despite the order, three planes carrying deported Venezuelans landed in El Salvador, leading to questions about whether the administration defied the ruling.

Boasberg requested details on the deportation flights, extending the administration’s deadline to provide information. Trump’s administration pushed back, arguing that the judge was overstepping his authority and that executive branch decisions on deportations were absolute. Meanwhile, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that appeals—not impeachment—are the proper response to judicial disagreements.

Boasberg initially blocked the deportations, ruling that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act did not justify Trump’s claims that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua’s presence in the U.S. constituted an act of war. His order came after two deportation flights had already taken off. While some planes landed after the ruling, a third took off after the written order was publicly filed, raising further legal disputes. The administration defended its actions, arguing that some deportations were based on other legal grounds beyond the Alien Enemies Act.

Judge warns of consequences if Trump administration violated deportation order | Reuters

The Trump administration is appealing a judge’s order requiring Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide records related to their role in reshaping the federal government. The Justice Department argues that the order, which demands Musk and DGE disclose information to Democratic state officials, raises serious separation-of-powers concerns by compelling a presidential adviser and White House-affiliated entity to comply.

The dispute stems from a lawsuit by 14 Democratic-led states alleging that Musk and DGE unconstitutionally exercised power by cutting federal programs, downsizing agencies, and accessing sensitive government systems. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling allows state officials to request documents and written responses but stops short of allowing depositions or direct questioning of DGE officials. Trump himself is not subject to the evidence requests.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, leading the lawsuit, argues that DGE must provide transparency regarding its actions. The case follows other legal challenges against DGE, including a Maryland ruling that found Musk’s involvement in shutting down USAID likely unconstitutional and another requiring DGE to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. The administration may escalate the fight to the Supreme Court if the appeals court does not intervene.

Trump Administration Fights Order to Turn Over DOGE Records (1)

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Re-Legalizes Gambling

On March 19, 1931, Nevada Governor Fred B. Balzar signed a bill legalizing gambling, a decision that would reshape the state's economy and identity. At the time, Nevada was struggling through the Great Depression, and state lawmakers saw legalized gambling as a way to generate revenue and attract tourism. The measure made Nevada the first U.S. state to formally embrace commercial gaming, setting the stage for the rise of Las Vegas as the world’s gambling capital.

Initially, the law allowed for small-scale gaming operations, but over time, it evolved into a massive industry. In the 1940s and 1950s, organized crime syndicates invested heavily in Las Vegas casinos, fueling both the city’s expansion and its reputation for vice. By the 1960s, corporate interests took over, bringing legitimacy and regulation to the industry. Today, Nevada’s gaming industry generates billions in revenue and remains a cornerstone of its economy.

The legalization of gambling also influenced other states, many of which later followed Nevada’s lead by authorizing casinos and lotteries to boost their own economies. However, the decision was not without controversy—critics argued it would lead to crime and social problems. Despite these concerns, the success of legalized gambling in Nevada proved that, with regulation, gaming could be a major economic driver.

Governor Balzar’s decision on this day in 1931 not only changed Nevada but also helped shape the broader American gaming industry, making March 19 a landmark date in legal and economic history.

A federal judge has halted Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) from further efforts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ruling that their actions likely violated the U.S. Constitution. Judge Theodore Chuang's preliminary ruling orders the restoration of USAID employees’ computer access after Musk and DGE had placed thousands on leave and blocked agency systems. The lawsuit, filed by USAID employees, argues that Musk unlawfully took control of the agency without Senate confirmation, exceeding executive authority.

President Trump, who had appointed Musk as an adviser, responded by vowing to appeal, calling the ruling an example of judicial overreach. While Chuang agreed that Musk's actions were unconstitutional, he did not reverse the termination of USAID contracts, which had already crippled global humanitarian operations. In a related case, another judge ordered the administration to release $671 million in frozen payments to USAID contractors, though the government has delayed full compliance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that over 80% of USAID’s programs were being eliminated.

US judge finds Musk's USAID cuts likely unconstitutional, blocks him from making more cuts | Reuters

A federal judge rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student arrested by immigration authorities for his role in pro-Palestinian protests. However, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that he lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to New Jersey, where Khalil was detained when his lawyers first filed the challenge. The ruling did not address Khalil’s request for bail.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of Palestinian descent, was arrested on March 8 outside his Manhattan residence. His lawyers argue that his detention was retaliatory and violated his First Amendment rights. The Trump administration has justified his removal under a rarely used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing deportation if a noncitizen is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited Khalil’s participation in "pro-Hamas events" as justification, though Khalil denies any ties to Hamas and claims he was a mediator in the protests.

Legal experts note that this law was previously ruled unconstitutional by the late Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, though that decision was later overturned on a technicality. Khalil’s case has become central to debates over immigration enforcement and free speech, particularly as Trump pushes for deporting noncitizens involved in campus protests.

Judge denies Trump bid to toss Columbia student's challenge to arrest | Reuters

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a mild rebuke to President Donald Trump for calling for the impeachment of a federal judge, stating that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a judicial ruling. While Roberts' statement affirms judicial independence, it does little to address the broader issue: Trump’s rhetoric is not just about disagreement with a ruling—it is part of a broader effort to delegitimize the judiciary and erode checks on executive power.

Roberts has a history of making these kinds of statements, such as his 2018 remark that "we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges." But mere words are insufficient when Trump and his allies actively undermine the rule of law. The administration’s refusal to comply with Judge James Boasberg’s order halting deportations under a rarely used 18th-century law is more than a policy dispute—it is an act of defiance that inches toward a constitutional crisis. If the courts' authority is disregarded, the judiciary’s power is only as strong as its willingness to enforce its rulings.

Trump's call for impeachment is not an isolated outburst. It coincides with a broader push by his allies, including Elon Musk and congressional Republicans, to frame judges as enemies of democracy. Given rising threats against judges, the Chief Justice’s response should have gone beyond a procedural reminder to file an appeal. A firm defense of judicial enforcement and the rule of law, backed by action from the courts, is needed—because if the judiciary allows itself to be treated as an advisory body rather than an independent branch of government, mere statements will not protect it.

US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge | Reuters

In my column this week, I talked about grocery taxes–or more accurately their potential elimination in some states. With grocery prices remaining high, some states are considering eliminating grocery sales taxes entirely to ease financial burdens on residents. However, a blanket repeal could strain already-tight state budgets, especially as federal funding for social programs faces potential cuts. Instead of eliminating the tax entirely, targeted approaches—such as income-based exemptions or allowing municipalities to retain and reinvest grocery tax revenue—offer more sustainable relief.

Income-based exemptions would ensure that low-income households receive the most benefit while maintaining revenue streams for essential services. For example, Idaho already provides grocery tax credits for low-income taxpayers, and a more efficient model could exempt qualifying households from paying the tax at checkout, reducing their financial strain. This method would prevent a full repeal that could destabilize state budgets while addressing the regressive nature of grocery taxes.

States struggling with budget shortfalls from past tax cuts, like Arizona and West Virginia, serve as cautionary tales. Arizona's 2021 flat tax contributed to a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing cuts to higher education, while West Virginia's aggressive post-pandemic tax cuts created funding gaps that could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Removing grocery taxes without a revenue replacement could lead to similar outcomes.

Alternatively, allowing local governments to retain grocery taxes and use the revenue for food assistance, childcare subsidies, or public transportation could provide relief without compromising state services. Since different municipalities have varying fiscal needs, this approach would offer flexibility while ensuring that low-income families receive targeted aid.

A well-designed policy would balance tax relief with financial responsibility, preventing unintended consequences like service cuts that ultimately harm those who need assistance the most.

States Shouldn't Cut Grocery Taxes Entirely, Just Refine Them

This Day in Legal History: Gideon v. Wainwright

On March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, fundamentally reshaping the American legal system. The case began when Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida man accused of burglary, was denied a court-appointed attorney because state law only provided counsel for capital cases. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. From his jail cell, he handwrote a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court unanimously agreed, ruling that states must provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. This decision extended the right to legal representation to all criminal defendants, regardless of financial status, reinforcing the principle of a fair trial. The ruling overturned Betts v. Brady (1942), which had allowed states discretion in providing counsel. As a result, public defender systems were expanded nationwide, ensuring that indigent defendants received proper legal representation. Gideon v. Wainwright remains a cornerstone of American criminal law, highlighting the importance of due process and equal justice. Today, the case serves as a reminder of how a single individual’s persistence can shape constitutional rights for millions.

Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status, creating a vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill. Ikuta, appointed by George W. Bush, has served on the court for over a decade and is known for her conservative rulings. Her decision to step back adds to Trump's opportunities to shape the judiciary, as he previously appointed 54 appellate judges in his first term. The Ninth Circuit, historically liberal, has seen a shift in balance, with 16 Democratic-appointed and 13 Republican-appointed judges. Ikuta authored key opinions supporting Trump-era immigration and family planning policies. Before her judicial career, she worked as a journalist and later pursued law, clerking for prominent judges. Her transition to senior status will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor.

Ninth Circuit's Ikuta to Step Back, Gives Trump Vacancy on Court

A U.S. judge has ordered the Trump administration to clarify whether it violated a court order by deporting hundreds of Venezuelans, potentially setting up a constitutional conflict. The administration defended its actions, arguing that courts lack authority over the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked wartime law. Judge James Boasberg had temporarily blocked the deportations, but flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members still proceeded. El Salvador’s president shared footage of deportees arriving, seemingly defying the court’s directive. White House officials denied wrongdoing, while Trump’s border czar suggested they would continue the deportations regardless of judicial rulings. 

Legal experts countered that the government must follow court orders, regardless of where deportations occur. The ACLU and civil rights groups raised concerns over due process and the administration’s broad use of executive power. Trump has increasingly tested legal limits since taking office, often facing judicial intervention. The outcome of this case could further define the balance of power between the presidency and the courts.

US Judge Seeks Answers on Deportation of Venezuelans Despite Court Order

U.S. authorities deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Rhode Island doctor, to Lebanon after finding images and videos on her phone that they claimed were sympathetic to Hezbollah. She had also attended the funeral of Hezbollah’s former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and stated her support for him from a religious perspective. The U.S. government classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and officials said they could not determine her true intentions in the country. A federal judge had issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before her removal, but she was deported the same day. The Justice Department argued that proper notification procedures were followed, defending Customs and Border Protection against claims of violating the court order. Alawieh’s legal team withdrew from the case, citing new diligence concerns. The court later sealed documents related to the government’s explanation. The situation raises legal questions about immigration enforcement and judicial authority.

Doctor deported to Lebanon had photos 'sympathetic' to Hezbollah on phone, US says | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: National Referendum on Apartheid

On March 17, 1992, South Africa took a decisive step toward dismantling apartheid through a historic national referendum. White South African voters were asked whether they supported the government’s efforts to end apartheid and negotiate a new, democratic constitution. An overwhelming 68.7% voted in favor, signaling broad support for ending over four decades of racial segregation. This referendum provided then-President F.W. de Klerk with the political mandate to continue negotiations with the African National Congress (ANC) and other groups. The result was a major victory for the anti-apartheid movement, which had long fought against the country’s system of institutionalized racial oppression.

The referendum was limited to white voters, who had historically benefited from apartheid, making their approval a crucial moment in South African history. It paved the way for the country’s first multiracial elections in 1994, in which Nelson Mandela was elected president. With this, South Africa officially transitioned from an apartheid state to a democracy, enshrining equal rights for all citizens. The vote also marked the beginning of legal reforms that led to the adoption of a new constitution in 1996. While the end of apartheid did not immediately erase economic and social inequalities, the referendum remains a defining moment in the country’s legal and political history. It demonstrated that legal systems, even when designed to uphold injustice, can be reformed through democratic means.

A federal judge ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) must reinstate probationary employees it had recently terminated. As a result, the agency is bringing back those workers, along with most term employees, and providing them with back pay. However, term employees with more than two years of service were not reinstated. The CFPB had initially fired 70 enforcement attorneys and up to 100 other employees after acting Director Russell Vought took over in February. The judge’s decision is part of a broader legal battle over federal workforce reductions, with similar rulings affecting multiple agencies. Despite this setback, the Trump administration remains committed to deep staffing cuts across federal agencies, with reduction plans already submitted to the Office of Personnel Management. The firings had faced opposition from the National Treasury Employees Union, which reached an agreement with the CFPB to pause additional terminations while another court considers an injunction. The reinstatement process has been messy, with workers unsure of their status and vendor contracts disrupted. However, legally mandated CFPB functions, such as consumer response, are being prioritized for restoration.

CFPB Brings Back Probationary Employees After Judge's Ruling

Trump has escalated his attacks on major law firms, this time targeting Paul Weiss, a firm known for representing top financial institutions and engaging in high-profile pro bono work. His executive order directs federal agencies to cut ties with companies that are Paul Weiss clients and suspend the firm’s lawyers’ security clearances. The move follows similar actions against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. Paul Weiss has deep ties to Wall Street, with clients including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Global Management. Some of these corporate leaders have criticized Trump’s tariff policies, potentially influencing his decision to go after the firm.

Trump’s order highlights Paul Weiss’s past work, including its involvement in a lawsuit against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers over the January 6 Capitol riot. The firm has a long history of civil rights advocacy, from Brown v. Board of Education to LGBTQ+ and voting rights cases. Critics argue Trump’s actions are politically motivated, targeting firms with Democratic connections while ignoring their bipartisan donor base. A federal judge previously blocked a similar order against Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss is expected to mount a strong legal challenge. However, even if the order is overturned, the chilling effect is real—firms risk losing business from clients wary of crossing Trump. Some industry experts believe this could push law firms to unite against political interference, but whether collective action emerges remains uncertain.

Trump Fights Paul Weiss as Wall Street Seeks President's Ear

Trump targets law firm Paul Weiss in order restricting government access | Reuters

The Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants despite a federal judge’s order blocking the move. The deportations targeted alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, whom the administration labeled as “terrorists.” The White House dismissed the court’s authority, arguing that a single judge could not override the president’s powers on immigration and national security. Judge James Boasberg had ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations was unlawful, as the law applies only to conflicts “commensurate to war.” Despite this, flights carrying the migrants landed in El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele publicly mocked the judge’s ruling and confirmed the men were being imprisoned.

Legal experts, including the ACLU, argue the administration is in open defiance of the court and may have violated constitutional checks and balances. The White House claimed that some migrants had already been deported before the judge’s order, but it remains unclear if others were removed afterward. Critics see this as an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority, while Trump defended the deportations, calling the migrants "bad people" and insisting the situation amounted to war. The legal battle over these actions is expected to continue, with calls for the U.S. government to reverse any unlawful removals.

Trump administration deports Venezuelans despite court order, says judge has no authority

The White House is taking an unprecedented role in overseeing the sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations, with Vice President JD Vance leading the process. Instead of a traditional investment bank managing the auction, Vance’s legal team is directly engaging with bidders and advising on their offers. President Trump has emphasized his control over the sale, claiming multiple groups are interested, while also suggesting the U.S. government could take a 50% stake in TikTok’s American assets.

The sale process is highly unusual, lacking a defined valuation or clear asset structure, and ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, has shown minimal engagement. Potential buyers, including investors like Frank McCourt and Kevin O’Leary, face an April 5 deadline to reach a deal. However, Beijing’s involvement and the possibility that ByteDance could simply shut down TikTok in the U.S. add further uncertainty.

While the U.S. government has previously intervened in corporate deals for national security or economic stability reasons, experts question whether TikTok meets such criteria. Trump, who initially sought to ban TikTok, has since acknowledged its role in helping him gain young voters. The app’s sale price remains uncertain, largely depending on whether its valuable recommendation algorithm is included. With intense competition among bidders and political interests shaping the process, the outcome remains unpredictable.

The White House’s unusual role as dealmaker in TikTok sale | Reuters

In a piece I wrote for Forbes this weekend, I lay out what I reckon is the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. 

The Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate taxes for individuals earning under $150,000 sounds appealing at first but carries severe consequences. Social Security and Medicare rely heavily on payroll taxes, which most workers in this income range pay more than income taxes. If these taxes are removed, the programs will be starved of funding, leading to either massive deficit spending, extreme benefit cuts, or a shift to regressive taxes like sales taxes. The proposal, combined with extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while leaving the middle class to shoulder the remaining tax burden. The TCJA already made corporate tax cuts permanent while setting individual cuts to expire by 2025, favoring the rich. If this new plan moves forward, those earning just above $150,000 could become the last major tax-paying bracket, while state and local taxes would likely rise to compensate. The ultra-wealthy, who benefited the most from previous tax cuts, are unlikely to pick up the slack. Rather than a tax break for workers, the proposal appears to be a backdoor attempt to dismantle entitlement programs. If no one is paying in, no one gets benefits out—a reality Trump’s allies don’t want to admit.

Trump Administration’s No Taxes Under $150k Proposal Is A Disaster

This Day in Legal History: Jack Ruby Convicted

On March 14, 1964, Jack Ruby was convicted of murdering Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner, had shot Oswald on live television two days after Kennedy’s assassination, as police were transferring Oswald from the city jail. The highly publicized trial concluded with a guilty verdict, and Ruby was sentenced to death. However, in 1966, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned the conviction, ruling that improper testimony had been admitted and that the trial should not have taken place in Dallas, where impartiality was questionable. A retrial was ordered, but before it could proceed, Ruby died of lung cancer on January 3, 1967. His actions and their legal consequences remain a topic of debate, with some believing he was motivated by grief and others suspecting a broader conspiracy.

Ruby testified before the Warren Commission in July 1964, providing a rambling account of his mental state and possible connections to figures of interest. Arlen Specter, a future U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, was among those questioning him. The case highlighted due process concerns, particularly regarding venue changes in high-profile trials, and underscored the legal system’s challenges in handling emotionally charged cases with national significance.

Two federal judges, one in Maryland and another in California, have ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary federal workers who were fired as part of a sweeping effort to shrink the government. The rulings represent the most significant legal challenge yet to Trump and adviser Elon Musk’s aggressive push to cut federal jobs. The Maryland case, led by 20 Democratic-led states, targeted 18 agencies accused of unlawfully dismissing workers without following required procedures. Judge James Bredar ruled that the firings amounted to mass layoffs requiring prior notice to state governments.

In California, Judge William Alsup reached a similar conclusion, ordering reinstatement for workers at six agencies, including the Department of Defense. He criticized the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for directing agencies to fire workers en masse without legal authority. The Trump administration argues that probationary employees have few job protections and can be terminated for nearly any reason. However, Democratic-led states claim the firings violated regulations requiring agencies to provide 60 days’ notice before mass layoffs.

At least 24,000 probationary workers have been fired since Trump returned to office, affecting agencies such as the EPA, Department of Education, and Homeland Security. The Merit Systems Protection Board has also intervened, recently ordering the Agriculture Department to temporarily reinstate nearly 6,000 workers. Meanwhile, unions and advocacy groups continue legal efforts to block further terminations, with the American Federation of Government Employees calling the rulings a victory against an administration aiming to cripple federal agencies. The Trump administration has vowed to fight back against the court orders, arguing they undermine presidential authority.

Fired Workers at 18 Agencies Reinstated in Court Blow to Trump

US judges order Trump administration to reinstate thousands of fired workers

Columbia University has issued severe punishments to students involved in a pro-Palestinian protest that occupied a campus building last spring, including expulsions and temporary degree revocations. The announcement follows the Trump administration’s decision to cancel $400 million in federal funding to the university, citing an inadequate response to antisemitism. Interim President Katrina Armstrong acknowledged the government’s concerns and pledged cooperation. However, the university has not disclosed the number of students disciplined, nor their identities, citing privacy laws.

Critics argue the crackdown is politically motivated, particularly since the expelled student union president, Grant Miner, was removed just before contract negotiations with the university. The Trump administration has escalated its efforts against what it labels "pro-Hamas" protests, detaining Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, a protest leader, for deportation—though a federal judge has temporarily blocked the move. These actions raise serious concerns about the suppression of campus activism and whether the university’s response was driven by financial and political pressure rather than an impartial disciplinary process.

Columbia’s handling of the protests appears to be shaped more by government pressure than by a genuine commitment to campus safety or free speech. The timing of expulsions, particularly targeting a union leader, suggests a broader effort to stifle dissent rather than uphold academic integrity. The federal crackdown on protesters further complicates the situation, blurring the line between addressing antisemitism and suppressing legitimate political expression.

Columbia University punishes pro-Palestinian protesters who occupied building | Reuters

Newsmax has paid $40 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Smartmatic over false claims that the company helped rig the 2020 U.S. election for Joe Biden. The settlement was reached privately last year, but the amount was disclosed in a recent investor filing. Smartmatic sued Newsmax in 2021, alleging the network knowingly spread misinformation, falsely stating that its machines were hacked and that it was backed by corrupt regimes. Newsmax defended its reporting as protected by the First Amendment but later clarified its coverage and invited Smartmatic to respond on air, an offer Smartmatic declined.

Smartmatic had initially sought between $400 million and $600 million in damages. Meanwhile, the company continues its $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, following a historic $787.5 million settlement Fox paid to Dominion Voting Systems. The Newsmax case underscores the financial and legal consequences media outlets face for amplifying election misinformation, particularly when it leads to measurable reputational and financial harm.

Newsmax paid $40 million to settle defamation suit over US 2020 election claims | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Hector Berlioz

On this day in 1869, French composer Hector Berlioz passed away, leaving behind a legacy of bold orchestration, vivid storytelling, and groundbreaking compositions that pushed Romantic music to new heights. Born in 1803, Berlioz defied his family’s wishes for him to become a doctor, instead immersing himself in the world of music, where his dramatic flair and innovative techniques set him apart. He was a master of programmatic music, crafting works that told intense, almost cinematic stories through sound.

His most famous composition, Symphonie Fantastique, is a perfect example of this. Written in 1830, the symphony follows a tormented artist haunted by unrequited love, spiraling into madness and hallucination. The final movement, “Dreams of a Witches’ Sabbath,” is a feverish nightmare of swirling strings, eerie bells, and grotesque dance rhythms, as the protagonist imagines his own funeral turned into a macabre celebration. The piece is filled with dark energy, blending horror and exhilaration in a way that was revolutionary for its time.

Berlioz’s influence stretched far beyond his own era, inspiring composers like Wagner, Mahler, and even film composers of the 20th century. Though he struggled for recognition during his lifetime, often facing resistance from conservative critics, his music eventually gained the admiration it deserved. His orchestral mastery and fearless storytelling continue to captivate listeners today.

To close this week, we leave you with the chilling and electrifying "Dream of a Witches’ Sabbath" from Symphonie Fantastique, a piece that perfectly embodies Berlioz’s genius for the dramatic and the surreal.

Without further ado, Hector Berlioz’s “Dreams of a Witches Sabbath” from his Symphonie Fantastique. Enjoy! 

This Day in Legal History: Butler Act Passes in Tennessee

On March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Butler Act, a law prohibiting public school teachers from denying the biblical account of creation and from teaching evolution. The law reflected growing tensions between religious fundamentalism and modern science in early 20th-century America. Although the statute faced little opposition in the legislature, it soon became the center of national controversy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought to challenge the law and found a willing participant in John T. Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution and put on trial in July 1925 in what became known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. The trial drew national attention, featuring a courtroom showdown between famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow and three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who argued for the prosecution. Though Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, the case exposed deep cultural divisions in the United States. The verdict was later overturned on a technicality, but the Butler Act remained in effect until 1967. The case paved the way for future legal battles over academic freedom and the separation of church and state in public education.

French publishers and authors have filed a lawsuit against Meta, accusing the tech giant of using copyrighted content without permission to train its AI models. The National Publishing Union (SNE), the National Union of Authors and Composers (SNAC), and the Society of Men of Letters (SGDL) allege that Meta engaged in large-scale copyright infringement and economic "parasitism."

This marks the first such lawsuit in France against an AI company, though similar cases have emerged in the U.S., where Meta faces lawsuits from authors, including Sarah Silverman and Christopher Farnsworth. Other AI firms, such as OpenAI, are also facing legal challenges in multiple countries over data used to train their models.

The French associations argue that Meta’s actions amount to “monumental looting” and see the case as a critical battle for copyright protection in the AI era. Meta has not yet responded to the allegations.

French publishers and authors file lawsuit against Meta in AI case | Reuters

The Trump administration has revoked $20 billion in funding for greenhouse gas reduction projects, a move criticized by climate advocates and Democrats as an illegal seizure of funds intended for clean energy and disadvantaged communities. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the decision, citing concerns over fraud, waste, and mismanagement, though no specific details were provided. The U.S. Justice Department and FBI are now reviewing the program.

The funds were originally allocated through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act under President Biden to support pollution-reduction projects. Under Trump, the EPA has sought to halt climate-related funding, aligning with broader efforts to scale back environmental initiatives. The agency has not clarified how it plans to reallocate the funds.

In response, the advocacy group Climate United Fund has sued the EPA and Citibank, arguing that withholding the funds violates a legally binding agreement. The lawsuit represents one of the first major legal battles over the Biden-era climate policies under the new administration.

Trump administration claws back $20 billion in climate funds | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Education has announced plans to lay off nearly half its staff, potentially setting the stage for its complete elimination as part of President Trump's broader effort to downsize the federal government. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon confirmed the move aligns with Trump’s mandate to dismantle the department, which manages student loans and enforces civil rights laws in schools.

The layoffs are part of a wider restructuring effort led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), which has already cut over 100,000 federal jobs and halted numerous programs. While the administration argues these cuts reduce government waste, critics—including unions representing affected workers—condemn them as reckless and legally questionable.

Many agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the Social Security Administration, have offered early retirement buyouts to meet Trump’s cost-cutting demands. However, lawsuits challenging these mass layoffs are mounting, with concerns over legality and disruption to essential government functions.

US Education Department to cut half its staff as Trump eyes its elimination | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Warsaw Pact States Join NATO

On March 12, 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This historic moment marked a significant shift in the post-Cold War security landscape, as these nations formally aligned with the Western military alliance nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their accession symbolized a decisive break from their communist past and reinforced their commitment to democratic governance, rule of law, and collective defense.

The expansion was not without controversy. Russia viewed NATO’s eastward growth as a threat to its sphere of influence, deepening tensions that would continue into the 21st century. However, for the newly admitted countries, NATO membership provided critical security assurances against potential aggression, particularly given their historical experiences with Soviet domination. The accession process required extensive military and political reforms, ensuring that these nations met NATO’s standards for democracy, civilian control of the military, and defense readiness.

The inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland set the stage for further NATO enlargement, with additional Eastern European countries joining in subsequent years. It also reinforced NATO’s role as a stabilizing force in Europe during a period of geopolitical uncertainty. The decision underscored the alliance’s post-Cold War mission of promoting security and democracy beyond its original Western European membership. Today, this expansion remains a key milestone in the ongoing debate over NATO’s role in global security and its relationship with Russia.

The removal of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger has raised concerns about the politicization of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency that protects federal whistleblowers. Dellinger, who was dismissed by President Trump without explanation, initially challenged his firing but later withdrew his case after a federal appellate court sided with the administration. His removal highlights the administration’s broader efforts to exert control over independent agencies, a move that legal experts warn could undermine their impartiality.

During his tenure, Dellinger was an advocate for federal workers, helping reinstate over 5,000 Department of Agriculture employees who were improperly fired. His dismissal is expected to weaken the OSC’s role in protecting workers from political retaliation. Legal scholars suggest that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the precedent set by his firing could give future presidents greater authority over independent agencies.

The case also ties into a broader legal battle over presidential power, as courts are reviewing Trump’s terminations of other agency officials, including members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While Dellinger had legal grounds to challenge his firing, he strategically chose not to pursue the case, allowing stronger challenges—such as that of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox—to take precedence.

The legal debate is moving toward a potential Supreme Court review of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that limits the president’s power to remove independent agency officials. If overturned, the ruling could significantly expand presidential authority over such agencies.

Dellinger Exit Deepens OSC Politicization as Workers Lose Ally

A U.S. judge will hold a hearing on Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil’s challenge to his arrest by immigration authorities, a case that has sparked protests and political debate. Khalil, a Palestinian student and U.S. permanent resident, was arrested outside his university residence by Homeland Security agents. The Trump administration has accused him—without providing any evidence—of supporting Hamas, though Khalil has not been charged with any crime.

Judge Jesse Furman has temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation and may order his release if his rights were violated. However, an immigration court—not Furman—would ultimately decide whether Khalil can be deported, a process that could take years. Khalil’s lawyers argue that his arrest is political retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism and violates his First Amendment rights. His detention in Louisiana has limited his legal access, and his wife, who is eight months pregnant, has spoken out against his treatment.

The case raises broader legal questions about the intersection of free speech and immigration law, particularly as Trump has vowed to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Khalil’s arrest has triggered demonstrations and condemnation from Democratic lawmakers, who view it as political repression.

Judge to hold hearing over Columbia student protester's challenge to arrest | Reuters

A major real estate brokerage, Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, has asked a U.S. judge in Missouri to recuse himself from an antitrust lawsuit due to political donations made to his wife’s campaign by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The lawsuit accuses brokerages of conspiring to inflate real estate commissions, and plaintiffs have already won significant settlements in related cases.

Howard Hanna argues that the donations create an appearance of impropriety, requiring Judge Stephen Bough’s recusal under ethics rules. Bough had previously disclosed the donations and offered to step down in an earlier case, but no party requested his removal at the time. Plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Ketchmark dismissed the recusal request as meritless and a delay tactic after Howard Hanna had lost key motions.

Bough’s courtroom previously hosted a landmark jury verdict in a related antitrust case, leading to over a billion dollars in settlements with brokerages and the National Association of Realtors. The judge’s decision on whether to step aside could impact the trajectory of ongoing real estate antitrust litigation.

US judge in brokerage antitrust case faces recusal bid over political donations | Reuters

New Jersey is poised to increase its angel investor tax credit (AITC) from 20% to 35% of investment costs, with a $35 million annual cap. Given the limited funds, ensuring the credit is effectively allocated is essential. However, the proposed bill includes “carbon footprint reduction technology” as an eligible category, which could allow carbon capture projects to qualify. Critics argue that carbon capture is neither emerging nor effective—it is costly, inefficient, and largely benefits fossil fuel companies by prolonging their operations rather than reducing emissions.

Instead of funding speculative or ineffective technologies, the state should prioritize investments in proven decarbonization strategies like renewable energy, battery storage, and energy efficiency improvements. These sectors have demonstrated cost savings, emissions reductions, and job creation without the need for indefinite subsidies. Tightening the AITC eligibility criteria would prevent resources from being diverted to projects with questionable climate benefits.

By refining its definition of eligible technologies, New Jersey can maximize the impact of its tax credit, ensuring funds support tangible climate and economic progress. States that design smart, targeted incentives will attract startups and clean energy investments, while those that fund vague or ineffective projects risk falling behind. As federal climate incentives remain uncertain, state policies will play a crucial role in shaping the future of clean energy investment.

New Jersey Should Tighten Its Angel Investor Credit Eligibility

This Day in Legal History: Lend-Lease Act

On March 11, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease Act into law, fundamentally reshaping U.S. foreign policy during World War II. The legislation empowered the President to provide military aid to countries deemed essential to American national security, even if they could not immediately pay for the supplies. This marked a decisive shift from the nation’s prior isolationist stance, allowing Roosevelt to support the Allies without directly engaging in combat. Under the act, the United States sent over $50 billion in war materials to nations such as the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. The aid included weapons, vehicles, food, and other critical supplies, strengthening the Allied war effort against Axis forces. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill described the act as crucial to his country’s survival, calling it "the most unsordid act in the history of any nation." 

The law also laid the groundwork for closer U.S.-Allied relations, ensuring American economic and military influence in global affairs. While many supported the act as a necessary step to combat fascism, isolationists in Congress criticized it as a step toward war. Their fears proved correct when Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 led to full U.S. involvement in the conflict. Lend-Lease remained in effect until September 1945, helping to shape the postwar world order. The program reinforced the role of the United States as the "Arsenal of Democracy," a term Roosevelt had coined to describe its industrial and military production for the Allied cause. 

The principles behind Lend-Lease also influenced future U.S. foreign aid programs, including the Marshall Plan. By prioritizing strategic alliances and military support, the act cemented America’s role as a dominant force in international relations.

U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho resigned from the Federal Judges Association (FJA) over its recent statement addressing rising threats, criticism, and violence against the judiciary. Ho, a Trump-appointed judge and potential Supreme Court nominee, objected to what he saw as a selective concern for judicial independence. The FJA, which represents over 1,100 federal judges, warned against "irresponsible rhetoric" and security risks but did not name specific cases or threats. 

The statement came amid increasing attacks on judges from figures like Elon Musk and Trump allies, particularly targeting those blocking conservative policies. FJA President Judge Michelle Childs cited growing threats, including intimidation and impeachment efforts, as challenges to judicial independence. Ho criticized the group for not issuing similar warnings when conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, faced threats, arguing that defending only certain judges politicizes the judiciary. He announced his resignation at a Federalist Society event, framing his departure as a stand against perceived bias. The FJA did not respond to requests for comment.

Fun fact about Judge Ho, he was sworn in to the 5th Circuit by Justice Clarence Thomas at a library owned by Harlan Crow. Longtime readers of Minimum Competence will remember I featured Crow in a column back in 2023:

We’ve learned much about Crow over the past few weeks—as a friend and benefactor of Justice Clarence Thomas, a collector of Hitlerania and garden gnome versions of history’s greatest monsters, and a holder of a “cashport” (I’m coining that term here) to St. Kitts and Nevis, another country that is well known as a tax haven. 

Some call them golden visas, but that’s a euphemism intended to give the entire process the air of legitimacy. James Bond carries a golden visa, Harlan Crow buys a cashport.

Trump-appointed judge quits judicial group over warning about threats | Reuters

Golden Visas Let People Like Harlan Crow Keep Too Much Hidden (2)

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on "conversion therapy" for minors, brought by Christian therapist Kaley Chiles. Chiles argues the 2019 law violates her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to counsel clients in line with her religious beliefs. Colorado officials maintain that the law regulates professional conduct, not speech. Lower courts upheld the ban, citing evidence that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case follows its recent pattern of ruling in favor of religious interests over LGBT protections. The Court previously declined to hear a similar case from Washington state, though conservative justices dissented. The case will be argued in the Court’s next term, starting in October. The ruling could have nationwide implications, as over two dozen states have similar bans. The Court is also considering other cases on LGBT and religious rights this term, with decisions expected by June.

US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Colorado gay 'conversion therapy' ban | Reuters

Wealthy U.S. colleges are ramping up efforts to fight potential tax increases on their large endowments amid growing Republican scrutiny. The Trump administration’s recent decision to cut federal funding to Columbia University over alleged antisemitism is just one example of political pressure elite schools are facing. Universities like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT are intensifying lobbying efforts, with leaders traveling to Washington to protect their multibillion-dollar funds. 

Critics argue that these institutions, which already benefit from tax advantages, should not be allowed to accumulate vast wealth tax-free while tuition remains high. Some proposals in Congress seek to raise the current 1.4% endowment tax or expand it to include schools with smaller per-student endowments. Universities warn that higher taxes could reduce financial aid and deter donors, affecting students who rely on scholarships. 

The fight comes as Congress prepares for a major tax policy debate in 2025, with Republican lawmakers pushing for broader tax reform. Some smaller institutions, like Wabash College, fear they could be unfairly targeted despite having far fewer resources than elite schools. Meanwhile, top universities continue to brace for further financial and political attacks, with some implementing hiring freezes in response to federal funding threats.

Wealthiest Colleges Fight to Protect Their Riches From Taxation

This Day in Legal History: James Earl Ray Sentenced

On March 10, 1969, James Earl Ray was sentenced to 99 years in prison for the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ray had pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty but later recanted, claiming he was coerced into confessing. His conviction came just under a year after King was fatally shot on April 4, 1968, at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. The murder of King, a pivotal leader in the civil rights movement, sent shockwaves through the nation and intensified calls for racial justice. Ray’s arrest in London after a two-month international manhunt led to one of the most scrutinized legal proceedings of the era. Despite his guilty plea, Ray repeatedly sought a retrial, arguing that he was a scapegoat in a broader conspiracy. His appeals were unsuccessful, and he remained imprisoned until his death in 1998. 

The King family later advocated for reopening the case, believing the government and other entities were involved in the assassination. In 1999, a civil jury in Memphis ruled in favor of the King family, concluding that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, not the actions of a lone gunman. This verdict fueled ongoing debates about the true circumstances of King’s death and the extent of Ray’s role. The case remains one of the most controversial in American history, with lingering questions about the extent of government involvement. The King family’s pursuit of the truth highlighted their belief that justice had not been fully served. While the official record still names Ray as the assassin, many continue to question whether he acted alone or was merely a pawn in a larger scheme.

A Baltimore judge ruled that Adnan Syed, the subject of the popular Serial podcast, will remain free after reducing his life sentence to time served. Despite this decision, his 2000 murder conviction for the death of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, remains intact. Judge Jennifer Schiffer stated that Syed is no longer a threat to public safety and that his continued freedom serves the interests of justice. 

Syed was originally convicted by a state jury, but his case gained national attention due to concerns over trial errors and potential prosecutorial misconduct. He was released from prison in 2022 after prosecutors questioned the integrity of his conviction, though an appeals court later reinstated it. The ruling ensures he will not return to prison, though legal battles over his conviction continue. His case has fueled ongoing debates about wrongful convictions and the role of media in influencing the justice system.

Adnan Syed of 'Serial' Podcast Will Remain Free, Judge Rules (1)

The Trump administration fired Adam Cohen, the head of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, as part of a broader effort to remove career officials. Cohen, who had just helped draft a memo expanding the task force’s role in immigration enforcement, said he was shocked by the decision and insisted his work had been apolitical. His dismissal follows other high-profile removals, including three assistant U.S. attorneys in New York, two of whom prosecuted a corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams. 

The attorneys were placed on administrative leave after Justice Department officials resigned in protest over pressure to drop the Adams case. Additionally, Liz Oyer, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, and Bobak Talebian, who handled Freedom of Information Act requests, were also dismissed. The shake-up reflects a broader effort to reshape the Justice Department under Trump’s leadership, sparking concerns over political interference in law enforcement.

Trump Justice Department fires head of organized crime drug task force | Reuters

U.S. immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, as part of President Trump’s crackdown on certain anti-Israel activists. Khalil, a U.S. green card holder, had been active in pro-Palestinian protests and served as a negotiator with university officials. The Department of Homeland Security accused him of leading “activities aligned to Hamas” but did not provide details or charge him with a crime. His arrest was widely condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on free speech. 

The Trump administration also revoked $400 million in government contracts with Columbia, citing antisemitic harassment on campus. Critics argue the move is part of a broader effort to target higher education institutions and suppress pro-Palestinian activism. Khalil, who was detained at an ICE facility, had previously expressed concerns about being targeted for speaking to the media. His case has sparked legal challenges and heightened tensions over immigration enforcement and academic freedom.

US immigration agents arrest Palestinian student protester at Columbia University in Trump crackdown | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Bloody Sunday

On March 7, 1965, a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement unfolded in Selma, Alabama. A group of 525 peaceful demonstrators, led by activists like John Lewis and Hosea Williams, began a march to Montgomery to demand voting rights for Black Americans. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met by Alabama state troopers and local law enforcement, who brutally attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas. 

The violent crackdown, later known as "Bloody Sunday," left at least 65 people injured and shocked the nation. Television broadcasts of the assault galvanized public support for civil rights, prompting federal intervention. After securing court protection, a second attempt on March 9, led by Martin Luther King Jr., was turned around peacefully to avoid further violence. Finally, under federal protection, thousands of marchers resumed the journey on March 21, arriving in Montgomery on March 25 with 25,000 people. The march directly contributed to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. "Bloody Sunday" remains a defining moment in the struggle for racial justice in America, symbolizing both the brutality of oppression and the power of collective resistance.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP, citing the firm’s role in commissioning the Steele dossier during the 2016 election and its diversity hiring practices. The order suspends security clearances for Perkins Coie employees and directs federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm and its business partners. It also instructs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Justice Department to investigate racial discrimination policies at major law firms, referencing Perkins Coie’s past use of racial hiring quotas. The directive extends to restricting Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and limiting their engagement with government officials.

Trump’s move comes after similar actions against Covington & Burling for its representation of former special counsel Jack Smith. The executive order frames Perkins Coie as a national security risk, linking its past election law litigation to alleged threats against democratic integrity. It also mandates that federal contractors disclose business ties to the firm, aiming to cut off government funds to entities associated with it. The order’s broader scope signals heightened scrutiny of “Big Law” firms, especially those engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Trump’s administration has pushed back against race-conscious hiring practices, aligning the order with prior efforts to dismantle DEI policies in education and employment.

Perkins Coie, a longtime legal adviser to Democrats, denounced the order as unlawful and vowed to challenge it. The firm has been at the center of Republican criticism over election-related litigation and its former attorneys’ ties to Democratic campaigns. The administration’s focus on law firms suggests a broader effort to reshape the legal industry’s relationship with the federal government.

Trump Targets Law Firms Over Steele Dossier, Diversity Moves (1)

A federal judge reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), ruling that former President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire her. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found Trump’s dismissal of Wilcox violated legal protections for independent agency members, emphasizing that the president’s removal powers are not absolute. Howell’s decision strongly reaffirmed Humphrey’s Executor v. United States(1935), which upheld restrictions on presidential firings of independent agency officials.

The ruling restores the NLRB’s quorum, allowing it to issue decisions again, but the Trump administration immediately appealed, seeking to block Wilcox’s return. Howell’s opinion included a sharp rebuke of Trump’s attempts to assert unchecked presidential authority, stating, “An American President is not a king.” She pointed to longstanding legal precedent that limits the president’s power to remove officials from multi-member independent agencies, dating back to the Interstate Commerce Commission’s creation in 1887.

Trump’s legal team argued that Wilcox’s firing was justified under the Supreme Court’s 2020 Seila Law v. CFPB decision, which expanded presidential removal power over single-agency heads. However, Howell rejected this claim, noting that NLRB members’ powers resemble those of the Federal Trade Commission members protected under Humphrey’s Executor. The ruling marks the third time a court has reversed Trump’s firings of agency officials, signaling a broader legal battle over executive authority that may reach the Supreme Court. Wilcox’s attorney praised the decision as a victory for the independence of federal agencies, while the Justice Department has not yet commented.

Fired NLRB Member Reinstated in Decision Nixing Trump Move (4)

A coalition of 20 Democrat-led states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, has sued the Trump administration over mass firings of federal workers. Filed in a Maryland federal court, the lawsuit argues that President Donald Trump illegally dismissed tens of thousands of employees without proper notice or justification. The states seek to reinstate the workers and block further terminations.

Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce have already faced legal pushback. A judge recently reinstated a National Labor Relations Board member fired by Trump, and another court temporarily halted the administration’s directive to fire new hires en masse. Additionally, a federal workforce board reinstated thousands of employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have framed the firings as part of a campaign to eliminate government inefficiency and waste. However, critics, including the states in this lawsuit, argue that the dismissals violate labor laws and undermine public service. The case adds to mounting legal challenges against Trump’s sweeping efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy.

Democrat-led states join legal fight over Trump's mass firings of federal workers | Reuters

The Trump administration is planning to shut down nearly a dozen U.S. diplomatic missions, primarily in Western Europe, as part of a broader effort to reduce government spending and reshape foreign policy. The State Department is also considering merging several Washington-based expert bureaus focused on human rights, refugees, and global criminal justice. Additionally, U.S. embassies worldwide have been instructed to cut at least 10% of their American and locally employed staff.

The proposed closures include consulates in Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, and Portugal, though officials say some locations may be spared. The administration argues these cuts align with Trump’s “America First” agenda and his campaign promise to reduce the so-called "deep state." Critics warn that reducing the U.S. diplomatic presence, along with cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), could weaken American global influence and create openings for adversaries like China and Russia.

Congress has been notified of the plan to close the U.S. consulate in Gaziantep, Turkey, a key hub for Syrian humanitarian aid. In Washington, dozens of State Department contractors have been terminated, including those handling Afghan refugee resettlement. Diplomats working on Asian affairs have been asked to justify their missions’ alignment with Trump’s policies. The administration’s deep cuts to foreign aid and staffing have already resulted in thousands of USAID workers being laid off and billions in humanitarian aid being eliminated.

Trump administration weighs closure of nearly a dozen diplomatic missions abroad | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Maurice Ravel.

Our theme is Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel, a composer known for his shimmering orchestration and masterful blend of classical form with modern harmonies. Born on March 7, 1875, Ravel was a key figure in early 20th-century music, often associated with Impressionism, though he resisted the label. His Piano Concerto in G, composed between 1929 and 1931, reflects his fascination with jazz, which he encountered during a trip to the United States. The first movement, Allegramente, is bright and rhythmic, opening with a whip-crack that sets the tone for its energy and playfulness. Ravel weaves in blues-inspired harmonies, rapid piano flourishes, and sparkling orchestral textures, creating a piece that feels both spontaneous and carefully crafted. Despite its liveliness, the movement is meticulously structured, showcasing Ravel’s precision and attention to detail. The concerto as a whole balances virtuosic brilliance with lyricism, particularly in the dreamy second movement. Ravel himself admitted he aimed for a work that was “light and brilliant,” rather than deep or profound. Yet, in its elegance and wit, the concerto captures the vibrancy of early 20th-century musical innovation. As the spirited Allegramente unfolds, it serves as a fitting farewell to the week—playful, energetic, and bursting with color.

Without further ado, Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel. Enjoy!

This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott Decided

On March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that deepened national tensions over slavery. The Court held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. In a sweeping opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court went further, declaring that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted the spread of slavery in certain parts of the country. The ruling was celebrated in the South but outraged abolitionists and many in the North, who saw it as an alarming expansion of pro-slavery power.

The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, as it denied citizenship and legal protections to Black Americans. It also emboldened pro-slavery forces while further alienating the growing anti-slavery movement. The backlash contributed to the intensifying sectional divide that would lead to the Civil War just four years later. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress took steps to undermine the decision, culminating in the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, directly overturning Dred Scott. Today, the case stands as a stark reminder of how the law has been used to uphold racial injustice—and how later legal reforms can correct such profound wrongs.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against President Donald Trump's effort to withhold payments from foreign aid organizations for work already completed. The decision upheld an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, requiring the government to release nearly $2 billion in funds owed to contractors and grant recipients under USAID and the State Department. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court’s liberal justices to form the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The Trump administration had paused all foreign aid on January 20, citing an “America First” agenda, which disrupted humanitarian efforts worldwide. Aid organizations sued, arguing Trump exceeded his authority by defunding programs approved by Congress. The administration contended that enforcing payments without proper review amounted to judicial overreach. Despite Ali’s repeated orders, the administration largely kept the funds frozen, prompting legal battles over compliance. Plaintiffs warned that continued delays would cause “extraordinary and irreversible harm” to millions relying on aid. The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its order but instructed Ali to clarify compliance obligations. A hearing is scheduled for March 7 to determine the next steps.

US Supreme Court won't let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | Reuters

Dozens of U.S. hospital systems and healthcare providers have filed lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield, alleging the insurer underpaid them by billions. These providers chose to opt out of a $2.8 billion class-action settlement in Alabama, which is awaiting final approval. The new lawsuits, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, argue that Blue Cross and its affiliates conspired to divide the market, reducing competition and driving down reimbursement rates in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs, including Bon Secours Mercy Health and Temple University Health, believe they could recover more through individual lawsuits than the settlement. Blue Cross has denied wrongdoing and declined to comment. The final approval hearing for the Alabama settlement is scheduled for July 29. This litigation follows a separate $2.7 billion antitrust settlement in 2020 for commercial and individual subscribers, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. Some large companies also opted out of that settlement to pursue their own claims.

Hospitals line up to sue Blue Cross, opting out of $2.8 bln settlement | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license temporary nuclear waste storage sites, a case brought by Texas and oil industry interests. The dispute centers on a facility in western Texas, licensed by the NRC in 2021, which opponents argue poses environmental and security risks. Some conservative justices questioned whether "temporary" storage could last indefinitely, undermining efforts to establish a permanent waste site. Liberal justices focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing, as they did not initially challenge the NRC's decision through the agency's process. The case follows past failures to establish a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite significant federal investment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the NRC lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act, prompting the Biden administration to appeal—a move continued under Trump. A decision is expected by June.

US Supreme Court hears Texas nuclear waste storage dispute | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

On March 5, 1970, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) officially took effect, marking a major milestone in global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty, first opened for signatures in 1968, was ratified by 43 nations and established a framework based on three core principles: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 

Under its terms, nuclear-armed states agreed not to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear states, while non-nuclear countries pledged not to pursue nuclear weapons. In return, signatories were guaranteed access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The treaty also called for eventual nuclear disarmament, though progress on this front has been slow and uneven. The NPT has since become one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements, with 191 countries now party to it. However, key states like India, Pakistan, and Israel never joined, while North Korea withdrew in 2003. The treaty’s effectiveness has been challenged by nuclear programs in states like Iran and North Korea, as well as concerns over compliance by nuclear-armed signatories. Despite these challenges, the NPT is reviewed every five years at Review Conferences, where nations assess progress and negotiate future commitments. The treaty remains central to international non-proliferation efforts, balancing national security interests with the goal of reducing nuclear threats worldwide.

In his primetime address to Congress, President Donald Trump defended his aggressive tariff policies, claiming they would generate significant revenue and restore economic balance. He downplayed concerns over rising consumer prices, characterizing them as a temporary inconvenience. While Trump briefly addressed inflation, blaming high costs on his predecessor, he provided few concrete solutions. Instead, he focused on politically charged topics like immigration and cultural issues, declaring an end to "wokeness." His speech coincided with growing economic concerns, including stagnating factory activity and declining consumer confidence, while markets reacted negatively to escalating trade tensions. New tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China sparked fears of inflation and economic slowdown, though his administration suggested potential relief for North American allies. Trump also called for the repeal of the Chips Act, arguing tariffs were more effective in boosting domestic industry. He promoted energy independence but proposed long-term projects unlikely to have an immediate impact. Meanwhile, his executive actions have rapidly reshaped government policies, sparking bipartisan concerns. The speech underscored Trump’s efforts to push his economic agenda while navigating political and economic challenges.

Trump Hails Tariffs as US Economy Barrels Into Trade Wars

The U.S. Tax Court ruled that a $3.1 million grant given to a Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary after the Sept. 11 attacks is taxable income. The grant, provided in 2007 through New York City's World Trade Center Job Creation and Retention Program, was meant to help businesses recover, but the court determined it did not qualify as a tax-exempt gift or disaster aid. Despite this, the court waived $211,000 in penalties, acknowledging the complexity of tax laws at the time. Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658 employees in the World Trade Center attacks, had argued the funds should not be considered taxable, citing past Supreme Court rulings. However, Judge Kathleen M. Kerrigan found that the payments were not an act of disinterested generosity but an effort to stimulate economic recovery. The IRS had initially determined in 2007 that the company owed about $1.1 million in taxes for not reporting the grant on its tax returns. While Cantor Fitzgerald contested the classification, the court upheld the IRS’s position, reinforcing that government aid programs do not automatically qualify for tax exemption.

Cantor Fitzgerald's Sept. 11 Relief Grant Deemed Taxable Income

Federal judges are facing an increase in threats as Elon Musk and Trump allies intensify their attacks on the judiciary over rulings that hinder White House policies. The U.S. Marshals Service has warned judges about heightened security risks, especially as Musk has repeatedly criticized judges on his social media platform, calling them “corrupt” and “evil.” Some judges have received anonymous deliveries, like pizzas, in what authorities see as intimidation tactics. Musk’s posts, along with calls from Republican lawmakers to impeach certain judges, have coincided with a rise in violent threats, particularly against judges who have blocked parts of the administration’s plans to cut government jobs and aid programs. One judge, Amir Ali, received death threats after ruling against a Trump executive order, with online users calling for his execution. The American Bar Association and the Federal Judges Association have condemned these attacks, warning that continued intimidation could undermine judicial independence. Since 2020, threats against federal judges have more than doubled, and legal experts caution that targeting judges for their rulings could destabilize the rule of law.

Exclusive: Judges face rise in threats as Musk blasts them over rulings | Reuters

Two Trump EPA nominees are facing Senate scrutiny over the agency’s possible plan to roll back the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which forms the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The nominees, Aaron Szabo and David Fotouhi, would oversee efforts to reverse this finding, which has supported climate regulations on power plants and vehicle emissions. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has recommended reconsidering the finding to the White House, though details remain undisclosed. While the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA confirmed greenhouse gases as air pollutants, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act further solidified the EPA’s authority. However, the EPA under Trump previously avoided overturning the rule due to industry resistance. Some industry groups, like the Edison Electric Institute, have expressed reliance on EPA authority for emissions regulation, while automakers have yet to take a position. Zeldin acknowledged the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases but suggested it is not obligated to do so, fueling debate over the agency’s future climate policies.

Top EPA nominees face Senate scrutiny over plan to undo key climate finding | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Inaugurated 

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th president of the United States, taking office at a time of immense national turmoil. Seven Southern states had already seceded from the Union, and the country teetered on the brink of civil war. In his inaugural address, Lincoln struck a careful balance between firmness and conciliation, stating that while he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, he would also not allow the Union to be dissolved. He appealed to the South’s “better angels” and warned that secession was unlawful, emphasizing that the Constitution was designed to create “a more perfect Union.” This speech set the tone for a presidency marked by Lincoln’s deep empathy for the downtrodden and his capacity for personal growth.  

Often celebrated for his moral clarity, Lincoln was also a leader willing to change his mind when confronted with new information. As the Civil War progressed, his views on slavery evolved, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He once said, “I shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views,” an acknowledgment of his willingness to adapt when justice demanded it. This intellectual humility was one of his greatest strengths, allowing him to navigate the unprecedented crisis before him. His presidency, which began on this day, would redefine the nation’s understanding of freedom, democracy, and leadership.

Lincoln’s presidency saw the transformation of a man as much as a nation. When he first took office, he publicly questioned the intellectual equality of Black people and initially supported only limited measures to restrict slavery’s expansion. However, as the war unfolded and he engaged with Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, Lincoln’s views evolved dramatically. By the end of the conflict, he not only issued the Emancipation Proclamation but also argued for Black suffrage, stating in his final speech that he believed Black men deserved the right to vote. He also expressed openness to women’s suffrage, a radical position for the time. That April 11, 1865, speech, in which he publicly called for Black enfranchisement, enraged John Wilkes Booth, who declared, “That is the last speech he will ever make!” Three days later, Booth made good on his threat, assassinating Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre. Lincoln’s first inauguration marked the beginning of a journey that would not only reshape his own beliefs but also alter the course of American history—at the cost of his life and those of 400,000 of his fellow Americans.

Immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Venezuelan migrants. The lawsuit, brought in Boston federal court, opposes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s move to accelerate the expiration of deportation protections and work permits for 521,000 Haitians by August. This reverses the Biden administration’s previous extension of TPS for Haiti through February 2026. A similar decision was made for Venezuelan TPS recipients, with protections ending as early as April 2 for 348,000 individuals, a move already facing separate legal challenges. The lawsuit, filed by advocacy groups and individual migrants, argues that DHS lacked the authority to revoke an existing TPS extension and acted based on racial bias and political motivations. It cites past disparaging remarks by Trump about Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants as evidence of discrimination, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded.

By way of brief background, the lawsuit claims the administration’s actions violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. While the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provides equal protection against state discrimination, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to extend similar protections against federal government actions. Plaintiffs argue that the abrupt termination of TPS disproportionately harms Haitian and Venezuelan migrants and is driven by racial and ethnic bias rather than lawful considerations.

Lawsuit challenges Trump's end to Haitian, Venezuelan deportation protections | Reuters

Kraken announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has agreed in principle to dismiss its lawsuit accusing the cryptocurrency exchange of operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The dismissal, which comes with no admission of wrongdoing, penalties, or required business changes, is with prejudice, preventing the SEC from refiling the case. Kraken criticized the lawsuit as a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration that hindered innovation. The SEC, which had sued Kraken in 2023 under former Chair Gary Gensler’s leadership, has shifted its approach to crypto regulation since Trump’s return to office. Recently, the agency also dropped a similar case against Coinbase and is considering settling a civil fraud case against Justin Sun. The lawsuit had accused Kraken of facilitating crypto trades without proper regulatory compliance, but the company maintained that crypto assets do not fall under traditional securities laws.In legal terms, a dismissal with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled. This is significant for Kraken because it ensures the SEC cannot bring the same claims against the company in the future. This type of dismissal often indicates that the plaintiff (in this case, the SEC) has decided not to pursue the matter further due to legal weaknesses or shifting priorities.

Kraken says SEC to dismiss lawsuit | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg Tax this week focuses on the Multistate Tax Commission’s (MTC) proposed rule aimed at simplifying tax compliance for mobile workers. While the proposal is a step in the right direction—creating a safe harbor for those working in nonresident states for 20 days or fewer—it doesn’t go far enough to address the real burdens faced by workers and businesses.

To make the rule truly effective, I argue that three key modifications are needed: increasing the safe harbor threshold to 30 days, implementing an income-based sliding scale, and eliminating arbitrary carve-outs for certain high-income professionals.

Currently, 41 states impose income tax on nonresidents, with some—like Arkansas and Delaware—triggering tax obligations after just one day of work. This creates a compliance nightmare for mobile workers, who may have to file multiple state tax returns for short business trips. The MTC’s 20-day threshold is an improvement, but expanding it to 30 days would better align with existing state policies and recommendations from tax advocacy groups.

Additionally, the MTC’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to differentiate between income levels. A sales rep earning $50,000 a year and a hedge fund manager making $5 million shouldn’t be treated the same. A sliding scale—offering a longer grace period for lower-income earners while maintaining stricter thresholds for high-income, highly mobile workers—would make compliance fairer and more practical. Pegging the income thresholds to inflation would further ensure middle-class workers aren’t disproportionately impacted over time.

Finally, the proposal’s exclusion of professional athletes, entertainers, and undefined “persons of prominence” is problematic. These individuals are denied the safe harbor, while a high-earning executive or consultant would benefit from it. The distinction isn’t based on income but on profession, creating an arbitrary and inconsistent standard. If fairness and clarity are the goals, the MTC should remove these exceptions.

With states actively debating mobile workforce tax reforms and Congress failing to pass a federal solution for nearly two decades, now is the time to get this right. Expanding the threshold, implementing an income-based scale, and removing unfair carve-outs would make the rule more equitable and increase the likelihood of state adoption.

This Day in Legal History: Belva Lockwood Admitted to SCOTUS

On March 3, 1879, Belva Lockwood shattered a major legal barrier by becoming the first woman admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. A pioneering attorney and women's rights advocate, Lockwood had faced repeated obstacles in her legal career simply because of her gender. After being denied admission to the Supreme Court bar multiple times, she successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law allowing qualified female attorneys to argue cases before the nation's highest court. With President Rutherford B. Hayes signing the bill into law, Lockwood was finally sworn in, marking a historic step toward gender equality in the legal profession.

Lockwood wasted no time in making use of her hard-won status. In 1880, she became the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court, representing a Cherokee Nation land claim in United States v. Cherokee Nation. Her success paved the way for future generations of female attorneys, proving that women could handle complex legal issues at the highest levels. Beyond her legal career, Lockwood also made history as one of the first women to run for U.S. president, campaigning in 1884 and 1888. Her groundbreaking achievements challenged the deeply entrenched biases of her time and expanded opportunities for women in law and politics.

A federal judge in Seattle has extended an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from medical providers in four Democratic-led states—Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—that offer gender-affirming care to transgender youth under 19. Judge Lauren King ruled that Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional, as they interfered with Congress' authority to allocate federal funds and violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by discriminating based on sex or transgender status. One of Trump’s orders, issued on his first day in office, mandated that the federal government recognize only two biologically distinct sexes and barred grant funds from supporting "gender ideology." King criticized this move, stating it aimed to erase transgender individuals from federal recognition. 

A temporary restraining order was previously issued on February 14 while the judge considered a longer-term injunction. Another federal judge in Maryland has also temporarily halted Trump’s orders nationwide. The lawsuit follows a second executive order from Trump that prohibits federal funding for gender transitions for minors. More than half of U.S. states have passed laws restricting gender-affirming care, and a pending Supreme Court case involving Tennessee’s ban could set a national precedent.

US judge further blocks Trump's order curbing youth gender-affirming care | Reuters

A U.S. judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, was illegal, setting up a potential Supreme Court battle over presidential authority. Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that allowing Trump to remove Dellinger would give him excessive power to pressure federal officials. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal.

Dellinger, appointed by President Biden for a five-year term, oversees whistleblower protections and ethics investigations for federal employees. Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument that keeping him in place undermines presidential authority, emphasizing that the Special Counsel’s role is designed to function independently. The case is part of Trump's broader effort to limit the autonomy of federal agencies, including the FTC and SEC. While Jackson called her ruling “extremely narrow,” the outcome could shape future limits on executive power. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team argues that Dellinger’s continued role disrupts government operations, citing his recent intervention to prevent the firing of six federal employees.

US judge declares Trump's firing of watchdog agency head illegal | Reuters

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from transferring 10 migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that the move violates immigration law and serves no legitimate purpose. The detainees, from Venezuela, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, have final deportation orders but are not classified as high-risk criminals. The lawsuit describes harsh conditions at Guantanamo, including extreme isolation, verbal and physical abuse, and suicide attempts among detainees.

Homeland Security officials defended the transfers, claiming only the "worst of the worst" are sent there, though reports indicate some have no criminal records. A previous court order blocked the transfer of Venezuelan migrants to Guantanamo, but they were instead deported to Venezuela. The lawsuit is part of broader legal battles over Trump’s immigration policies, including efforts to end Biden-era parole programs for migrants with U.S. sponsors. Another lawsuit was also filed against Panama in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging the detention of migrants there.

ACLU sues to block migrant transfers to Guantanamo, alleging 'degrading conditions' | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Reichstag Fire Decree

On February 28, 1933, German President Paul von Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, formally known as the Presidential Decree for the Protection of People and State. The decree was a direct response to the Reichstag fire the night before, which the Nazi Party blamed on Communists. It suspended key civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, assembly, and protection from unlawful detention. The decree also allowed warrantless arrests and indefinite imprisonment of political opponents. 

Using this power, the Nazis swiftly arrested thousands of Communists, Socialists, and other adversaries. The decree marked the legal foundation of Nazi repression and paved the way for the Enabling Act, passed on March 23, which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. By July 14, 1933, the Nazis had criminalized all political opposition, establishing a one-party state. The decree remained technically in effect throughout Nazi rule, providing a legal cover for widespread persecution. It exemplified how emergency powers, once enacted, can be used to erode democracy rather than protect it.

KPMG has received approval to practice law in Arizona, making it the first Big Four accounting firm to do so in the U.S. However, due to legal prohibitions, the firm cannot offer legal services to its audit clients, limiting its potential customer base. Despite this restriction, KPMG expects to attract many new clients rather than shedding existing ones. The Arizona Supreme Court’s approval aligns with its goal of increasing access to legal services, but it also introduces a well-funded competitor to traditional law firms. Other Big Four firms like Deloitte, PwC, and EY may eventually follow suit.

While U.S. regulations bar auditors from providing legal services to public company clients, Arizona’s decision opens opportunities in the non-audit market. KPMG plans to focus on services complementing traditional legal work, such as contract management and supply chain restructuring. The firm must maintain an internal compliance program, overseen by attorney David Rizzo, and submit biannual reports to the state. With consulting already a major revenue stream, KPMG sees legal services as a way to expand further, particularly through technological advancements like AI.

KPMG Must Pivot Around Audit Clients in Creating US Law Practice

The Trump administration's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has dropped five enforcement cases against financial institutions, including a major lawsuit against Capital One over $2 billion in alleged illegal interest charges. Other dismissed cases involved student loan servicer PHEAA, Vanderbilt Mortgage, Rocket Homes, and Heights Finance, all of which had been accused of various predatory lending and mortgage fraud practices. The move significantly weakens the agency’s legal actions against financial firms investigated for consumer abuse.

The mass dismissals coincide with Trump’s broader effort to dismantle the CFPB, an agency he has long opposed. His nominee for CFPB director, Jonathan McKernan, testified before the Senate, promising to enforce consumer protection laws but criticizing past enforcement as excessive. Meanwhile, Trump's administration has fired CFPB staff, shut down its Washington offices, and attempted to cancel its lease, though legal challenges have temporarily halted further layoffs.

Consumer advocates, including Public Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America, condemned the dismissals, warning they encourage financial misconduct. The CFPB now has fewer than 20 active cases, with several likely to be paused under new leadership. While McKernan claims he will follow the law, critics fear a watered-down agency unable to protect consumers from financial abuses.

Trump admin drops 5 consumer watchdog cases, including Capital One | Reuters

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide a representative for a deposition regarding its authority, structure, and operations. The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates also requires the Trump administration to produce documents and answer questions in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and nonprofits. The plaintiffs seek to block DGE’s access to systems at three federal agencies, citing concerns over transparency and legality.

The Justice Department opposed the order, but Bates ruled that critical details about DGE remain unclear. While he allowed questioning on DGE’s access to personal data, he limited inquiries into trade secrets or other confidential business records. The judge also set an eight-hour cap on questioning representatives from DGE and the agencies.

Bates previously denied an immediate restraining order blocking DGE’s access, stating the plaintiffs had not yet proven legal violations. Meanwhile, the White House recently disclosed that Elon Musk is not the actual administrator of DGE, contradicting earlier claims by Trump. Other lawsuits challenging DGE’s legality and access to government records remain ongoing.

Judge Orders Musk’s DOGE, Agency Staff to Testify in Lawsuit

A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering mass firings of probationary federal employees at agencies like the Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)lacks the authority to direct agencies to fire workers, contradicting administration claims that it was merely issuing guidance.

Trump, backed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, has sought to slash federal jobs as part of a broader plan to cut $1 trillion from the national budget. The layoffs have drawn opposition from Democrats, unions, and government employees, who argue they are illegal and threaten essential government functions, including veterans’ services, scientific research, and national parks.

While 5,400 Defense Department employees are still set to be fired, Alsup ordered OPM to rescind memos directing mass layoffs. The ruling is temporary while the legal challenge proceeds, with plaintiffs arguing OPM violated administrative law by issuing directives outside its authority. Meanwhile, Trump’s administration continues to push for deeper federal workforce cuts, with agencies required to submit reduction plans by March 13.

US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies | Reuters

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: Lincoln Signs Legal Tender Act

On February 25, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Legal Tender Act into law, allowing the U.S. government to issue paper money not backed by gold or silver. These new notes, called "greenbacks" due to their color, became the first widely circulated fiat currency in American history. The Civil War had placed enormous financial strain on the Union, and the government needed a way to fund its war effort without relying solely on borrowing or taxation. By making greenbacks legal tender for all debts except customs duties, the law ensured their widespread use. However, the move was controversial, as some feared it would cause inflation and undermine public confidence in the currency. Despite this, the greenbacks helped stabilize the wartime economy and ensured that soldiers and suppliers were paid. After the war, legal battles arose over whether the government could require creditors to accept paper money instead of gold or silver. The Supreme Court initially ruled against the policy in Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) but reversed its decision in The Legal Tender Cases (1871), upholding the government's power to issue fiat currency. The Legal Tender Act set a precedent for the federal government's control over the monetary system, paving the way for modern U.S. currency.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) from accessing sensitive data held by the U.S. Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management. The ruling, issued by Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, came in response to a lawsuit from labor unions arguing that granting DGE access to personal records violated the Privacy Act of 1974. The data in question includes Social Security numbers, addresses, income details, and citizenship status of federal employees and student aid recipients. The Trump administration contended that restricting DGE’s access would hinder its government downsizing efforts, but the judge determined that the agency had no legitimate need for such information. The White House has not commented on the decision. Since Trump’s return to office, DGE, led by Musk, has pursued aggressive cost-cutting measures, including mass layoffs. The ruling follows another court decision in New York that blocked DGE from accessing Treasury Department systems, amid multiple lawsuits challenging its authority.

US judge blocks Musk's DOGE team from accessing Education Department, OPM data | Reuters

President Donald Trump is set to appoint Kash Patel, the newly confirmed FBI director, as the acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), according to a source. Patel, a staunch Trump ally, will oversee both agencies simultaneously, a move that has sparked concerns among Democrats and moderate Republicans who previously opposed his FBI nomination due to his history of targeting Trump’s critics. Patel has strong backing from pro-gun groups and is expected to shift the ATF’s focus away from firearm regulation. The decision aligns with Trump's campaign rhetoric criticizing the ATF for being overly aggressive toward gun owners. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently fired the agency’s top legal counsel, Pamela Hicks, claiming ATF officials had unfairly targeted gun owners. Bondi has also redirected the ATF’s priorities toward immigration enforcement. Patel's dual appointment is part of a broader Trump administration strategy, with multiple officials holding multiple roles, including Marco Rubio at the State Department and Russ Vought at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Trump to name FBI chief Patel as acting ATF director, source says | Reuters

From a great piece written by Karl Bode for Techdirt, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is funding affordable, community-owned broadband networks in underserved areas, challenging monopoly control by major telecom companies. In New York, Oswego County received a $26 million grant to build an open-access fiber network, allowing multiple internet providers to compete over shared infrastructure. The network’s primary provider, Empire Access, is offering 500 Mbps service for $50 a month and 1 Gbps for $65, significantly undercutting industry giants like Charter and Verizon.

Similarly, Minnesota’s Carver County has used ARPA funds to build dark fiber infrastructure, leasing it to MetroNet in a public-private partnership. MetroNet now provides residents with gigabit fiber for $50 and 5 Gbps for $110, far cheaper than traditional providers. This strategy contrasts with other states that continue to funnel broadband subsidies to large telecoms with a history of neglecting rural and low-income areas.

Some states—Vermont, Maine, California, and New York—are using federal funds to expand community-owned broadband, treating internet access as an essential utility. However, with an additional $42.5 billion in broadband grants from the 2021 infrastructure bill set to be distributed, the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) will likely attempt to redirect these funds toward corporate-backed projects instead of community-driven initiatives.

ARPA Is Quietly Funding Cheap ($50-$65 A Month) Community-Owned Gigabit Fiber Access To Long Neglected Neighborhoods | Techdirt

This Day in Legal History: Marbury vs. Madison Decided

On February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, issued its landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, establishing the principle of judicial review. The case arose when William Marbury, appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, sued Secretary of State James Madison for failing to deliver his commission. The Court ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus in such cases, was unconstitutional. By striking down this portion of the law, Marshall asserted that it was the judiciary's role to interpret the Constitution and invalidate any congressional acts that conflicted with it. This decision cemented the Supreme Court’s authority as a coequal branch of government, ensuring that no law could override the Constitution. 

Though it limited the Court’s immediate power by denying Marbury his commission, the ruling vastly expanded its long-term influence. Judicial review has since been used to strike down laws in areas ranging from civil rights to executive power. The case remains a cornerstone of American constitutional law, shaping the balance of power between the branches of government.

A federal judge is set to hear the Associated Press's (AP) request to restore its journalists' access to the White House after President Trump’s administration banned them for continuing to use the name "Gulf of Mexico" instead of "Gulf of America." The AP sued three senior Trump aides, arguing the ban violates the First Amendment by attempting to control the language journalists use in their reporting. The lawsuit seeks to reinstate AP’s access to Air Force One and the White House press pool. White House officials dismissed the lawsuit as a publicity stunt, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defending the administration’s position. Trump signed an executive order renaming the Gulf last month, but AP continued using the traditional name while noting the change. Several press freedom groups and the White House Correspondents' Association have condemned the ban. A hearing on the AP’s motion for a temporary restraining order is scheduled for Monday in Washington federal court.

US judge to hear AP challenge to Trump's ban over use of Gulf of Mexico name | Reuters

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has closed its investigation into Robinhood's cryptocurrency division without taking any action, the company announced Monday. Robinhood’s stock rose 2.9% in premarket trading following the news. The investigation began in May 2024 when the SEC warned Robinhood that it could face charges for potential securities law violations related to its crypto operations. The decision comes shortly after the SEC dropped a separate lawsuit against Coinbase, another major crypto firm.

US SEC closes investigation into Robinhood with no action | Reuters

The federal judiciary has advised judges and staff to ignore an email from the Trump administration requesting they report five accomplishments from the past week. The email, sent by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as part of a broader government efficiency effort, was shared by Elon Musk on X before reaching federal employees. Judiciary officials said they would address the matter with OPM but urged recipients not to respond. Legal experts criticized the request as a possible violation of the separation of powers, arguing that the executive branch has no authority over the judiciary. Some judges and clerks in Washington, D.C., and Texas confirmed receiving the email. Constitutional scholars warned that such an inquiry, particularly when federal courts are handling cases involving Trump’s policies, could be an inappropriate intrusion by the executive branch. The request is part of an initiative to reduce government spending, which has already led to significant federal job cuts.

Judiciary Tells Judges, Staff to Ignore Email to Explain Work

This Day in Legal History: John Mitchell Sentenced

On February 21, 1975, former U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell was sentenced to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, along with Nixon's Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and domestic adviser John Ehrlichman. The three men were convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury for their involvement in the cover-up of the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Mitchell, the highest-ranking U.S. law enforcement official at the time of the scandal, was sentenced to 2 ½ to 8 years in prison, marking a significant moment in American legal history. His conviction underscored the principle that no one, not even top government officials, is above the law. 

Watergate, which ultimately led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, exposed widespread political corruption and abuses of power within the administration. Mitchell’s sentencing reinforced the legal consequences of obstructing justice and abusing executive power. Though he served only 19 months before being released on parole, his downfall symbolized the erosion of public trust in government. The Watergate scandal also led to legal reforms, including campaign finance regulations and increased congressional oversight of the executive branch. Mitchell, once a powerful political figure, spent his later years largely out of the public eye. His case remains a key example of how legal accountability can reach even the highest levels of government.

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration failed to comply with an order to resume USAID foreign assistance payments but declined to hold the government in contempt. The lawsuit, brought by two nonprofits, accused the administration of ignoring a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order meant to restart funding while a broader injunction was considered. The government argued it had discretion under existing agreements to terminate funding despite the ruling. Judge Amir Ali disagreed, finding that the administration continued to block funds in defiance of his order, though he stopped short of issuing a contempt ruling. Concerns about Trump defying court orders have grown, especially after another judge found his administration in violation of a similar ruling on domestic funding. The Justice Department claimed it complied with the order by reviewing contracts and canceling most payments, prompting the nonprofits to file a contempt motion. The case highlights ongoing legal battles over executive power and funding decisions.

Judge Says Trump Administration Didn’t Follow His Funding Order

Recent legal and executive actions have significantly reshaped the power and independence of federal agencies and administrative law judges. President Donald Trump issued an executive order asserting greater presidential control over independent agencies like the SEC and FTC, undermining their traditional autonomy from the White House. 

The order requires these agencies to submit rulemaking proposals for executive review, allows the president to direct their legal interpretations, and grants the Office of Management and Budget control over agency spending. Critics argue this effectively eliminates the independent agency model Congress created to insulate regulatory bodies from political influence. 

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has declared the legal protections preventing the removal of administrative law judges unconstitutional, signaling a shift in how executive power may be used to reshape agency adjudication. This move follows Supreme Court rulings limiting agency authority and reflects broader conservative efforts, backed by figures like Elon Musk, to curb the regulatory state. Lawsuits over Trump’s agency firings and judicial challenges to the Justice Department’s stance are ongoing, setting the stage for further legal battles over executive power and regulatory oversight.

Trump's Independent Agency Order Strikes at Model Congress Made

US declares administrative law judge removal rules unconstitutional | Reuters

The IRS planned to notify thousands of employees of their termination via email on Thursday, but a technical glitch prevented many from receiving the message. Despite the error, the terminations are proceeding, with affected employees set to receive official notices via overnight mail. The layoffs affect approximately 6,700 probationary workers as part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative, which is implementing widespread job cuts across federal agencies. Other agencies, including the Small Business Administration and the Department of Energy, have faced similar challenges, mistakenly sending and retracting termination notices. The IRS has not indicated any reversal of its decision, stating that the cuts align with an executive order to eliminate non-critical probationary employees.

IRS Plans to Cut Thousands of Workers by Post After Email Glitch - Bloomberg

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), requiring U.S. businesses to disclose their beneficial owners, is set to take effect on March 21, but uncertainty remains as legal and political challenges continue. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced the deadline after a court lifted the last nationwide injunction against the law, though it may still modify the rules or delay enforcement. The CTA aims to combat financial crimes by cracking down on anonymous shell companies, but businesses argue that the requirements are overly broad and burdensome. Political opposition, particularly from Republican lawmakers, has led to efforts to repeal or delay the law, with the House overwhelmingly passing a bill to push the deadline to 2026. FinCEN also faces practical difficulties, including technical issues with its filing system and uncertainty over the number of businesses required to report. While some companies have already submitted their disclosures, others remain hesitant due to confidentiality concerns. Ongoing court battles could further disrupt enforcement, leaving many businesses frustrated by the shifting legal landscape.

Corporate Transparency Deadline Set, but Uncertainty Still Looms

This week’s closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin. 

Frédéric Chopin, one of the most beloved composers of the Romantic era, was born in 1810, though the exact date remains a matter of debate. Some sources claim he was born on February 22, while others insist it was March 1. Regardless, his influence on classical music is undeniable. A Polish virtuoso pianist and composer, Chopin’s works are celebrated for their emotional depth, intricate melodies, and rich harmonic textures. Unlike many composers of his time, he focused almost exclusively on piano music, creating some of the most poetic and technically refined pieces in the instrument’s repertoire.

Chopin’s music was deeply personal, often reflecting his longing for his homeland after leaving Poland in 1830. His compositions blend the elegance of classical forms with the expressive lyricism of Romanticism, making his works both technically challenging and emotionally profound. His health was fragile throughout his life, and he died of tuberculosis in 1849 at just 39 years old. Despite his short career, his music remains a cornerstone of the piano repertoire, admired for its beauty and complexity.

For this week's closing theme, we turn to one of Chopin’s most famous and cherished works: Nocturne No. 2 in E-flat Major, Op. 9, No. 2. This nocturne captures the essence of Chopin’s style—graceful, flowing melodies, delicate ornamentation, and an intimate, dreamlike atmosphere. The piece unfolds like a quiet conversation, with its gently lilting rhythm and luminous harmonies evoking a sense of nostalgia and serenity. It’s a perfect way to end on a reflective note, immersing us in the timeless beauty of Chopin’s music.

Without further ado Frédéric Chopin’s Nocturne No. 2 in E-flat Major, Op. 9, No. 2, enjoy.

This Day in Legal History: United States v. Peters Decided

On February 20, 1809, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in United States v. Peters, a case that reinforced the authority of federal courts over state legislatures. The dispute arose when the Pennsylvania legislature attempted to defy a federal court order regarding a financial judgment. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, held that allowing states to override federal judicial decisions would threaten the constitutional structure and weaken the judiciary's role as an independent branch of government. The ruling reaffirmed the supremacy of federal law, a principle later cemented by cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Cooper v. Aaron.

The case stemmed from a long-running legal battle over a prize ship seized during the Revolutionary War. A Pennsylvania state court had refused to comply with a federal ruling ordering restitution to the ship’s rightful owners. In his opinion, Marshall emphasized that state governments could not interfere with federal judicial authority, warning that such actions would lead to anarchy. Pennsylvania resisted the decision, but the ruling set a lasting precedent that federal courts have the final say on legal disputes involving national law.

This decision played a crucial role in shaping American federalism by ensuring that states could not undermine federal judicial power. It reinforced the constitutional principle that the judiciary must remain independent to uphold the rule of law. In doing so, United States v. Peters helped establish the judiciary as a coequal branch of government, capable of enforcing its decisions even in the face of state opposition.

President Donald Trump has announced plans to nominate several former advisers from his first term to key Justice Department positions. John Eisenberg has been tapped to lead the national security division, while Brett Shumate will head the civil division. Shumate, currently acting in that role, has been involved in defending the administration against lawsuits related to federal worker dismissals and agency restructuring. He previously worked at the law firm Jones Day and defended Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to limit birthright citizenship.  

Eisenberg, who served as legal adviser to the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, has held multiple senior roles in the Justice Department and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Patrick Davis is set to lead the Office of Legislative Affairs, marking his third time in the department. All three appointments require Senate confirmation.  

The nominations follow Trump’s directive to remove all U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Joe Biden, claiming the Justice Department had been politicized. This move underscores Trump’s continued efforts to reshape the department with loyalists from his previous administration.

Trump picks first-term loyalists for top Justice Department posts | Reuters

Mastercard’s £200 million settlement of a long-running lawsuit over card fees is facing opposition, raising concerns about the future of UK class action funding. The lawsuit, originally valued at £10 billion, was brought on behalf of 44 million British consumers, meaning each claimant would receive only about £2.27 if all sought payment. The deal is being challenged by litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which stands to receive half the settlement, arguing that the terms are unfair given its £45 million investment in the case.  

The Competition Appeal Tribunal in London must now decide on the first contested settlement in the UK's emerging class action framework. The case comes amid growing uncertainty in the sector following a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated many litigation funding agreements. Further legal tests are expected, as the Court of Appeal is set to review funding arrangements for lawsuits against Apple and Sony later this year.  

Consumer advocate Walter Merricks, who led the case, and Mastercard defend the settlement, stating that economic assessments now value the claim at under £200 million due to prior legal setbacks. The tribunal's decision could significantly impact future litigation funding in the UK.

Mastercard landmark deal challenged in test for UK class action funding | Reuters

A U.S. judge is scrutinizing a Justice Department request to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, raising concerns about political interference. The request, ordered by a Trump-appointed official, has led to multiple resignations within the Justice Department, with critics arguing it ties Adams' legal fate to his cooperation with Trump's immigration policies. Adams, facing reelection, has denied any wrongdoing, while some Democrats fear dismissing the case would make him indebted to the Trump administration. The Justice Department’s request to drop the charges "without prejudice" leaves the possibility of future prosecution, a move former federal prosecutors warn could be used as leverage.  

The judge overseeing the case, Dale Ho, is a former civil rights attorney and Biden appointee whose nomination faced Republican opposition. Ho has a background in voting rights advocacy and previously challenged Trump administration policies before the Supreme Court. His handling of the Adams case will be the most high-profile decision of his judicial career. Legal experts note that while Ho cannot force prosecutors to continue the case, he can question their motives, particularly the timing of a potential re-filing after the New York mayoral election.  

This case underscores broader concerns about the Justice Department's independence under Trump, with critics accusing his administration of using federal prosecutions to reward allies and punish opponents. Adams has previously claimed, without evidence, that the charges were political retribution from the Biden administration. Meanwhile, New York's political establishment is divided, with some calling for Adams' resignation and others waiting to see how the case unfolds. Governor Kathy Hochul has reportedly met with political leaders to discuss Adams' future, further intensifying the controversy.

US judge questions 'unusual' request to drop Eric Adams case | Reuters

Who is Dale Ho, the judge deciding whether to drop Eric Adams' case? | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Executive Order 9066

On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Issued in the wake of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the order empowered the military to designate "exclusion zones" from which individuals could be removed. Although the order did not explicitly mention Japanese Americans, it led to the incarceration of over 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens. Families were uprooted from their homes and businesses, sent to remote camps under harsh conditions, and held without due process. The Supreme Court upheld the internment in Korematsu v. United States (1944), ruling that national security concerns justified the action. Decades later, the decision was widely condemned, and in 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, formally apologizing and granting reparations to surviving internees. The internment remains a stark example of how fear and prejudice can lead to grave violations of constitutional rights.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk, claims to have saved $55 billion in federal spending, but publicly available data only supports about $8.6 billion in verified savings. A major accounting error inflated a single contract cancellation from $8 million to $8 billion, significantly distorting the numbers. Despite promising "maximum transparency," DGE operates outside traditional oversight, raising concerns about its accountability. Musk, whose companies receive billions in federal contracts, is supposedly self-policing conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, a federal judge has allowed DGE to continue slashing jobs and contracts, handing Trump a legal win. The administration touts these efforts as transformative, with Trump and Musk claiming they’ll eventually cut $1 trillion in waste. However, with major entitlement programs off-limits and nearly half of discretionary spending tied to defense, the math is fuzzy at best. Who knew the efficiency agency run by the guy who wildly guessed about Twitter bots might struggle with basic accounting?

DOGE Says It’s Saved $55 Billion, Itemized Data Show Far Less

Bradley Weinsheimer, the Justice Department’s top ethics official, resigned after being reassigned by Trump administration officials to a new working group on sanctuary cities. A 34-year DOJ veteran, Weinsheimer opted for deferred resignation rather than accept the move, joining a wave of career officials who have left amid concerns over the politicization of the department. His ethics duties were transferred to two political appointees—one of whom helped defend Trump in his New York hush-money case, and the other a 2021 law school graduate. Critics, including former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, argue this shift undermines the DOJ’s independence. The Trump administration has aggressively reshaped the department, firing or reassigning officials and dropping criminal cases against Trump under the rationale that sitting presidents shouldn’t be prosecuted. The Justice Department, now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi—another former Trump defense lawyer—has also launched a “weaponization working group” to scrutinize past investigations into Trump. The White House, for its part, insists the DOJ was previously weaponized against Trump and is now being restored.

Senior Justice Department ethics official resigns over sidelining by Trump appointees, source says | Reuters

A federal judge is set to hear arguments on whether to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, following a controversial request from Trump administration prosecutors. The Justice Department, under orders from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove—a former Trump defense lawyer—asked to drop the case, claiming Adams is needed to help enforce the president’s immigration policies. The move has sparked outrage, with several prosecutors, including the lead attorney, resigning in protest. Critics argue the dismissal is politically motivated, especially after reports that Adams’ team suggested the mayor would support Trump’s policies if the charges disappeared. The DOJ insists the decision isn’t about the case’s merits, but Adams’ political future. The charges, filed under Biden’s administration, accused Adams of accepting bribes from Turkish nationals, which he denies. The dismissal would be *without prejudice*, meaning the case could be reopened after the November mayoral election—something critics see as a pressure tactic. With Adams’ political future in question and New York Democrats calling for his resignation, the legal and political stakes are high.

Judge to weigh Trump administration bid to drop NY mayor Eric Adams' case | Reuters

Electric-truck maker Nikola has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing cash shortages and difficulties securing funding. The company, which once promised to revolutionize the EV industry, struggled with leadership instability, weak sales, and a plummeting stock price. Like other pandemic-era EV startups such as Fisker and Lordstown Motors, Nikola found itself unable to sustain its capital-intensive operations as high interest rates and low demand dried up investor support. The company plans to sell off most or all of its assets while maintaining limited truck and hydrogen-fueling operations through March. Nikola, which went public in 2020 via a SPAC deal, has cycled through four CEOs in four years, with industry veteran Stephen Girsky currently at the helm. Despite ramping up production of hydrogen-powered trucks in 2024, the company bled money, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle. Fleet operators’ reluctance to invest in EV infrastructure further compounded its struggles. The bankruptcy marks the end of a turbulent journey for a firm that once positioned itself as Tesla’s trucking rival.

Struggling e-truck maker Nikola files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: First Formal Anti-slavery Resolution in American History

On February 18, 1688, a group of Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, drafted the first formal anti-slavery resolution in American history. Addressed to their local monthly meeting, the document condemned the practice of slavery and argued that it was incompatible with Christian teachings. The authors—Garret Henderich, Derick op de Graeff, Francis Daniel Pastorius, and Abram op de Graeff—compared enslaving Africans to the feared practice of Christian captives being taken by Turkish pirates. They pointed out the hypocrisy of Quakers, who sought religious freedom for themselves while denying liberty to others. 

The resolution questioned whether Christians had the moral right to enslave others based on race and emphasized the Golden Rule: treating others as one would want to be treated. It also warned of the possibility that enslaved people might eventually resist their oppression, raising the moral dilemma of whether their masters would then take up arms against them. The document urged Quakers to reconsider their complicity in slavery and to recognize the dignity and humanity of all people. Though the resolution was not immediately adopted by the broader Quaker community, it laid the groundwork for the abolitionist movement within the Society of Friends. Over time, Quakers became some of the most outspoken opponents of slavery in America. The Germantown protest stands as an early and courageous call for justice, foreshadowing the larger struggle for human rights that would unfold in the centuries to come.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a judge's order blocking the removal of Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, as litigation over his firing continues. Dellinger, appointed by former President Biden, was informed of his dismissal on February 7, but he sued, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to remove him without cause. Federal law allows the Special Counsel to be dismissed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.

On February 12, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a temporary restraining order reinstating Dellinger, stating that his firing violated legal job protections. The Justice Department, calling the ruling an attack on presidential authority, argues that courts should not dictate whom the president retains in his administration. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s appeal, deeming it premature.

This case may set an important precedent for Trump's broader efforts to reshape the federal government by removing independent agency heads. It follows a pattern of dismissals, including Trump’s recent firing of 17 inspectors general without explanation. The Special Counsel’s Office plays a crucial role in protecting whistleblowers and enforcing restrictions on political activity among federal employees.

Trump administration turns to US Supreme Court in bid to fire agency head | Reuters

President Donald Trump announced he will nominate Edward Martin for a full term as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin, currently serving in an interim capacity, has drawn controversy for his past legal work. He previously represented individuals charged in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and recently sought to drop charges against a defendant he once defended.

Martin was also present outside the Capitol during the attack and has criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the prosecutions. His nomination requires Senate approval, and ethical concerns have been raised about his involvement in cases related to former clients. Justice Department rules typically require attorneys to recuse themselves from such cases for at least a year.

Trump, on his first day back in office, granted clemency to nearly all of the 1,600 people charged in connection with the riot. Martin's nomination is expected to face scrutiny due to his past legal advocacy for those involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump to nominate top prosecutor Martin for permanent term as US attorney for DC | Reuters

A former business development manager is suing Reed Smith LLP for at least $50,000 in unpaid overtime, claiming the firm misclassified her as a manager to avoid paying her for excessive work hours. Phoebe Medeiros filed the lawsuit in California state court, alleging she regularly worked 90-hour weeks, sometimes in shifts as long as 36 hours, despite official timesheets reflecting a standard 40-hour workweek.

Medeiros, who transferred to Reed Smith’s Southern California office in 2022, says she primarily worked under the direct instructions of partner Mark Pedretti, preparing business pitch materials and relaying information, rather than functioning as a true manager. Pedretti, who is not named as a defendant, has not commented on the lawsuit.

Reed Smith has not responded to requests for comment, and neither Medeiros nor her attorneys from The Rutten Law Firm have provided statements. Medeiros has since left the firm and now works at Freshfields. The case, Medeiros v. Reed Smith, LLP, is being heard in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.

Reed Smith Sued by Business Development Manager for Overtime Pay

And in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I pitch the idea of tax-abatement bridge loans for office conversions. Post-pandemic, cities like New York, San Francisco, and Washington are struggling to revitalize commercial districts, with tax abatements for office-to-residential conversions proving ineffective because they only apply after project completion. Instead of making developers wait years to benefit, states should allow them to borrow against future tax savings through upfront, low-interest bridge loans—essentially restructuring the incentive rather than creating a new subsidy.  

With record-high office vacancies and persistent housing shortages, conversions make obvious policy sense. However, they remain slow due to high costs and the difficulty of securing favorable loans in the current interest rate environment. Existing tax incentives only kick in post-construction, forcing developers to front conversion costs while facing uncertainty about future property tax rates. A bridge loan program secured by future abatements would mitigate this risk by locking in tax savings at financing, providing developers with stable, immediate capital.  

The model would work through a public-private partnership: states would calculate future tax savings, commercial banks would underwrite low-interest loans secured by those abatements, and developers would repay the loans using the redirected tax breaks. Because funds would be deployed in phases based on project milestones, states wouldn’t be on the hook for speculative projects that never materialize. Unlike grants or new subsidies, this wouldn’t cost taxpayers beyond existing abatements, which are currently underutilized due to their delayed structure.  

This approach should appeal across the political spectrum—expanding housing supply without direct handouts to developers satisfies progressive concerns, while a self-financing mechanism aligns with fiscal conservatism. Similar models have worked elsewhere, such as Wisconsin’s senior housing loan program and widely used tax increment financing districts. Given the scale of the housing crisis, cities can’t afford to wait—tax-backed bridge loans offer a practical fix to a well-documented problem.

This Day in Legal History: Bell and Gray File Patents

On February 14, 1876, both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed patent applications for the invention of the telephone, setting off one of the most famous legal battles in U.S. history. Bell’s lawyer submitted his paperwork to the U.S. Patent Office just hours before Gray’s, leading to a dispute over who truly invented the device. Gray’s filing was a "caveat," an intention to patent, while Bell’s was a full application, giving him a legal advantage. When the patent was granted to Bell on March 7, 1876, Gray challenged it, arguing that Bell had improperly incorporated elements of Gray’s liquid transmitter design.

The controversy led to numerous lawsuits, with Gray and others accusing Bell of fraud and claiming he had seen Gray’s filing before finalizing his own. Despite these challenges, the courts consistently ruled in Bell’s favor, affirming his rights to the telephone patent. This legal victory gave Bell’s company, later known as AT&T, control over the rapidly growing telephone industry. The case highlighted issues of patent timing, intellectual property rights, and legal strategy in technological innovation.

The Bell-Gray dispute remains a landmark moment in patent law, demonstrating how the slightest timing difference can determine the outcome of major technological advancements. It also underscored the competitive nature of the late 19th-century invention boom, where multiple inventors often worked on similar ideas simultaneously.

Democratic attorneys general from 16 states issued guidance defending diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) programs against recent executive orders from former President Trump. Led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, they argued that DEI initiatives remain legal under existing anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Trump administration's orders call for eliminating DEI efforts from federal agencies and scrutinizing private-sector programs, conflating lawful diversity policies with illegal hiring preferences, the AGs said.

Major corporations like Google and Amazon have adjusted or rebranded their DEI initiatives in response to legal uncertainty. The guidance clarifies that policies promoting workplace diversity—such as broad recruitment efforts and impact assessments—are legally distinct from unlawful hiring preferences. Courts have long upheld employers' ability to consider the effects of their policies on different groups to prevent discrimination claims.

Meanwhile, Republican AGs, including Missouri’s Andrew Bailey, are pushing businesses to abandon DEI programs. Bailey recently sued Starbucks, accusing the company of violating civil rights laws through its DEI initiatives. The conflicting state-level actions highlight the growing legal and political battle over corporate diversity policies.

Democratic AGs Defend DEI Against ‘Misleading’ Trump Directives

Two federal judges will decide whether Elon Musk’s government cost-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), can access sensitive U.S. government systems. Since his appointment by President Trump last month, Musk has led efforts to eliminate wasteful spending, but critics argue his team lacks legal authority to handle Treasury payment systems and sensitive agency data.

Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan will consider a request from Democratic attorneys general to extend a temporary block preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury systems that process trillions in payments. The states argue Musk’s team could misuse personal data and disrupt funding for health clinics, preschools, and climate programs.

In Washington, Judge John Bates will review a separate request from unions seeking to prevent DOGE from accessing records at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Bates previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration but will now reconsider after the unions amended their lawsuit.

Democratic AGs have also filed a separate lawsuit claiming Musk’s appointment is unconstitutional and seeking to block him from making personnel decisions or canceling contracts. While courts have blocked several of Trump’s initiatives, his administration has continued firing government workers and cutting foreign aid, mostly targeting programs opposed by conservatives.

Musk's DOGE team: Judges to consider barring it from US government systems | Reuters

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for hundreds of foreign aid contractors affected by a 90-day funding freeze. The ruling temporarily blocks the administration from canceling foreign aid contracts and grants that were in place before Trump took office on January 20.  

The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by two health organizations that rely on U.S. funding for overseas programs. The Trump administration had halted all foreign aid payments, claiming the pause was necessary to review program efficiency and alignment with policy priorities. However, Judge Amir Ali ruled that the government had not provided a rational justification for the sweeping suspension, which disrupted agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations worldwide.  

Trump has also ordered federal agencies to prepare for major job cuts, leading to layoffs among government workers without full job protections. His administration has already removed or sidelined hundreds of civil servants and top officials, part of a broader effort to reshape the federal workforce and consolidate power among political allies.

Judge orders US to restore funds for foreign aid programs | Reuters

A federal judge has ordered the release of Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein, three days after he was jailed for allegedly violating pretrial release conditions in a tax fraud case. Goldstein, a prominent appellate lawyer and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, was indicted last month on 22 counts of tax evasion related to his high-stakes poker winnings and alleged misuse of law firm funds to cover debts.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan ruled that there was insufficient evidence to keep Goldstein incarcerated for allegedly concealing cryptocurrency transactions. However, the judge imposed new restrictions, including monitoring his internet use and prohibiting cryptocurrency transfers.

Prosecutors claimed Goldstein secretly moved millions in crypto after his initial release, prompting his second arrest. Goldstein argued the transactions occurred in 2023 and that he did not own the accounts in question. While the judge found Goldstein’s evidence created enough doubt to justify his release, he also suggested Goldstein may still have access to hidden funds that could enable him to flee. Goldstein has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team maintains the government's case lacks proof.

Supreme Court veteran Goldstein wins release again in tax crimes case | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.

Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) was a visionary composer and conductor whose symphonies bridged the late Romantic and early modern eras. Known for his deeply personal and expansive works, Mahler infused his music with themes of life, death, and transcendence. His Symphony No. 2, often called the Resurrection Symphony, is one of his most ambitious compositions, blending massive orchestral forces with choral elements to explore the journey from despair to spiritual renewal.

The symphony’s fifth and final movement, Im Tempo des Scherzo – Aufersteh’n, is a dramatic culmination of the work’s themes. It begins in chaos, with the orchestra depicting the terror of the apocalypse, before gradually moving toward light and resolution. The music builds in intensity until the choir enters softly, singing the text of Friedrich Klopstock’s Resurrection Ode, which speaks of rising again after death. Mahler expands on these words, adding his own lines about redemption and eternal life.

The movement swells to one of the most powerful climaxes in symphonic history, with soaring brass, thunderous percussion, and a triumphant chorus proclaiming victory over death. The final moments are a breathtaking ascent, as the music dissolves into radiant serenity. This movement is more than just a finale; it is an emotional and philosophical journey, offering a sense of transcendence that has resonated with audiences for over a century.

Without further ado, Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 2, the fifth and final movement – Im Tempo des Scherzo. 

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1801

On February 13, 1801, the U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, a controversial law that reshaped the federal court system. Enacted in the final days of John Adams’ presidency, the Act reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five and created sixteen new federal judgeships. It also eliminated the justices’ duty to "ride circuit" by establishing separate circuit courts with their own judges. The law expanded federal jurisdiction, making it easier for creditors to bring cases in federal courts and granting them broader enforcement powers. Federalists, who controlled Congress at the time, saw this as a way to strengthen the judiciary before Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office.

Adams quickly filled the newly created judgeships with Federalist allies, leading to accusations of court-packing and what became known as the "Midnight Judges" scandal. Jefferson and his party viewed the Act as an illegitimate attempt to entrench Federalist power in the judiciary. In 1802, the newly elected Republican-majority Congress repealed the Act, effectively undoing the judicial restructuring. This marked one of the first major political battles over the structure and independence of the federal courts. It also set the stage for future conflicts over judicial appointments and reforms.

The Judiciary Act of 1801 played a key role in shaping the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It demonstrated how shifts in political power could influence the courts and foreshadowed later debates over judicial authority. The controversy surrounding the Act also contributed to the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. This episode remains a crucial moment in American legal history, illustrating the judiciary's evolving role in government.

Cathy Harris, a Democratic appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), has sued President Trump over her removal from office, arguing that the firing was unlawful. Trump also dismissed Ray Limon, the board’s vice chair, and replaced Harris with Republican Henry Kerner as acting chair. The MSPB, an independent agency, hears appeals from federal workers who are fired or disciplined—a role that could become crucial as Trump pushes to shrink the federal workforce.

Harris argues that her removal violates legal protections for independent agency officials, citing the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which limits a president’s ability to fire certain officials without cause. Trump’s decision to involve Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency in identifying federal job cuts adds urgency to the case. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle, as Gwynne Wilcox, another Democratic official fired from the National Labor Relations Board, has filed a similar claim.

A hearing is set for Thursday before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, where Harris is seeking a temporary restraining order to regain her position. The White House defends Trump’s authority to remove officials, setting up a potential Supreme Court fight over presidential power and the future of independent agencies.

Member of US government employee appeals board sues over Trump firing | Reuters

A federal court in Massachusetts has implemented new rules to curb "judge shopping" as lawsuits against President Trump’s policies continue to mount. Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor issued an order requiring that cases seeking to block federal laws or policies be randomly assigned across the entire district, preventing litigants from filing in single-judge courthouses in Springfield and Worcester to secure favorable rulings.

This move aligns with a 2024 U.S. Judicial Conference policy aimed at discouraging strategic case filings, a practice criticized when conservatives challenged Democratic policies in Texas courts with Republican-appointed judges. Massachusetts, a frequent battleground for legal challenges to Trump’s agenda, has seen its judges temporarily block his administration’s efforts on government employee buyouts, research funding cuts, and prison transfers for transgender individuals.

With most of Massachusetts' federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, the concern was that plaintiffs could manipulate the system by filing in small courthouses with sympathetic judges. While some federal districts have adopted similar rules, others, including in Texas, have resisted. The issue remains contentious, with Senate Republicans and some conservative judges opposing the policy as unnecessary judicial interference.

Massachusetts federal court curbs 'judge shopping' as Trump lawsuits mount | Reuters

The explosive growth of Bitcoin has brought with it a significant environmental toll, with mining now consuming up to 2.6% of U.S. electricity and producing emissions comparable to entire nations. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work (PoW) system relies on energy-intensive mining, straining electrical grids, driving up prices, and using vast amounts of water for cooling. Despite these concerns, states like Texas have embraced miners, offering low-cost energy and deregulated markets.

The Trump administration’s January 2025 executive order on digital assets calls for “responsible growth,” but it remains unclear whether sustainability will be a priority. The order could enable states to integrate eco-friendly policies, such as tax incentives for green mining or licensing tied to renewable energy use. Addressing crypto’s environmental impact could also be framed as an issue of energy independence and national security, potentially making it more politically viable.

A carbon tax on PoW mining could be one way to push the industry toward cleaner energy, though it would be a tough sell under a deregulatory GOP administration. However, some conservatives, including economist Art Laffer, have supported carbon taxation in the past. If Bitcoin miners want to avoid future crackdowns, they may need to adopt sustainability measures before stricter policies are imposed. Whether the executive order leads to real change remains uncertain, but the environmental costs of crypto mining are only growing.

Bitcoin's Boom Comes With Corresponding Booming Environmental Costs

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: Birth of Edison

On February 11, 1847, Thomas Edison was born, eventually becoming one of the most prolific inventors in history. While best known for innovations like the phonograph and the incandescent light bulb, Edison’s impact extended beyond technology—he played a major role in shaping intellectual property law. Over his lifetime, he was granted 1,093 U.S. patents, making him one of the most successful patentees in American history. His aggressive pursuit of patent protection and enforcement helped define modern patent law, particularly in the fields of invention ownership and licensing.  

Edison was no stranger to legal battles. He frequently sued competitors for patent infringement, ensuring that his company, General Electric, maintained control over key technologies. One of his most significant legal disputes involved motion picture technology. His company used patents to create a near-monopoly on filmmaking equipment, leading to the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC), also known as the Edison Trust. This organization aggressively enforced its patents, preventing independent filmmakers from using essential equipment without licensing fees.  

However, Edison’s legal tactics also sparked resistance. Independent filmmakers and rival inventors challenged his monopolistic control, leading to court rulings that gradually weakened the MPPC. In 1915, a federal court ruled against Edison’s film patents, breaking up his trust and setting a precedent for future antitrust actions in the entertainment industry. Edison’s extensive use of patent law demonstrated both its protective power and its limits, influencing later legal battles over intellectual property. His legacy continues to shape debates over patent rights, innovation, and monopolistic practices in technology and media.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was established in 2010 to oversee financial institutions and protect consumers from abusive practices. It played a key role in regulating mortgage lenders, payday loan companies, and credit reporting agencies, introducing rules against predatory lending, deceptive banking fees, and unfair debt collection practices. The agency was instrumental in holding financial institutions accountable after the 2008 financial crisis, issuing billions in fines and refunds for consumers.

Over the weekend, the CFPB was effectively shut down under the leadership of acting chief Russell Vought, who suspended all oversight activities, halted its funding, and closed its headquarters. His actions were met with swift legal challenges from the National Treasury Employees Union, which argued that gutting the agency violated congressional authority. Critics condemned the move as a severe rollback of consumer protections, leaving banks and lenders without federal oversight.

The agency’s dismantling has also raised concerns about conflicts of interest. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was granted administrative access to CFPB systems, a controversial move given that Musk’s platform, X, is looking to enter financial services. Union officials claim Musk is trying to take control of his own regulator. The situation has drawn protests from agency workers and legal threats from advocacy groups who argue the actions amount to a systematic effort to remove consumer protections.

Consumer protection agency neutralized by Trump's new chief | Reuters

A federal judge declined to block Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the U.S. Department of Labor’s systems, dealing an early blow to unions opposing his efforts to shrink the federal workforce. The lawsuit, brought by the AFL-CIO, argued that Musk could gain access to sensitive government investigations into his own companies—Tesla, SpaceX, and The Boring Company—as well as information about competitors. However, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the union had not yet demonstrated harm, though he expressed concerns about the situation.

AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler called the decision a setback but vowed to present stronger evidence. Critics argue that Musk’s access to government data, including labor investigations and economic statistics, poses a serious conflict of interest. The White House maintains that Musk will recuse himself from matters involving his businesses, but as a special government employee, he is not subject to full federal ethics rules.

DOGE’s growing authority has sparked alarm, with unions and advocacy groups challenging its reach. Another lawsuit has temporarily halted DOGE’s access to Treasury Department records over concerns about unauthorized data sharing. Meanwhile, Musk has already moved to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, canceling contracts and leases as part of his broader push to restructure federal agencies.

Judge declines to block DOGE from Labor Department systems | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: 25th Amendment to the US Constitution 

On February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, establishing clear procedures for presidential succession and addressing concerns about vacancies in the executive branch. The amendment was a response to historical ambiguities in presidential succession, particularly after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Prior to its ratification, the Constitution provided little guidance on what to do if a president became incapacitated. The amendment formally allowed the vice president to assume the presidency if the president died, resigned, or was removed from office. It also established a process for filling a vacant vice presidency, a critical change since several vice presidents had died or resigned without a designated replacement mechanism. 

Additionally, it provided a procedure for a president to temporarily transfer power to the vice president, such as in cases of medical procedures. The amendment’s fourth section allowed for the removal of a president deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office, though this provision has never been invoked. The first use of the amendment came in 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, and President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford as his replacement. The amendment was invoked again in 1974 when Nixon resigned, making Ford the first unelected president in U.S. history. Since then, the temporary transfer of power provision has been used several times for medical reasons, including during surgeries for Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, and Biden. The 25th Amendment remains a critical safeguard, ensuring stability and continuity in the executive branch.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing certain Treasury Department data and ordered the destruction of information already obtained. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by 19 Democratic-led states against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, alleging that allowing Musk’s team access to personal financial data violates federal law. 

The judge found the states likely to succeed on the merits and cited risks of data exposure and hacking. The lawsuit argues that the administration implemented the policy without public explanation or a privacy impact assessment, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The order prevents Treasury from granting access to unqualified individuals and mandates background checks for those with clearance. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit filed by unions has also led to a temporary restriction on access to Treasury systems. The White House defended DOGE’s role as a government efficiency initiative, while critics, including Senator Ron Wyden, accused the administration of misleading Congress about the extent of Musk’s involvement. A hearing is set for February 14 to determine whether a longer injunction will be issued.

Musk’s DOGE Blocked From Treasury Data in State AGs Lawsuit (1)

The Justice Department is shifting resources from traditional priorities like counterterrorism and white-collar crime to focus on immigration enforcement under President Trump. Prosecutors are being reassigned to border districts, and the FBI’s joint terrorism task forces have been directed to assist with immigration initiatives. Additionally, US Marshals and DEA agents now have the authority to make immigration arrests. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered investigations into sanctuary jurisdictions and instructed DOJ units to prioritize foreign bribery cases linked to cartels over other white-collar crimes. 

Critics, including congressional Democrats, warn that diverting resources in this way could increase crime and weaken national security. Legal experts argue that pulling experienced prosecutors for immigration cases carries a steep opportunity cost, while counterterrorism specialists say their methods are not suited for handling migration. The move reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to maximize the DOJ’s role in immigration enforcement early in the new term, learning from past efforts to reshape asylum law and border policies.

Border Focus Pulls DOJ Resources From Terrorism, White Collar

A U.S. judge will soon decide whether President Trump’s buyout offer to two million federal workers can proceed. The plan, which offers employees pay through September if they resign now, has been challenged by federal workers' unions, arguing that Congress has not approved funding for it. Overseen by Elon Musk and his newly created Department of Government Efficiency, the initiative is part of Trump’s broader effort to downsize the federal government. 

Democrats and unions have raised concerns over Musk’s growing influence and DOGE’s access to sensitive government data. While 65,000 employees have reportedly accepted the buyout, unions warn that the administration may not honor the deal. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already faced shutdown-like actions, with staff ordered to stop work and the agency temporarily closed. Meanwhile, Trump has hinted at further cuts, including in the Pentagon, as legal challenges continue to mount against his sweeping restructuring efforts.

Judge to review Trump's buyout offer to government workers | Reuters

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been effectively shut down under the leadership of acting chief Russell Vought, who ordered staff to halt all regulatory activities and cut the agency’s funding. The move eliminates federal oversight of financial companies, drawing sharp criticism from consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers. The National Treasury Employees Union sued to block Vought’s actions, arguing they undermine Congress’ authority. Critics also raised concerns about Elon Musk’s involvement, as his Department of Government Efficiency has gained administrative access to CFPB systems, despite Musk’s business interests in the financial sector. Agency employees and unions accuse Musk of trying to take control of his own regulator. Vought also ordered the agency’s headquarters to close for a week and shut down public communications. The shutdown is part of Trump and Musk’s broader effort to restructure the federal government, prompting legal challenges and public protests.

Consumer protection agency neutralized by Trump's new chief | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: 11th Amendment Ratified

On February 7, 1795, the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, restricting federal judicial power over lawsuits against states. The amendment was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s 1793 decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, which held that a private citizen of one state could sue another state in federal court. This ruling alarmed many states, as it threatened their sovereign immunity and exposed them to lawsuits from individuals. 

In reaction, Congress swiftly proposed the 11th Amendment, which was ratified by North Carolina on this day, completing the necessary approvals. The amendment states that federal courts cannot hear cases against a state brought by citizens of another state or a foreign country. This reinforced the principle of state sovereignty and limited the reach of the federal judiciary. The amendment effectively overturned Chisholm and set a precedent for later expansions of state immunity. Over time, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment broadly, extending protections to cases brought by a state’s own citizens as well. The 11th Amendment remains a cornerstone of federalism, shaping the balance of power between states and the national government.

Federal agencies have pulled out of law school recruiting events following President Donald Trump’s executive order freezing hiring across the government. More than a dozen agencies withdrew from NYU’s public interest career fair, and others skipped a similar event hosted by Georgetown and George Washington University. The freeze, which affects federal legal jobs and prestigious honors programs at agencies like the DOJ and IRS, has left many law students scrambling for alternatives. While some large law firms are looking to hire displaced junior lawyers, there are limited openings, especially for first- and second-year students whose summer jobs were canceled. 

Firms like Morgan Lewis, Quinn Emanuel, and Elsberg Baker & Maruri are among those actively considering affected candidates. However, with most Big Law summer associate spots already filled, many students may struggle to secure positions. The freeze, which could last up to 90 days, is part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce through attrition and “efficiency” measures.

Trump Hiring Freeze Has Agencies Ditching Law School Recruiting

For decades, the Justice Department has prided itself on independence, with attorneys expected to uphold the law "without fear or favor," as former Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized. This principle, strengthened after Watergate, has long guided DOJ lawyers in their duty to serve the nation rather than any single president. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s new memo marks a stark departure from that tradition, warning DOJ lawyers against refusing to advance legal arguments they disagree with and referring to them as the president’s lawyers. 

The memo threatens disciplinary action, including termination, for attorneys who decline to sign briefs or appear in court due to personal objections. Critics argue that this undermines legal ethics and pressures attorneys to prioritize loyalty to Trump over their professional responsibilities. Historically, DOJ lawyers who found themselves in ethical conflicts could ask to be reassigned or resign, but Bondi’s directive appears designed to force them into compliance or out of the department entirely. The memo is particularly concerning as Trump’s DOJ aggressively defends controversial executive actions, making it harder for lawyers to voice concerns about weak or legally questionable cases. Legal experts worry that a mass exodus of experienced attorneys could damage the department’s credibility, further eroding trust in the rule of law.

Bondi Raises Independence Concerns with Attorney Advocacy Memo

The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association over its rapid dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The suit, filed in federal court, argues that President Trump’s foreign aid freeze and subsequent orders to halt USAID projects were unconstitutional and have caused a global humanitarian crisis. Since Trump’s executive order on January 20, USAID staff have been laid off or placed on leave, and key aid programs combating malaria, HIV, and global hunger have been suspended. The shutdown, largely overseen by Elon Musk, has left food aid worth $340 million stranded and led to worsening health crises, according to the lawsuit. Critics argue that since Congress created USAID by statute, Trump lacks the legal authority to dismantle it. The lawsuit seeks an emergency court order to restore funding, reopen offices, and prevent further agency cuts.

Trump administration sued by government workers over cuts to USAID | Reuters

Companies are rushing to file merger notifications before a new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule takes effect after 5 p.m. on Friday, significantly expanding reporting requirements for deals over $126.4 million. The rule, introduced under President Biden and set to take effect under President Trump, is expected to triple the workload for companies seeking regulatory clearance. Businesses are scrambling to file under the old rules to avoid higher compliance costs and navigate a familiar system rather than being among the first to test the new requirements. While attorneys don’t see the rush as an attempt to evade scrutiny, some worry that the surge in filings—combined with Trump’s push to shrink the federal workforce—could result in inadequate review of certain deals. The private equity industry has strongly opposed the rule, arguing it places unnecessary burdens on firms, and has filed a lawsuit to block it, though no ruling is expected this week. Some lawmakers are considering legislative action, and attorneys are closely watching for any last-minute delays, though chances of a suspension are diminishing.

Companies wary of new US rule scramble to file mergers by Friday, lawyers say | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.

Gustav Mahler, one of the most influential late-Romantic composers, was known for his expansive symphonies that bridged the worlds of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in 1860, Mahler's music often grappled with deep philosophical and existential themes, blending moments of beauty, nostalgia, and turmoil. His Symphony No. 4, completed in 1900, is one of his most accessible works, offering a lighter, more lyrical approach compared to his more intense symphonies. On February 7, 1904, Mahler himself conducted a performance of this symphony in Berlin, reinforcing its place in the concert repertoire.

The fourth movement, "Das himmlische Leben" (The Heavenly Life), is the symphony’s heart and soul, featuring a soprano voice describing a child's vision of heaven. Unlike the grandeur of Mahler’s other finales, this movement is delicate and dreamlike, with folk-like melodies and a sense of innocence. The lyrics, drawn from the Des Knaben Wunderhorn (The Boy’s Magic Horn) collection, depict a paradise filled with music, dancing, and endless feasting, all with a touch of Mahler’s characteristic irony. The orchestration remains light and transparent, with delicate bells and strings giving the music an ethereal quality.

As this week’s closing theme, "Das himmlische Leben" serves as a gentle farewell, offering a moment of reflection and tranquility. Its serene and almost childlike optimism provides a perfect contrast to the weightier legal discussions, reminding us that even in complex times, beauty and simplicity endure.

Without further ado, Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 4, the fourth movement, “Das himmlische Leben” – enjoy. 

This Day in Legal History: Permanent Court of Arbitration Established

On February 6, 1900, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was officially established following the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This marked a major step toward institutionalizing peaceful dispute resolution between nations. The PCA, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, became the first international tribunal designed to arbitrate conflicts between states, offering an alternative to war. 

While not a court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support for arbitral tribunals, helping resolve territorial, trade, and investment disputes. Recognizing the need for improvement, the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes refined its procedures, further solidifying arbitration as a legitimate mechanism for international law. Over the years, the PCA’s role expanded beyond state-to-state disputes to include cases involving international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. 

Today, it operates out of the Peace Palace, home to other key legal institutions like the International Court of Justice. With 109 member states, the PCA continues to handle complex cases, from border conflicts to environmental agreements. Its existence laid the groundwork for later international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court and various UN tribunals. By promoting arbitration over conflict, the PCA has helped shape a more structured and rule-based international legal order.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a major shift in the Justice Department’s white-collar enforcement priorities, scaling back efforts in foreign lobbying transparency and foreign bribery cases. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit will now focus on bribery cases tied to transnational crime, such as those facilitating human smuggling, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. Other FCPA investigations with no such connection will be deprioritized.

Similarly, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enforcement will be limited to cases resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section will focus more on civil enforcement and regulatory guidance rather than aggressive criminal prosecutions. These changes mark a significant pullback from the increased enforcement seen over the past decade, particularly under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division’s corporate enforcement unit, an initiative championed by Biden-era Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It’s unclear if the division will continue prioritizing corporate crime linked to adversarial nations like China and Iran. These policy shifts were part of a broader series of announcements as Bondi took charge as the nation's top law enforcement official following her confirmation on Tuesday night.

Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement (1)

Google is ending its diversity-based hiring targets and reviewing its broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, aligning with a broader corporate trend of scaling back such efforts. The company previously set a goal in 2020 to increase leadership representation from underrepresented groups by 30% by 2025, but Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that Google would no longer pursue aspirational hiring goals.

This shift follows years of public DEI commitments, especially after the 2020 protests over police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans. Google had also begun evaluating executives on diversity metrics, but recent SEC filings show it removed language reaffirming its DEI commitments.

The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) criticized the move, calling it part of a broader anti-worker trend in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Google cited legal considerations as a federal contractor, stating it is reviewing compliance with court decisions and executive orders affecting DEI policies.

Google will maintain internal employee groups such as “Black Googler Network” and “Trans at Google.” The company’s decision follows similar DEI cutbacks at Meta and Amazon, amid increasing conservative pushback and legal challenges after the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling.

Google scraps diversity-based hiring targets | Reuters

More than 40,000 federal employees have signed up for the Trump administration’s buyout offer, which promises pay through September if they resign by the end of February. This represents about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, with officials expecting a surge in applications before the Thursday deadline.

The initiative is part of President Trump’s second-term effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency. The White House initially projected that 5% to 10% of federal workers might accept the offer.

Federal employee unions oppose the plan, questioning its legality and enforceability. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has warned workers that job cuts are likely, with agency restructurings and layoffs expected. However, key employees in defense, immigration, law enforcement, and postal services are exempt from the deal.

With nearly 298,000 federal employees eligible for retirement in the next two years, the administration’s strategy could significantly reshape the workforce. Union leaders, like Everett Kelley of the American Federation of Government Employees, have urged workers to reject the offer, calling it misleading and driven by unelected billionaires.

Musk ‘Buyout’ Taken by 40,000 Federal Workers as Deadline Nears - Bloomberg

On her first day as U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi issued a directive stating that Justice Department lawyers who refuse to advance legal arguments on behalf of the Trump administration could face termination. The memo warns that attorneys who decline to sign briefs, delay cases, or impede the department’s mission may be disciplined or fired.

The move is part of a broader effort by Trump appointees to assert control over the Justice Department, which has already seen firings and reassignments of career lawyers. Bondi also announced a review of criminal and civil cases brought against Trump and his supporters, including prosecutions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. This "Weaponization Working Group" will scrutinize cases Republicans claim were politically motivated under the Biden administration.

Additionally, Bondi scaled back enforcement of foreign influence laws, stating that criminal cases will only be pursued in instances resembling “traditional espionage”, shifting the focus to civil enforcement. These laws, which require individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register as foreign agents, were previously used to prosecute several Trump associates.

Bondi’s directive reflects Trump allies’ long-standing complaints that career DOJ attorneys obstructed his policies, such as resisting lawsuits against Yale’s admissions practices and refusing to defend the 2017 travel ban. The memo asserts that DOJ lawyers cannot substitute their personal views for the administration’s legal agenda.

Trump's attorney general says lawyers who refuse orders could be fired | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Switch in Time that Saved Nine

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that became known as the “court-packing” plan. Frustrated by the Court striking down key New Deal programs, Roosevelt sought to add up to six new justices, arguing it would make the Court more efficient. His plan allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire. Critics saw this as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and tilt the Court in Roosevelt’s favor. The proposal faced strong bipartisan opposition, including from members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party.

While the plan ultimately failed in the Senate, the political pressure had an effect. Soon after, the Court began ruling in favor of New Deal legislation, a shift sometimes called “the switch in time that saved nine.” This shift preserved Roosevelt’s policies without requiring changes to the Court’s structure. By the early 1940s, Roosevelt had the chance to appoint multiple justices as vacancies naturally occurred. The controversy reinforced the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It also set a precedent that court expansion efforts would be met with significant resistance.

The court-packing episode remains relevant in modern debates over judicial reform. It serves as a historical lesson on the limits of presidential power and the resilience of the judiciary. Roosevelt, despite his immense political influence, could not force structural changes to the Supreme Court. The episode highlights the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches, ensuring no single branch dominates the government.

Pam Bondi was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General in a 54-46 Senate vote, positioning her to lead the Justice Department amid significant shifts under the Trump administration. Bondi, a longtime Trump ally, takes over as the department faces internal upheaval, with interim leadership forcing out officials involved in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. She has pledged to restore what she calls an "equal, fair system of justice" and to end the "partisan weaponization" of the DOJ.  

Since Trump took office, the DOJ has realigned its priorities, focusing on immigration enforcement while reducing emphasis on other areas. One of Trump’s first executive orders directed the agency to address alleged "weaponization" of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Bondi supports this effort, vowing to enforce the law vigorously while backing the administration’s policy shifts.  

Her tenure is expected to bring further changes, including tensions between the DOJ and the FBI. Recently, the FBI was asked to provide names of employees involved in January 6 investigations, prompting lawsuits from agents concerned about retaliation. Critics warn that the administration’s moves risk politicizing the DOJ and eroding institutional knowledge as career officials depart.

Bondi Confirmed as Trump’s Attorney General to Lead DOJ Shake-Up - Bloomberg

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is suing the Trump administration to stop its voluntary resignation program, "Fork in the Road," arguing it violates federal law. The program allows federal employees who resign by February 6 to continue receiving pay and benefits through September 30, but requires them to waive their right to sue their employer. The union claims this promise is illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from committing funds before Congress approves them.  

Congress has only authorized funding for most agencies through March 14, meaning agencies cannot guarantee salaries beyond that date. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is the latest challenge to efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reduce the federal workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) argues that the resignation offer is legal because it does not provide “additional compensation.”  

AFGE has received thousands of complaints from employees, saying the program forces staff to work extra hours while raising concerns about whether the government will honor its commitments. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

Federal Worker Union Sues to Stop Trump's Resignation Offer (1)

Farmers in Curry County, New Mexico, are at a critical juncture in their fight against PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base, with a key court hearing set for February 7. Art and Renee Schaap, once owners of a thriving dairy farm, were forced to slaughter their entire herd after discovering dangerously high levels of PFAS in their water supply. The chemicals, linked to firefighting foam used by the military, rendered their milk unsellable and their land contaminated.  

A legal battle over the government’s responsibility is unfolding, with the Schaaps’ case becoming a test for broader national litigation. The Pentagon has requested dismissal of all claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that its use of PFAS-containing foam was discretionary and therefore not subject to lawsuits. The government is also resisting cleanup demands under Superfund laws, which could delay remediation efforts.  

If the court allows lawsuits to proceed, affected farmers and businesses may finally receive compensation and quicker environmental cleanup. Meanwhile, concerns over PFAS exposure continue to grow, with nearby cheese processors and residents installing costly water filtration systems to protect against contamination. The Air Force has begun cleanup efforts, including a planned $73 million water treatment facility, but obstacles remain, including regulatory changes and the lack of proven PFAS destruction technologies.  

For now, the Schaaps and other local farmers face uncertainty, with their land value in question and their future livelihoods at risk. The case’s outcome could determine whether the military is held accountable for widespread PFAS contamination affecting communities nationwide.

Farmers Ruined by PFAS Face Key Moment in Fight Against

Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips may seem like a win for hospitality workers, but it risks deepening wage inequities and further entrenching the service industry’s reliance on gratuities. While tipped workers might see short-term benefits, the policy would leave out millions of low-wage workers in non-tipped sectors, such as retail or manufacturing, exacerbating disparities. It could also push more workers into precarious, tip-dependent jobs rather than stable, salaried positions.

By making tips tax-free, employers may feel even less incentive to raise wages, worsening income instability for workers who already rely on inconsistent gratuities. The plan also ignores existing discrimination in tipping, which could become even more entrenched in an unregulated tip-based economy. Instead of piecemeal solutions that favor certain workers over others, policymakers should focus on raising the federal minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage exemption.

The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 per hour since 1991, despite inflation reducing its value over time. Phasing it out and aligning it with the federal minimum wage would offer workers more stability, ensuring they earn a livable income independent of customer generosity. A broader increase in the minimum wage is also necessary, as the current $7.25 rate, set in 2009, has failed to keep pace with inflation.

While tax-free tips may sound appealing, they don’t address the root causes of wage insecurity. True reform would prioritize fair pay for all low-wage workers, creating stability and reducing financial precarity across industries.

Trump’s Tax-Free Tips Proposal May Sound Good But Is a Risky Bet

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Unanimously Elected

On February 4, 1789, George Washington was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States by the Electoral College, setting a precedent for democratic governance under the newly ratified Constitution. His election marked the formal beginning of the executive branch, shaping the legal and political framework of the young nation. On the same date in 1801, John Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States. Marshall’s tenure, spanning 34 years, would profoundly influence American law, particularly through landmark decisions like Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. His leadership solidified the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government. Decades later, on February 4, 1945, the Yalta Conference began, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meeting to discuss Europe’s post-World War II reorganization. The conference had lasting legal implications, shaping international law, the formation of the United Nations, and the division of Germany. More recently, on this day in 1997, a civil jury found O.J. Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a stark contrast to his earlier criminal trial acquittal. This verdict highlighted the differing burdens of proof in civil versus criminal law. Each of these events reflects the evolving nature of law and governance, from the founding of the presidency to the expansion of judicial power and international legal agreements.

President Donald Trump has announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as part of his strategy to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The law, originally passed during rising tensions with France, gives the president broad authority to detain, deport, or impose restrictions on foreign nationals deemed a threat during wartime. It can be activated when the U.S. is at war or facing an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign government. Trump has directed his administration to assess whether drug cartels operating in the U.S. qualify as an invasion, which could serve as the legal basis for invoking the act.

Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used in wartime, including during the War of 1812 and both World Wars. President Woodrow Wilson imposed restrictions on foreign nationals, and President Franklin Roosevelt used the law to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court has upheld the law’s constitutionality, even allowing deportations after wartime, as seen in the 1948 case of a former Nazi, Kurt Ludecke. However, courts have been reluctant to define “invasion” broadly, previously ruling that large numbers of migrants crossing the border do not meet the founders' definition of an armed threat.

Democratic lawmakers have recently pushed to repeal the act, citing its historical use in violating civil rights. If Trump proceeds with his plan, legal challenges will likely arise over whether cartel activity constitutes an invasion and whether the law can be used outside of traditional wartime contexts.

What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 that Trump wants to use in deportations? | Reuters

A Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, Edward Martin, has warned that anyone obstructing Elon Musk’s government efficiency initiative could face criminal charges. In a letter posted on X, Martin assured Musk that his office would take legal action against anyone threatening or hindering the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk responded with a public thank-you.

The warning follows reports that career government officials tried to block DOGE employees from accessing sensitive information. At the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), two top security officials were removed after preventing DOGE representatives from entering secure areas. Similarly, a Treasury Department official reportedly resisted efforts by DOGE to access financial systems.

Martin revealed that his office had been working with DOGE but did not provide specifics. He also encouraged Musk to report any “questionable conduct” for potential legal action. The Trump administration has been expanding its control over the Justice Department, recently launching an investigation into a sheriff’s office for releasing an undocumented immigrant in defiance of federal orders. Martin, who previously dropped all Jan. 6-related cases, has been outspoken in support of Trump, a departure from the typical neutrality of U.S. attorneys.

US prosecutor warns of legal risk for anyone hindering Musk's efficiency effort | Reuters

Lawyers representing plaintiffs in a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield have asked a federal judge in Alabama to approve over $754 million in legal fees and expenses. The legal team, led by Joe Whatley and Edith Kallas, is requesting $657.1 million in fees—equal to 23.47% of the settlement fund—along with at least $97 million in expenses. They argue this percentage is consistent with a similar $2.7 billion Blue Cross settlement in 2020, which awarded lawyers a comparable fee.

The case, which has been in litigation for over a decade, accuses Blue Cross of dividing the country into exclusive territories to avoid competition, which allegedly drove up insurance costs and lowered reimbursements. Blue Cross has denied any wrongdoing. The lawyers claim they have worked 373,000 hours and spent $100 million on expert witnesses and other expenses.

A previous $2.7 billion settlement involving Blue Cross, which addressed overcharging claims, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year and resulted in $667 million in legal fees. The current settlement agreement permits lawyers to request up to 25% of the total fund for legal fees, leaving the judge to decide whether the request is reasonable.

Lawyers seek $754 million in new Blue Cross antitrust settlement | Reuters

A U.S. judge has extended a pause on the Trump administration’s plan to freeze federal loans, grants, and financial aid after advocacy groups challenged the policy in court. Judge Loren AliKhan warned that cutting off funding would be "catastrophic" for organizations serving the public interest. The extension follows an earlier short-term pause, which was set to expire Monday.

The funding freeze originated from a White House budget office memo directing agencies to halt funding in line with Trump’s executive orders on immigration, climate change, and diversity. The memo was later withdrawn, but some grant recipients reported ongoing difficulties accessing funds.

A Rhode Island judge issued a separate restraining order last week in response to a lawsuit from 22 Democratic attorneys general and Washington, D.C. Despite these rulings, a Trump administration lawyer argued that the president has the right to direct agencies under his executive authority. The legal battle over whether the funding freeze can move forward remains unresolved.

US judge extends pause on Trump's plan to freeze federal grants, loans | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Chief Justice Taft Resigns

On February 3, 1930, Chief Justice William Howard Taft resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court due to declining health. Taft remains the only person in American history to have served both as President (1909–1913) and as Chief Justice (1921–1930). After his presidency, he achieved what he considered his true ambition—leading the nation’s highest court. As Chief Justice, he was instrumental in modernizing the federal judiciary, including advocating for the construction of the Supreme Court’s own building, which was completed after his death. His tenure also saw decisions that reinforced executive power and judicial efficiency. By late 1929, however, his health had deteriorated significantly due to heart disease and progressive neurological issues. Struggling to fulfill his duties, he reluctantly stepped down, fearing he could no longer serve effectively. Just five weeks later, on March 8, 1930, he passed away. His successor, Charles Evans Hughes, was nominated by President Herbert Hoover. Taft’s dual legacy as both a U.S. President and Chief Justice remains unmatched in American history.

Elon Musk claimed his "DOGE team," tasked with government efficiency, is shutting down certain payments to federal contractors, raising concerns about his access to U.S. Treasury systems. Musk stated that his team is eliminating corruption in real time, including halting payments to Lutheran Family Services, a charity supporting refugees. The Treasury Department has not confirmed Musk’s level of access, but Senator Ron Wyden suggested Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent granted DOGE full control over federal payments. 

Musk's influence follows his appointment by Donald Trump to modernize federal IT, though he appears to be extending that role to financial oversight. USAID security officials were placed on leave after refusing DOGE staff access, prompting Musk to call the agency “a criminal organization.” His claims about widespread fraud in federal payments remain unverified, as Treasury already has systems in place to prevent improper transactions. Meanwhile, Treasury’s top career official, David Lebryk, recently left his post, further intensifying scrutiny. Trump praised Musk’s cost-cutting efforts but acknowledged potential disagreements on policy direction.

Musk Says DOGE Is Halting Treasury Payments to US Contractors - Bloomberg

A new conservative law firm, Lex Politica, has been launched by Chris Gober, a lawyer for Elon Musk’s America PAC, along with attorneys Steve Roberts and Jessica Furst Johnson. The firm aims to represent Republican candidates, campaigns, and causes, strengthening ties between conservative legal professionals and Trump-aligned politicians. 

Gober, who previously served as America PAC’s treasurer, stated he wants Lex Politica to become synonymous with the conservative movement. Roberts and Johnson bring experience representing figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senator Rick Scott, and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. The firm joins a growing network of right-leaning law groups, such as Dhillon Law Group and Schaerr Jaffe, which have close ties to Trump and Musk. These firms have been involved in significant legal battles, including free speech cases on Musk’s platform, X, and efforts to reshape the federal government’s legal structure. Neither Musk nor representatives for key Republican clients commented on the firm’s launch.

Lawyers for Musk, Republican campaigns form new Washington firm | Reuters

Google is appealing a jury verdict and court order that found it illegally stifled competition in its Play Store. The case, brought by Fortnite maker Epic Games in 2020, accused Google of monopolizing app distribution and in-app payments on Android devices. A jury ruled in Epic’s favor in 2023, and U.S. District Judge James Donato ordered Google to allow rival app stores within its Play Store and make its app catalog available to competitors. Google argues the ruling was flawed, claiming it competes with Apple’s App Store and that the judge improperly expanded the order to impact all developers, not just Epic. Epic insists Google engaged in years of anti-competitive behavior and is fighting to uphold the jury's decision. Microsoft, the U.S. Justice Department, and the FTC have backed Epic in the case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on Monday, with a decision expected later this year, which could potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Google to ask US appeals court to overturn app store verdict | Reuters

McDonald’s has agreed to revise its HACER National Scholarships Program by removing race and ethnicity as eligibility criteria to settle a lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a group led by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum. The lawsuit argued that restricting eligibility to students with at least one Hispanic or Latino parent discriminated against other ethnic groups. McDonald’s denied wrongdoing but decided that modifying the program was the best course of action. Moving forward, applicants will need to demonstrate their contributions to the Hispanic and Latino community rather than meet racial or ethnic requirements. The settlement comes as McDonald’s and other companies scale back diversity initiatives following legal challenges and political pressure. In January, McDonald’s also abandoned diversity goals for corporate leadership, citing shifting legal standards, including the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that struck down race-based college admissions policies. Blum criticized the scholarship’s previous criteria, arguing that many students were unfairly excluded.

McDonald's settles lawsuit challenging Latino scholarship program | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: 13th Amendment Passed

On January 31, 1865, the U.S. Congress passed the 13th Amendment, formally abolishing slavery in the United States. The amendment declared that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." While President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had freed enslaved people in Confederate-held territories two years earlier, it lacked the permanence of a constitutional amendment. 

The House of Representatives passed the measure by a vote of 119 to 56, narrowly reaching the required two-thirds majority after intense political maneuvering. The Senate had already approved it in April 1864. Ratification by the states followed, culminating in its adoption on December 6, 1865. The amendment marked a legal end to slavery, but systemic racial discrimination persisted through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and other restrictive measures. Despite this, the 13th Amendment laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements. Its passage was a key victory for abolitionists and a defining moment of the Civil War’s aftermath. The amendment’s "punishment for crime" clause later became a subject of controversy, as it allowed convict leasing and forced labor in prisons, disproportionately affecting Black Americans. Even today, debates continue over its implications for the U.S. prison system.

Fox Rothschild LLP has blocked its lawyers from using DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, due to concerns about client data security. While the firm allows AI tools like ChatGPT with restrictions, DeepSeek's data storage in China raises unique risks, according to Mark G. McCreary, the firm’s chief AI and information security officer. A recent data breach involving DeepSeek further heightened security concerns. Other major law firms, including Wilson Sonsini and Polsinelli, are also implementing strict vetting processes for new AI models. Wilson Sonsini requires its chief information security officer and general counsel to approve AI tools before use, while Polsinelli enforces firm-wide restrictions on unapproved AI software. Law firms are also monitoring AI use by third-party vendors to ensure compliance with security protocols. McCreary emphasized that established legal tech companies prioritize data protection, reducing the risk of firms switching to less secure AI models.

Fox Rothschild Blocks DeepSeek's AI Model for Attorney Use

A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. government's ban on licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under 21 is unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun laws to align with historical firearm regulations. The federal ban, enacted in 1968, was challenged by young adults and gun rights groups, who argued it violated the Second Amendment. Judge Edith Jones, writing for the court, found insufficient historical evidence to justify restricting gun sales for 18-to-20-year-olds. The ruling marks a major shift in gun policy, aligning with broader legal trends expanding Second Amendment protections. The Justice Department, which defended the ban under the Biden administration, has not yet commented on the decision. Gun rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory against age-based firearm restrictions.

US ban on gun sales to adults under age 21 is unconstitutional, court rules | Reuters

In a piece for Techdirt, Karl Bode critiques the Trump FCC’s decision to roll back efforts to curb exclusive broadband deals between landlords and internet providers. The Biden FCC had attempted to update outdated rules that allowed ISPs to form monopolies within apartment buildings, driving up prices and reducing competition. However, due to delays caused by industry opposition and the failed nomination of reformer Gigi Sohn, key proposals—including a ban on bulk billing—were left unapproved. When Brendan Carr took over as FCC chair under Trump, he quickly scrapped these pending consumer protections. Bode argues that U.S. telecom policy is stuck in a cycle where Democrats make half-hearted attempts at reform, only for Republicans to dismantle them entirely under the guise of deregulation. The result is a landscape where telecom giants and landlords continue to collude, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher costs, and poor service.

The Trump FCC Makes It Easier For Your Landlord And Your ISP To Collude To Rip You Off | Techdirt

Bally’s Chicago casino project is facing a legal challenge over its commitment to reserving 25% of its investment opportunities for women and people of color. Conservative activist Edward Blum, known for spearheading lawsuits against affirmative action, filed the suit on behalf of two white men who claim they were unfairly excluded from investing. The lawsuit argues that the policy violates federal civil rights law and should be open to all investors regardless of race. This case is part of a broader push against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which gained momentum after a recent executive order from President Trump eliminating DEI programs in the federal government. Bally’s maintains that its agreement with the city complies with legal requirements. The lawsuit references an 1866 civil rights law originally meant to protect Black Americans' economic rights and is similar to other cases challenging race-conscious corporate policies. Blum’s organization has previously led legal battles against diversity-focused scholarships, grants, and hiring programs, including the Supreme Court case that struck down race-based college admissions in 2023.

America’s Battle Over DEI Strikes a Chicago Casino’s Financing Plan

This week’s closing theme is by Franz Schubert.

Franz Schubert, one of the most beloved composers of the early Romantic era, was born on this day in 1797 in Vienna, Austria. Though he lived only 31 years, his vast output of music—ranging from symphonies and chamber works to piano music and over 600 songs—continues to inspire musicians and audiences alike. Schubert's music is often characterized by its lyricism, rich harmonies, and deep emotional expression, seamlessly bridging the clarity of the Classical era with the passion of Romanticism.

Despite his immense talent, Schubert struggled with financial stability and never achieved widespread fame during his lifetime. He spent much of his career composing in relative obscurity, supported by a close-knit circle of friends and fellow artists. His songs, or lieder, are especially celebrated for their ability to capture both the beauty and melancholy of the human experience, with works like Erlkönig and Winterreise standing as some of the greatest achievements in the genre.

His instrumental music, however, remained underappreciated until long after his death. Today, his symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas are recognized as masterpieces, filled with lyrical beauty and striking contrasts. Among his later works, the Piano Sonata No. 20 in A major, D. 959 showcases his mature style, blending elegance with deep introspection. The final movement, Rondo: Allegretto, serves as this week's closing theme, capturing both Schubert's charm and his poignant sense of longing.

Though he died in 1828, just a year after Beethoven, Schubert’s influence only grew in the decades that followed. Composers like Schumann, Brahms, and even Mahler admired his work, helping to cement his legacy as one of music’s great geniuses. Today, on the anniversary of his birth, we celebrate the life and music of a composer who, despite facing struggles and setbacks, left behind an extraordinary body of work that continues to resonate across centuries.

Without further ado, Franz Schubert’s Piano Sonata No. 20 in A major, D. 959. 

This Day in Legal History: Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution

On January 30, several U.S. states recognize Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution, honoring the Japanese American civil rights activist who fought against the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Korematsu was arrested in 1942 for refusing to comply with Executive Order 9066, which mandated the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans in internment camps. His legal challenge led to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the internment as a wartime necessity. Decades later, in 1983, new evidence revealed that the U.S. government had withheld critical information from the Court, and Korematsu's conviction was overturned in a federal court ruling. Although the Supreme Court's original decision was never formally overturned, it has been widely condemned and was explicitly discredited in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).

Korematsu spent the rest of his life advocating for civil rights, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. His legacy serves as a reminder of the dangers of racial discrimination and unchecked government power. California was the first state to recognize Fred Korematsu Day in 2010, with other states following in later years. The day is used to promote awareness of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and the impact of past injustices. Schools, libraries, and civic organizations hold educational programs to highlight the importance of vigilance against government overreach. The Korematsu Institute continues his work by advocating for civil rights education. His story is a crucial part of American legal history, reminding the nation that constitutional rights must be protected for all.

Former EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, fired by Donald Trump, has retained high-profile attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz to explore legal options. No president has previously fired an EEOC commissioner, and Trump's actions also removed another Democratic member, Jocelyn Samuels, leaving the agency without a quorum. Samuels and Burrows claim they were dismissed due to their views on sex discrimination and diversity initiatives, which Trump opposes. Banks and Katz, known for representing Christine Blasey Ford in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, have criticized the firings as a political attack. Their firm is also consulting with other government officials dismissed by Trump. The EEOC terminations coincide with broader efforts by Trump to reshape federal agencies, including purging officials from the National Labor Relations Board. Samuels, like Burrows, is considering legal action, but specific claims have not yet been disclosed.

EEOC commissioner fired by Trump hires Kavanaugh accuser's lawyers | Reuters

The Trump administration reversed its decision to freeze hundreds of billions in federal aid after facing legal challenges and bipartisan opposition. The White House had initially paused grant and loan payments, citing a need to review spending on programs Trump opposes, such as diversity initiatives and green energy. However, as lawsuits progressed, officials rescinded the order, likely to avoid a court ruling against them. A federal judge in Rhode Island still held a hearing on the case, indicating concerns over the freeze’s impact. Despite the reversal, Trump vowed to continue cutting funding for initiatives he disapproves of.  

The failed freeze was part of broader efforts by Trump to reshape the government, including removing security protections for a former military official and preparing Guantanamo Bay for detained migrants. His administration also revoked diversity programs in the military and pushed through controversial cabinet appointments, including a defense secretary accused of misconduct. While some Republicans defended the spending freeze as a fiscal responsibility measure, bipartisan lawmakers criticized the confusion and harm it caused. Payments for medical services resumed, but housing assistance remained disrupted. Congress members overseeing federal budgets welcomed the reversal, calling the freeze overreaching and chaotic.

White House revokes spending freeze in the face of legal challenges | Reuters

Trump’s firing of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox is expected to spark a major legal battle over the president’s authority to remove independent agency officials. Federal labor law permits removal of NLRB members only for neglect or malfeasance, and legal scholars widely agree that Trump’s move violates existing precedent. The administration is likely using the case as a test to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld limits on presidential removal powers for multi-member commissions.

Trump’s legal justification relies on the Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), arguing that NLRB members do not qualify for exceptions to presidential removal power. However, experts argue that Seila Law was meant to carve out, not overturn, Humphrey’s Executor. The Supreme Court has recently expanded presidential removal authority, as seen in Collins v. Yellen (2021) concerning the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). It has also struck down dual-layer removal protections, as in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.

Wilcox has vowed legal action, and her removal could also be challenged by unions affected by the NLRB’s lack of a quorum. If courts adhere to Humphrey’s Executor, Trump’s action may be overturned. However, if the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could provide an opportunity to further weaken constraints on presidential control over independent agencies.

Trump's Labor Board Firing Sets Up Agency Independence Test Case

This Day in Legal History: Sweden Bans Aerosols

On January 29, 1978, Sweden made history by becoming the first nation to ban aerosol sprays, citing concerns over their harmful impact on the ozone layer. The decision was driven by mounting scientific evidence that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly used as propellants in aerosol cans, contributed to ozone depletion. At the time, international awareness of environmental issues was growing, but regulatory action remained limited. Sweden’s bold move set a precedent, signaling to the world that legislative measures were necessary to curb environmental harm.  

The ban came in response to research published in the early 1970s, particularly studies by chemists Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, who identified CFCs as a major threat to the ozone layer. Their findings spurred global discussions about air pollution and climate change, but most governments hesitated to act. Sweden, however, took a proactive stance, prioritizing environmental protection over industry objections. The law prohibited the sale and use of aerosol sprays containing ozone-depleting substances, forcing manufacturers to seek alternative technologies.  

Sweden’s action influenced other nations, including the United States and Canada, which imposed partial restrictions on CFCs in the late 1970s. Over time, growing international pressure led to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a landmark treaty aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting substances worldwide. Today, the ozone layer is gradually recovering, thanks in part to Sweden’s early leadership. The ban underscored the power of legal intervention in addressing global environmental crises and demonstrated how science-driven policy can lead to meaningful change.

Donald Trump’s aggressive efforts to reshape the federal government have thrown agencies into turmoil, with sweeping policy shifts and a push to consolidate control. The administration is offering buyouts to federal employees resistant to returning to in-person work while signaling broader workforce cuts. At the same time, a sudden freeze on federal grants and loans caused widespread confusion, prompting a federal judge to issue a temporary stay. Though the White House insisted individual benefits would not be affected, state and local governments scrambled to assess the potential fallout.  

The spending freeze is part of a broader strategy to challenge congressional control over federal funding, with Trump’s allies arguing for expanded executive power. His administration has also targeted federal employees in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles, inspectors general, and Justice Department officials involved in previous investigations against him. Meanwhile, Trump has revived trade disputes, pardoned January 6 rioters, attempted to end birthright citizenship, and cut foreign aid.  

Democrats, struggling to keep up, have called emergency meetings and press conferences, but Trump’s rapid moves have overwhelmed political opposition. Some Republicans, too, have expressed concern, particularly over the scope of the funding freeze. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits a president’s ability to block congressional spending, but Trump’s team argues that temporary pauses are legally permissible.  

The administration is also targeting federal personnel, with officials compiling lists of employees deemed expendable. Amid these efforts, some initiatives have already faced legal setbacks, such as the birthright citizenship order. Trump has also yet to significantly address key issues like inflation and the war in Ukraine, leaving uncertainty over the administration’s broader policy direction.

Trump Buyouts, Spending Freezes Wreak Havoc Across Government

Former U.S. Senator Bob Menendez is set to be sentenced on Wednesday following his 2024 conviction on bribery and corruption charges. Found guilty on all 16 felony counts, including acting as a foreign agent, Menendez was accused of accepting bribes—such as gold bars, cash, and a luxury car—in exchange for political favors benefiting Egypt and New Jersey businessmen. Federal prosecutors have requested a 15-year prison sentence, arguing that Menendez abused his position to influence military aid, assist Qatar, and interfere in prosecutions.  

Menendez, who served nearly two decades in the Senate, maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal. His defense team is seeking a significantly reduced sentence of around 2 years, citing his age, public service record, and financial ruin. The scandal forced him to resign from the Senate, marking a dramatic downfall for the former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.  

Two businessmen convicted alongside Menendez, Wael Hana and Fred Daibes, will be sentenced later this week, while his wife, Nadine Menendez, faces her own corruption trial in March. The case highlights ongoing concerns about political corruption and foreign influence in U.S. government affairs.

Bob Menendez to be sentenced in gold bar bribery case that ended US Senate career | Reuters

House Democrats Jamie Raskin and Gerald Connolly are demanding answers from the Trump administration regarding the abrupt firings and reassignments of career Justice Department prosecutors. In a letter to Acting Attorney General James McHenry, they expressed concern that the removals, which began immediately after Trump’s inauguration, undermine a merit-based system and may violate federal law. The lawmakers are requesting a full list of affected employees and an explanation for the actions.  

Among those dismissed were more than a dozen prosecutors involved in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump’s handling of classified records and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Additionally, over 20 senior officials, including the top public integrity prosecutor and the department’s senior ethics official, were reassigned to a newly formed “sanctuary city” working group. The Public Integrity Section Chief, Corey Amundson, resigned in response.  

Meanwhile, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington has launched an internal review of the felony obstruction charge used in January 6 prosecutions. Raskin and Connolly are also seeking clarity on whether the White House has examined career employees’ political views or social media activity. The Justice Department has yet to comment on these developments, which have intensified concerns about political interference within federal law enforcement.

U.S. House Democrats sound the alarm on firings and reassignments of career DOJ lawyers | Reuters

States are increasingly considering digital advertising taxes to generate revenue, but without coordination, they risk creating a compliance nightmare for businesses. Rhode Island is the latest state to propose such a tax, following Maryland’s model, which has already faced significant legal and administrative challenges. Other states, including Connecticut, Indiana, and Arkansas, have explored similar measures, with Massachusetts, New York, and Texas also showing interest.  

Rhode Island’s plan, set to take effect in 2026, would impose a 10% tax on digital ad revenue from companies earning over $1 billion globally. This targets major players like Alphabet and Meta, but Maryland’s lower threshold of $100 million suggests future expansions could include smaller businesses. Advocates argue that taxing digital ads could help offset social costs linked to social media companies, further driving state interest in such measures.  

However, an inconsistent state-by-state approach could entrench an oligopoly, favoring large corporations that can handle complex tax requirements while squeezing out smaller competitors. A uniform, collaborative approach—modeled on the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement—could help states maintain sovereignty while ensuring consistency. Standardized definitions, revenue thresholds, and sourcing rules would simplify compliance and reduce litigation risks.  

Maryland’s legal battles highlight the dangers of an uncoordinated approach, making it crucial for states to learn from its experience. While a federal solution could provide uniformity, states are unlikely to cede control over taxation, making a state-driven compact the more viable option. By working together, states can create a sustainable, efficient digital ad tax framework that avoids the pitfalls of a fragmented system.

States Need a Uniform Solution to Accelerate Digital Ad Taxes

This Day in Legal History: Harlan F. Stone Appears Before Senate Judiciary Committee

On January 28, 1925, Harlan Fiske Stone became the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This marked a significant turning point in the judicial confirmation process, as prior nominees were not required to appear in person. Stone, a former Attorney General and respected legal scholar, was nominated by President Calvin Coolidge to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The decision to have him testify was unprecedented and came in response to concerns raised about his political independence and potential ties to Wall Street interests.  

During his appearance, Stone assured the committee of his commitment to judicial impartiality and independence. He addressed questions about his legal philosophy, his past work, and the role of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution. His calm demeanor and straightforward responses helped to dispel doubts and earned him bipartisan support. The hearing was also held publicly, setting a new standard of transparency in the confirmation process.  

Stone’s testimony contributed to his swift confirmation as an Associate Justice by the Senate, where he served with distinction. Later, in 1941, he became the Chief Justice of the United States, further cementing his legacy as one of the nation’s most respected jurists. This event set a precedent that has since become a critical part of the Supreme Court nomination process, allowing the Senate and the public to scrutinize nominees more thoroughly.  

The decision to include nominee testimony is seen as a key development in ensuring accountability and public trust in the judiciary. Stone’s appearance before the committee reflected a shift toward greater transparency in government, a principle that continues to shape the confirmation process today.

A transgender inmate, identified as "Maria Moe," has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order mandating federal recognition of only two unchangeable biological sexes. The order requires transgender women to be housed in men’s prisons and ends funding for gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated individuals. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, argues that the order violates the Fifth Amendment's due process clause by discriminating based on sex and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It also alleges a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by denying medically necessary care. 

Following the executive order, Moe was informed of her impending transfer from a women’s prison to a men’s facility, and her official prison records were altered to reflect a male designation. The lawsuit claims that such a transfer would expose Moe to heightened risks of violence and sexual assault. Additionally, Moe’s access to hormone therapy, which she has used since adolescence to treat gender dysphoria, is at risk of being discontinued. Moe’s legal team is seeking to block her transfer, maintain her medical treatment, and have the executive order declared unconstitutional. Both the U.S. Justice Department and Moe’s attorney declined to comment.

Transgender inmate sues over Trump's order curtailing LGBT rights | Reuters

Novo Nordisk has agreed to cap insulin prices as part of a settlement with Minnesota’s attorney general, who accused the company and two other major insulin manufacturers, Eli Lilly and Sanofi, of inflating insulin prices to unaffordable levels. Under the settlement, Novo Nordisk will limit out-of-pocket insulin costs to $35 per monthly prescription for cash-paying patients, regardless of insurance status, and will provide free insulin to low-income Minnesotans earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level (about $128,600 for a family of four). 

This agreement mirrors earlier settlements Minnesota reached with Eli Lilly and Sanofi in 2024. Together, the settlements are expected to cut insulin costs for patients by over 90%. While Novo Nordisk denied any wrongdoing, the settlement will remain in effect for five years pending court approval. Minnesota’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, criticized insulin makers for prioritizing profits over patients' lives, accusing them of artificially inflating list prices while negotiating rebates with pharmacy benefit managers. Insulin is a life-saving drug for individuals with diabetes, particularly type 1. Minnesota’s legal battle began in 2018 under Ellison’s predecessor, Lori Swanson.

Novo Nordisk to cap insulin prices in Minnesota settlement; joins Lilly, Sanofi | Reuters

President Donald Trump’s recent federal hiring freeze has disrupted career plans for thousands of law students seeking government jobs or internships. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the IRS, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have revoked permanent job offers to third-year law students accepted into prestigious honors programs. Additionally, hundreds of summer internships, both paid and volunteer, have been canceled, impacting over 2,000 positions in total. 

The DOJ, the largest legal employer among federal agencies, has rescinded job offers and canceled its summer programs, which typically place around 1,800 students annually. The hiring freeze has also led agencies to withdraw from law school recruiting events and remove job postings. Career services officials warn that these cancellations harm both federal agencies, which lose a critical pipeline of future talent, and students, who miss out on essential work experience often leading to full-time positions or judicial clerkships. Judicial clerkships, funded separately, are unaffected by the freeze. 

Law schools nationwide report significant disruptions, with many students left scrambling for alternative opportunities. Legal professionals and career advisors express concern over the long-term impact on government hiring and students’ career trajectories. The White House has not commented on the issue.

Trump's hiring freeze leaves thousands of law students out in the cold | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Paris Peace Accords

On January 27, 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed, formally ending direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War. The agreement, brokered after years of intense negotiations, was signed by representatives from the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam. The key provisions included a ceasefire, the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the release of prisoners of war, and a commitment to peaceful reunification efforts. Dr. Henry Kissinger, serving as the U.S. National Security Advisor, played a pivotal role in negotiating the agreement, earning him the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, which he controversially shared with North Vietnamese negotiator Lê Đức Thọ, who declined the award.

The accords marked a significant moment in Cold War diplomacy, as they sought to halt one of the most controversial conflicts in U.S. history. Despite the agreement, tensions remained high, and fighting between North and South Vietnam continued. Ultimately, the accords failed to establish lasting peace, as North Vietnamese forces launched a successful campaign to reunify Vietnam under communist control in 1975.

The accords also addressed humanitarian concerns, including provisions for the return of U.S. prisoners of war, such as those held at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton." The agreements emphasized self-determination for the South Vietnamese people, though political realities on the ground made this challenging. The signing of the Paris Peace Accords underscored the limits of U.S. influence in Vietnam and symbolized a broader shift in American foreign policy, as the nation grappled with the aftermath of its longest war to date.

Elon Musk has asked a federal judge in Texas to dismiss a class-action lawsuit accusing him and his political action committee, America PAC, of running an illegal lottery. The lawsuit, filed by Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty, alleges that Musk misled voters in seven battleground states into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering a chance to win $1 million. McAferty argues that this violated Texas deceptive trade practices laws, as winners were supposedly chosen at random.

Musk, however, contends that participants were informed they would be evaluated for opportunities to become America PAC spokespeople, not awarded a random prize. He emphasized that this process did not involve "chance" and thus was not a lottery. Musk also rejected claims that collecting petition signers' personal information caused harm, noting there was no evidence of misuse.

The lawsuit, filed on Election Day in 2024, seeks at least $5 million in damages for petition signers. It follows a related legal effort in Philadelphia, where a judge declined to halt Musk's giveaway, ruling it was not an illegal lottery. Musk is a Texas resident, and Tesla, his electric car company, is headquartered in Austin.

Elon Musk says $1 million election giveaway wasn't an illegal lottery | Reuters

Indian digital news outlets, including those owned by billionaires Gautam Adani and Mukesh Ambani, have joined a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging unauthorized use of their content to train its AI models. News organizations such as NDTV, Network18, Indian Express, and Hindustan Times argue that OpenAI's "willful scraping" of their material threatens their copyrights and undermines their advertising revenue. This legal filing builds on a prior lawsuit initiated by ANI, India’s most prominent news agency, marking a significant escalation in the legal battle.

The media outlets accuse OpenAI of prioritizing partnerships with international publishers while neglecting similar agreements with Indian companies, resulting in unfair advantages. OpenAI, however, maintains that its use of publicly available data adheres to fair use principles and asserts that Indian courts lack jurisdiction over its U.S.-based servers. 

This legal challenge occurs as India's generative AI market is poised for rapid growth, and OpenAI views the country as a key market with a large user base. Critics of OpenAI's practices argue its actions undermine press freedom and could weaken democracy in India. Meanwhile, OpenAI continues to defend its business model, citing partnerships with major global publishers and emphasizing its compliance with copyright laws in other regions.

OpenAI to face Indian news firms of Ambani, Adani in copyright battle, documents show | Reuters

A wave of new state laws targeting "forever chemicals" (PFAS) in cosmetics took effect this year, reflecting growing concerns over the health and environmental risks of these persistent substances. California, Colorado, and several other states have banned the intentional use of PFAS in products like lipstick and mascara, while broader measures in states such as Minnesota also cover textiles, cookware, and food packaging. PFAS, often used for properties like water resistance or shine, can accumulate in the environment and pose health risks such as cancer, low birth weight, and fertility issues, according to the EPA.

Businesses are responding by assessing their supply chains, reformulating products, and removing items from shelves to comply with the patchwork of state laws, which vary in scope. Some companies may adopt nationwide standards based on these bans, while others will adjust their product offerings by jurisdiction. Legal experts warn of additional challenges, including lawsuits over "greenwashing" if products marketed as sustainable or eco-friendly are found to contain PFAS, even unintentionally.

Consumer lawsuits have already targeted items like waterproof mascara, disposable tableware, and smartwatch bands for PFAS content, citing false advertising. Meanwhile, some state laws, like those in Maine, acknowledge that PFAS are unavoidable in certain industries, requiring disclosure instead of outright bans. These measures are expected to spur further regulation of chemicals in cosmetics and beyond, particularly at the state level, as consumer demand for "clean beauty" and environmentally friendly products continues to grow.

'Forever Chemicals' Reckoning Hits Cosmetics With New State Laws

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft reported a record $638 million in revenue in 2024, a 15% increase driven by its work with Wall Street banks and private credit markets. The firm's strategy combines advising traditional banking clients and expanding its services to private capital providers as both sectors increasingly collaborate. Notable deals include representing BNP Paribas in a $5 billion financing partnership with Apollo-backed ATLAS SP Partners and helping arrange a European middle-market private credit collateralized loan obligation.  

The firm's 80 equity partners earned an average of $3.7 million each last year, a 33% increase. Managing Partner Pat Quinn emphasized that Cadwalader’s smaller size, with about 430 lawyers and offices in only five cities, fosters close collaboration and a personal touch with clients. Lawyers also benefit from flexible office policies, with partners required to be in four days a week and associates encouraged to attend voluntarily on Mondays.

Cadwalader’s capital markets, fund finance, and real estate practices performed strongly, while its investigations group expanded into broader corporate conduct matters. The London office also posted record revenue, bolstered by leveraged finance and fund finance work. With rising demand and increasingly complex transactions, Quinn anticipates that 2025 could surpass last year’s success.

Cadwalader Revenue Jumps 15% as Banks, Private Credit Align

This Day in Legal History: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

On January 24, 1916, the United States Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. This case arose after Frank Brushaber, a shareholder of Union Pacific Railroad, filed suit against the company to challenge the federal income tax imposed on its earnings. Brushaber argued that the tax violated the Constitution by not being apportioned among the states in accordance with Article I, Section 9. His challenge directly questioned the recently ratified 16th Amendment, which granted Congress the authority to tax incomes without apportionment.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White rejected Brushaber's claims, affirming that the 16th Amendment eliminated the requirement for income taxes to be apportioned among the states. The Court emphasized that the amendment did not create a new power of taxation but clarified Congress's authority to levy such taxes directly.

This decision was a turning point in U.S. legal and financial history, solidifying the federal government's ability to collect income taxes as a primary source of revenue. It set the stage for the modern tax system and allowed for the growth of federal programs funded through taxation. By resolving disputes surrounding the 16th Amendment, Brushaber helped ensure the stability of income taxation as a legal and constitutional practice.

A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump seeking to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” denies citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents lack legal status, are in the country temporarily, or if both parents fail to meet citizenship or residency criteria. This policy would leave thousands of American-born children stateless, without access to federal benefits, or documentation like passports, effectively excluding them from many civic rights and responsibilities.

Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour declared the order "blatantly unconstitutional," citing the clear language of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which reaffirmed birthright citizenship regardless of parental status. The executive order, effective February 19, 2025, has drawn multiple lawsuits from states and advocacy groups. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, joined by Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona, among others, emphasized that the order could deprive an estimated 150,000 children nationally of citizenship annually. This includes 4,000 children in Washington state alone.

The order also demands that federal agencies refuse to issue documents recognizing citizenship to these individuals, which state officials argue oversteps presidential authority and contradicts constitutional protections. Plaintiffs highlight significant harm to state-funded healthcare, education, and welfare programs, as federal support for these services is tied to recognized citizenship status. The ruling echoes previous legal challenges to Trump-era policies, such as the blocked travel bans, underscoring judicial limits on executive power in shaping immigration and constitutional rights​​.

Judge in Seattle blocks Trump order on birthright citizenship nationwide

US judge temporarily blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the government to enforce the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), requiring millions of businesses to disclose their beneficial ownership to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The Court stayed an injunction that had blocked the law’s enforcement, enabling the government to proceed while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for March 25. However, the January 13 filing deadline remains suspended.

Justice Neil Gorsuch supported the stay, suggesting the Court resolve the legality of nationwide injunctions in such cases. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the government hadn’t demonstrated urgency for immediate implementation. The CTA mandates most U.S. businesses incorporated before 2024—and approximately five million new annual incorporations—to report ownership details, with noncompliance subject to penalties. FinCEN estimates that 32.6 million entities will need to comply, though 10 million have already submitted information voluntarily.

The CTA aims to combat financial crimes by curbing the misuse of anonymous shell companies, a measure supported by transparency advocates. Critics, including businesses and advocacy groups, argue the law infringes on constitutional rights. Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., represented by the Center for Individual Rights, has challenged the law’s constitutionality.  

The law’s enforcement has been turbulent, with multiple court rulings and delayed deadlines. FinCEN has encouraged voluntary reporting during this period, warning of fines of $500 per day for noncompliance if enforcement resumes. Meanwhile, businesses and advisors have been urged to preemptively file to avoid potential technical issues when mandatory compliance takes effect.

Supreme Court Allows Corporate Transparency Act Enforcement (1)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, 2025, creating a cryptocurrency working group tasked with drafting new regulations and exploring the establishment of a national cryptocurrency stockpile. The order aims to overhaul U.S. digital asset policy, a key promise from Trump's campaign. It protects banking services for crypto companies, bans the creation of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and pushes for clear regulatory frameworks for digital assets, including stablecoins.

The order also directs the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to rescind guidance that had imposed high costs on companies safeguarding crypto assets, a move welcomed by the industry. Venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks was named chair of the working group, which includes leaders from the Treasury Department, SEC, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

This directive marks a shift from the previous administration's stricter stance on cryptocurrencies, which included lawsuits against major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance for alleged violations of U.S. law. Industry leaders and policymakers applauded the move, viewing it as a significant step toward mainstream adoption of digital assets and the development of consistent regulations.  

The executive order also mentions evaluating the creation of a digital asset stockpile potentially sourced from cryptocurrencies seized by law enforcement, though details on its implementation remain unclear. Bitcoin’s price reached record highs earlier in the week, reflecting investor optimism over Trump’s pro-crypto administration.

Trump orders crypto working group to draft new regulations, explore national stockpile | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach. 

Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach (1732–1795), often referred to as the "Bückeburg Bach," was the ninth son of Johann Sebastian Bach and a distinguished composer in his own right. Born in Leipzig, Johann Christoph Friedrich grew up immersed in music under the tutelage of his father, yet he developed a unique style that bridged the Baroque and Classical eras. He spent most of his career at the court of Schaumburg-Lippe in Bückeburg, where he served as Konzertmeister and later as Kapellmeister. His music, characterized by elegance and charm, often reflected the tastes of the emerging Classical period while retaining the counterpoint and depth of his father's influence.

Bach composed a variety of works, including symphonies, keyboard pieces, and chamber music, yet his output remains relatively underappreciated compared to his more famous siblings, such as Carl Philipp Emanuel and Wilhelm Friedemann. Johann Christoph Friedrich passed away on January 26, 1795, leaving behind a legacy of compositions that deserve wider recognition.

For this week’s closing theme, we’ve chosen his Flute Sonata in D minor, HW VIII/3.1 - I. Allegretto non troppo, arranged for trumpet, cello, and harpsichord. This arrangement brings new energy to Bach’s graceful and lyrical lines, blending the interplay of the trumpet’s bright tones with the rich warmth of the cello and the intricate textures of the harpsichord. The Allegretto non troppo exemplifies Johann Christoph Friedrich’s ability to balance expressive melodies with delicate intricacies, creating music that is both accessible and profound. As we remember his contributions to music on the anniversary of his passing, let this piece inspire reflection on the enduring artistry of the Bach family.

Without further ado, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach’s Flute Sonata in D minor, HW VIII/3.1 - I. Allegretto non troppo, enjoy!