Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: “Axis of Evil”On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq’s supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti’s waist before the shooting.The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn’t comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He’s got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | ReutersThe U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn’t struck.US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | ReutersGoogle has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users’ cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone’s property for one’s own use.Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.Plaintiffs’ attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | ReutersGoogle to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data SuitA Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students’ pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district’s pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.Polk argued that MCPS’s policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students’ gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.Christian Teacher Can’t Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Monkey SelfieOn January 28, 2016, a federal judge in California dismissed a highly publicized copyright lawsuit that sought to establish whether a monkey could own intellectual property rights. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident in which a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took a series of selfies using wildlife photographer David Slater’s unattended camera in Indonesia. The resulting images, particularly a striking self-portrait of the grinning primate, went viral and sparked widespread debate over authorship and ownership. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto’s behalf, asserting that the monkey was the true author and copyright holder of the images under the Copyright Act.The case presented novel legal questions about the boundaries of authorship and whether non-human animals have standing to sue in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that animals do not have statutory standing under the Copyright Act, which applies only to human authors. In his opinion, Orrick emphasized that Congress had not intended to grant copyright rights to animals, and that extending such rights would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.The ruling did not settle the matter completely, as PETA appealed the decision. However, in 2018, PETA and Slater reached a settlement in which Slater agreed to donate a portion of any future revenue from the photos to organizations protecting macaques and their habitats. The case sparked lasting discussion about animal rights, legal personhood, and the reach of copyright law in the digital age. It also underscored how existing legal frameworks may be ill-equipped to address emerging questions posed by technology and non-human agency.Several Democratic-led U.S. states are advancing legislation to allow individuals to sue federal immigration agents in state courts for alleged civil rights violations. This movement gained momentum after two fatal ICE encounters in Minneapolis and broader concerns over enforcement tactics under President Trump’s immigration policies. Illinois recently became the first state to pass such a law, but the Trump administration quickly filed a legal challenge, citing the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. Other states, including California, New York, and Virginia, are considering similar measures.Supporters argue these laws would close an accountability gap, as federal agents—unlike state or local officials—are largely shielded from individual civil rights lawsuits. While Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows such suits against state actors in federal court, no equivalent exists for federal officers. The Federal Tort Claims Act permits some claims against the U.S. government but not against agents personally, and it involves complex procedures. Legal experts say these state efforts could spark a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially giving courts a framework to hold federal agents accountable for constitutional violations.The Department of Homeland Security has defended ICE’s actions and criticized the state proposals. Critics, including legal scholars, warn that parts of the Illinois law—such as those allowing punitive damages—may be unconstitutional. However, others maintain that the core idea of state-level accountability for federal misconduct is both lawful and necessary.US state lawmakers push to allow lawsuits against ICE agents | ReutersA Virginia judge blocked an attempt by state Democrats to advance a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to redraw the state’s congressional map in their favor. Judge Jack Hurley, Jr. ruled that the process used to introduce the amendment was procedurally invalid and came too close to the state’s 2025 election. The decision halts a strategy that could have given Democrats control of up to 10 of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six they currently hold.Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Don Scott, have pledged to appeal the ruling. The blocked amendment was intended to be put before voters in a special election this spring, with a new electoral map released ahead of time for public consideration. With control of the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives at stake in the upcoming midterms, the decision is a significant setback for Democrats, who need only flip three seats to gain a majority.The dispute is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting, with both parties pursuing aggressive map-drawing strategies in various states. Last year, Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw maps targeting Democratic incumbents, prompting Democratic-led states like California to follow suit in kind.Judge blocks Virginia lawmakers’ bid for pro-Democratic voting map | ReutersTop lawyers at U.S. litigation firm Susman Godfrey are now billing up to $4,000 per hour, setting a new high for hourly legal fees in 2026. The rate applies to prominent partners Neal Manne and Bill Carmody, whose hourly fees were already $3,000 last year. While most of their work is done on contingency or flat-fee arrangements, this hourly benchmark reflects growing price trends across elite law firms. Manne joked that their rate-setting process is as secretive as a papal conclave, and the firm has not disclosed how the figures were determined.Susman Godfrey, based in Houston, is known for high-end litigation on both the plaintiff and defense side and offers above-average compensation, especially to associates. The rise in billing rates is part of a broader trend—major law firms raised their hourly rates by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.Other top firms are also pushing rate ceilings. Latham & Watkins reached $3,050 per hour for some partners in federal bankruptcy filings, while leading appellate lawyer Neal Katyal billed $3,250 at Milbank. Quinn Emanuel partners were billing at $3,000 an hour last year, according to court records.As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for top partners | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Paris Peace AccordsOn January 27, 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords, effectively marking the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Though primarily a geopolitical and military agreement, the Paris Peace Accords had significant legal dimensions. Negotiated between the U.S., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong (under the banner of the Provisional Revolutionary Government), the accords represented a complex international legal settlement aimed at restoring peace in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.The agreement included provisions for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the release of prisoners of war, and the recognition of South Vietnamese sovereignty. Legally, the accords posed a challenge to domestic and international law frameworks, particularly in the way the U.S. executive branch negotiated and signed the agreement without formal Congressional approval. This would later contribute to the debate around the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which sought to limit the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces without legislative oversight.Though hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the accords failed to bring lasting peace. North Vietnam eventually overran the South in 1975, raising legal questions about treaty enforcement and the durability of international peace agreements brokered without strong enforcement mechanisms.A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota is weighing whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the state, which has come under intense scrutiny following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse. Local officials from Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul argue the federal crackdown involves unlawful tactics, including warrantless home raids and racial profiling, carried out by over 2,800 heavily armed agents—more than the total local police force. The Biden-appointed judge, Katherine Menendez, acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case.The administration, defending the operation, dismissed the lawsuit as baseless. However, video evidence contradicts the official account of Pretti’s death, showing he was unarmed and holding a phone when agents shot him, despite claims he posed a threat with a firearm. The incident has fueled widespread protests and demands for federal de-escalation from both state leaders and major Minnesota-based companies like Target and 3M.President Trump has sent border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, though it’s unclear whether this signals an expansion or reassessment of federal actions. Trump says his administration is “reviewing everything” and that immigration agents will eventually withdraw. Tensions have also spilled into Washington, with Senate Democrats vowing to block DHS funding, risking a partial government shutdown. Meanwhile, even some Republicans are questioning the administration’s approach.US judge to consider pause to Minnesota crackdown as Trump dispatches border czar | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from ending legal status for over 8,400 migrants from seven Latin American countries who had been allowed to live in the U.S. under family reunification parole programs. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the programs, which benefited migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.These programs, created or expanded under President Biden, allowed U.S. citizens and green card holders to sponsor relatives while they awaited visa approval. The Trump administration moved to end the programs, claiming they were inconsistent with current enforcement priorities and enabled people to bypass traditional immigration processes.Talwani found that the administration failed to justify its decision, noting the government neither provided evidence of fraud nor assessed the real-life consequences for affected migrants. Many had already sold homes or left jobs in their home countries. She ruled that DHS’s policy shift lacked a reasoned explanation and was therefore arbitrary and capricious under administrative law.The ruling is part of a broader class action brought by immigrant rights advocates challenging Trump’s rollback of temporary protections. Talwani had previously tried to block similar efforts affecting hundreds of thousands of migrants, but those earlier rulings were overturned on appeal or by the Supreme Court.US judge blocks Trump administration’s push to end legal status of 8,400 migrants | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a look at the Empire State’s budget. New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s proposed no-tax-hike budget may appear fiscally cautious, but critics (includin me) argue it lacks the stable, long-term revenue needed to support key social programs like universal childcare. While the state currently enjoys relative revenue stability, the budget relies on temporary fixes, such as decoupling from parts of the federal tax code to generate $1.6 billion, instead of pursuing more durable sources of funding.My critique centers on Hochul’s refusal to raise the top marginal corporate tax rate—currently 7.25% for large companies—which is lower than neighboring states like New Jersey (11.5%) and Connecticut (8.25%). I suggest raising the rate to at least 8.5% and making the existing corporate tax surcharge permanent. I argue that companies benefiting from New York’s infrastructure and market can afford modest increases, and are unlikely to relocate given regional and national tax landscapes.Without securing permanent funding, the state risks repeating a familiar pattern: expanding programs in good times and cutting them during downturns. I warn that relying on temporary revenue maneuvers delays tough decisions and increases the likelihood of painful tax hikes or service cuts when the economy falters. In short, now is the time to align recurring revenues with long-term commitments, while conditions are favorable. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Dyer Anti-Lynching BillOn January 26, 1922, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, a landmark but ultimately thwarted attempt to make lynching a federal crime. Introduced by Missouri Republican Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer, the bill was drafted in response to the widespread and brutal practice of lynching—acts of racial terror largely aimed at Black Americans, often carried out with impunity. The measure sought to impose fines and prison terms on local officials who failed to protect individuals from mob violence, directly challenging the systemic neglect of justice in the Jim Crow South.Though the House approved the bill by a wide margin, it met a coordinated and racist blockade in the Senate, where Southern Democrats employed the filibuster to prevent a vote. The bill’s failure underscored both the power of white supremacist interests in Congress and the federal government’s unwillingness to confront racial violence. It would take a full century—100 years—for the U.S. to finally enact a federal anti-lynching law.That moment came in March 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was signed into law, making lynching a federal hate crime. The staggering gap between the Dyer Bill’s passage in the House and the eventual success of anti-lynching legislation—exactly 100 years and two months later—is a sobering reminder of how recent, and how halting, legal progress on racial justice has been. From a historical perspective, 1922 is not ancient history; many living Americans had parents or grandparents who witnessed the Dyer Bill’s failure.The Dyer Bill remains a powerful example of how legal change, even when urgent and necessary, can be obstructed for generations. It also reveals how the law, far from being a neutral instrument, often bends to the political will of those in power. The slow arc toward justice in this case wasn’t just theoretical—it was measured in innocent lives lost and justice denied.The murder of Minnesota nurse Alex Pretti by ICE agents has sent shockwaves through Congress and thrown federal budget negotiations into chaos just days before a January 30 funding deadline. What had been a carefully arranged plan to pass remaining appropriations bills now faces collapse, raising the real possibility of a partial government shutdown. Senate Democrats, already uneasy about funding the Department of Homeland Security, have hardened their opposition in response to the killing and are demanding investigations and new limits on ICE. Several Democrats who previously helped avert a shutdown now say they will not support any bill that includes ICE funding under these circumstances.Even lawmakers known for deal‑making, including Sen. Patty Murray, have withdrawn support, arguing that federal agents cannot commit murder without accountability. Republicans warn that blocking DHS funding risks undermining national security, but cracks are appearing within their ranks as well. Sen. Bill Cassidy called the killing “disturbing” and urged a joint federal‑state investigation, a rare public break with the administration. Meanwhile, logistical hurdles—including winter storms and congressional recesses—are shrinking the window for compromise. With both parties dug in and tensions escalating nationwide, the shutdown threat has grown sharper by the day.Minnesota Shooting Inflames Tensions in Congress, Risks ShutdownMeta, TikTok, and YouTube are set to face trial this week in Los Angeles County over claims that their platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis by fostering social media addiction. The case centers on a 19-year-old plaintiff, K.G.M., who alleges she became addicted to the apps at a young age, leading to depression and suicidal thoughts. It marks the first time these major tech companies will have to defend their platforms in court, rather than in congressional hearings. The jury will be asked to determine whether the companies were negligent and whether their products were a substantial factor in harming K.G.M.’s mental health.This trial is seen as a bellwether for dozens of similar cases expected to follow. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel were both expected to testify, though Snap recently settled with the plaintiff. YouTube plans to argue that its platform is fundamentally different from other social media services, distancing itself from TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, these companies have been aggressively promoting parental control features and safety programs in schools and youth organizations to shift public perception.Despite these efforts, critics argue the tech giants are leveraging their influence—legal, financial, and cultural—to avoid accountability. Attorneys representing the companies have experience in other high-profile addiction-related litigation, including the opioid crisis and video game cases. As the trial unfolds, the question of corporate responsibility for digital harm to minors will be tested in court for the first time.Meta, TikTok, YouTube to stand trial on youth addiction claims | ReutersThe Supreme Court appears unlikely to grant President Trump’s request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook but also seems disinclined to issue a sweeping ruling on the broader constitutional or statutory questions at play. Legal analysts suggest the justices are leaning toward a narrow, procedural decision—one that would preserve a lower court’s injunction against Cook’s removal while sending the case back to trial court for further fact-finding. This approach would allow the Court to sidestep defining what constitutes “cause” for firing a Fed governor or how far presidential removal powers extend, particularly in relation to the Federal Reserve’s legal independence.The justices expressed concern about the rushed pace of the case and the thin evidentiary record, with Justice Alito questioning whether key documents were even part of the case file. Trump argues that Cook committed mortgage fraud, but Cook and her legal team contend the firing attempt is a pretext for punishing her resistance to his demands for aggressive rate cuts. Several justices highlighted the potential economic fallout of removing a Fed official, with economists warning of recession risks if the court acts hastily.This case underscores that the Court is never obligated to resolve constitutional issues in broad strokes—it may always choose a minimalist path that focuses on the facts before it. Legal scholars note that even if the Court rules for Cook, it could do so narrowly by emphasizing procedural due process rather than affirming a general principle of Fed independence. The outcome is expected by June but may arrive sooner.Supreme Court may leave big questions unresolved on Trump bid to fire Fed’s Lisa Cook | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We launched something new — and it’s for anyone tired of hearing sloppy arguments pass unchallenged.LSAT Logic Applied is a new short-form podcast hosted by me, Andrew Leahey, the steady (?) voice at the helm of Minimum Competence. Twice a week, we’ll take the tools used in LSAT Logical Reasoning — assumptions, flaws, causation, strengthen/weaken — and apply them to the real world: news stories, political talking points, and ad claims.You don’t need to be prepping for the LSAT to follow along. The goal is to make better sense of the arguments that flood your feed and shape public opinion — and to see where they break.In the debut episode, included here just this once as an introduction to the show, we take on a recurring claim from Donald Trump: that tariffs made the United States the richest nation in the world. Fact checkers have pushed back on the economic accuracy, but for LSAT purposes, we’re more interested in the structure of the argument than its fiscal bottom line.And structurally, there’s a lot to talk about. Causation flaws, hidden assumptions, and post hoc reasoning — it’s a logical mess with political consequences.Find it wherever you get your finely crafted podcasts. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: League of Nations MeetsOn January 23, 1920, the League of Nations held its first official meeting, marking a major experiment in international law and collective governance. The League was created in the aftermath of World War I as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Its core mission was to prevent future wars through diplomacy, arbitration, and collective security. For the first time, nations committed themselves to resolving disputes through legal mechanisms rather than unilateral force. The League also helped develop early norms of international accountability and treaty enforcement. It established permanent institutions to oversee mandates, labor standards, and minority protections. Although the United States never joined, the League influenced how international law was discussed and practiced. Its failures, particularly its inability to prevent aggression in the 1930s, exposed the limits of voluntary compliance without enforcement power. Those weaknesses became lessons for later international institutions. Many of the League’s structures and legal concepts were later incorporated into the United Nations. The League’s first meeting thus represents a foundational moment in the modern law of international cooperation.U.S. President Donald Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit in Florida state court against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, alleging that the bank improperly closed his accounts for political reasons. Trump claims JPMorgan violated its own internal policies by singling him out as part of a broader political agenda. The bank denied the allegations, stating it does not close accounts based on political or religious views and that the lawsuit lacks merit. Trump also accused Dimon of orchestrating a “blacklist” intended to discourage other financial institutions from doing business with him, his family, and the Trump Organization. He said the account closures caused reputational harm and forced him to seek alternative banking relationships. JPMorgan countered that account closures are sometimes required to manage legal or regulatory risk. The lawsuit comes amid broader political scrutiny of banks over alleged “debanking” practices. Conservative critics have accused lenders of restricting services to certain individuals and industries. A recent report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that major banks limited services to some industries between 2020 and 2023, though it did not identify specific wrongdoing. Regulators have since moved away from using vague “reputational risk” standards in bank supervision.Trump sues JPMorgan, CEO Jamie Dimon for $5 billion over alleged debanking | ReutersFormer U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith told the House Judiciary Committee that Donald Trump willfully violated the law in his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Smith testified that Trump was not seeking truthful information about election fraud claims but instead was searching for ways to block certification of the results. The hearing marked Smith’s first extensive public testimony about the two criminal cases he brought against Trump, both of which were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024. Republicans on the committee accused Smith of political bias and argued his investigation improperly targeted Trump and his allies. They focused on Smith’s use of subpoenas for phone records of Republican lawmakers, portraying the actions as overreach. Smith defended those measures as necessary to investigate potential obstruction of justice. He said Republican witnesses who contradicted Trump’s fraud claims would have been central to the election interference case. Trump responded by renewing calls for Smith to be prosecuted and accusing him of harming innocent people. Democrats on the panel defended Smith as a career prosecutor guided by evidence rather than politics.Former US prosecutor Smith says Trump ‘willfully broke’ laws in bid to keep power | ReutersA federal judge expressed skepticism about whether the Trump administration has the legal authority to build a $400 million ballroom at the White House without congressional approval. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon questioned the administration’s justification for demolishing the historic East Wing and replacing it with a large new structure. The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues the project violates federal laws governing construction on parkland in Washington, D.C. The group contends that Congress must expressly authorize such construction and that required environmental reviews were bypassed or improperly handled. Judge Leon sharply rejected comparisons between the ballroom and past minor renovations, signaling concern about the scale of the project. He is considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would halt construction while the case proceeds. The administration maintains the ballroom is necessary for state functions and part of a long tradition of presidential renovations. Government lawyers also argue that stopping construction now would serve no public benefit, especially since above-ground work is months away. Leon said he expects to rule on the injunction request in the coming weeks.White House faces skeptical judge in lawsuit over Trump ballroom | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Édouard Lalo.This week’s closing theme features music by Lalo, a composer who spent much of his career just outside the spotlight of 19th-century French music. Born in 1823, Lalo came to composition relatively late and struggled for recognition in a musical world dominated by opera and established conservatory figures. He is best remembered today for works that combine classical structure with vivid color and rhythmic vitality. The Concerto in F Major, Op. 20 reflects those strengths, balancing elegance with expressive intensity. The opening Andante – Allegro begins with a reflective, almost searching character before unfolding into a more energetic and assertive main section. Lalo uses the solo instrument to sing rather than dominate, emphasizing lyrical phrasing over virtuosic display. The movement’s shifting moods showcase his gift for contrast and dramatic pacing. There is a clear sense of forward motion, but never at the expense of clarity. Lalo’s orchestration remains transparent, allowing themes to breathe and develop naturally. The music feels poised between Romantic warmth and classical restraint. As a closing theme, it offers both momentum and reflection. It is a reminder of Lalo’s understated influence and the enduring appeal of his finely crafted musical voice.Without further ado, Édouard Lalo’s Concerto in F Major, Op. 20, the opening Andante, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person’s right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state’s interest in regulating abortions with an individual’s right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court’s injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump’s mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump’s aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota’s Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents’ tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump’s unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank’s independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump’s pressure to cut interest rates. The Court’s skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook’s removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook’s favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed’s Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine’s second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE’s tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump’s framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don’t support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute’s data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it’s not even pretending to protect American industry—it’s economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn’t budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we’re now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we’re left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I’ll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue’ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Aides ConvictedOn January 21, 1975, three of Richard Nixon’s closest aides—H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney General John Mitchell—were convicted for their roles in the Watergate cover-up. The charges? Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. These convictions weren’t just about punishing political wrongdoing; they were the direct legal aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Nixon six months earlier. That decision famously held that executive privilege—long seen as a near-impenetrable shield—does not extend to cover-ups and criminal conduct. The message was as clear as it was historic: even the most powerful figures in government are not beyond the reach of the law.The Watergate trials became a masterclass in the tension between power and accountability. These weren’t fringe operatives—they were the President’s top men, brought down not by partisan maneuvering but by due process. In convicting them, the courts affirmed a fundamental principle: constitutional protections are not carte blanche for corruption. That principle has since been tested repeatedly, often invoked but rarely with the same clarity.While Nixon himself was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his aides faced real legal consequences. And in doing so, they served as a sobering example of what happens when loyalty to power eclipses loyalty to the law.On January 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a high-stakes case involving President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—an unprecedented move that could reshape the legal boundaries of central bank independence. Trump is challenging a lower court ruling that barred him from removing Cook while her legal challenge continues. At issue is whether a president can dismiss a Fed governor without due process, despite the Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” removal standard, which lacks clear definition.Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed’s board (by President Biden in 2022), argues Trump’s push is politically motivated, tied to disagreements over monetary policy. Trump cited past mortgage fraud allegations—which Cook denies—as grounds for her removal, but a district court found those likely insufficient and in violation of her Fifth Amendment rights. The D.C. Circuit declined to stay that ruling.The case has major implications: no president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor, and the Court’s decision could determine how insulated the central bank remains from political interference. It also arrives amid broader questions about the scope of presidential control over independent agencies—and a criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, which many see as part of the same pressure campaign.By way of brief background, a Federal Reserve governor is a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the central banking authority of the United States. The Board is composed of seven governors, each appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve staggered 14-year terms. These governors play a critical role in shaping U.S. monetary policy, overseeing the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and regulating certain financial institutions. Their primary responsibilities include setting the discount rate, influencing the federal funds rate (the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans), and voting on key decisions made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—the body that manages the nation’s money supply and interest rate targets.Importantly, Fed governors are designed to be insulated from political pressure to preserve the central bank’s independence. That’s why they can only be removed by the president “for cause”—a vague legal standard that has rarely, if ever, been tested. This structural independence is meant to prevent short-term political interests from influencing decisions that have long-term economic consequences, such as controlling inflation, stabilizing employment, or responding to financial crises. While their work often operates behind the scenes, the policies they help shape impact virtually every corner of the U.S. economy—from mortgage rates to job growth to the value of the dollar.US Supreme Court considers Trump’s bid to fire Fed’s Lisa Cook | ReutersA court-appointed special master has recommended that women suing Johnson & Johnson over claims its talc-based products caused ovarian cancer should be allowed to present expert testimony supporting that link in upcoming trials. Retired Judge Freda Wolfson found that the plaintiffs’ experts used reliable methods and cited statistically significant studies connecting genital talc use to ovarian cancer. The recommendation—part of a sprawling litigation involving over 67,500 cases—moves the lawsuits closer to federal trial, possibly later this year.Wolfson also allowed J&J’s experts to present rebuttal testimony, but excluded certain plaintiff theories, such as talc migration via inhalation or links to fragrance chemicals and heavy metals. J&J criticized the ruling and plans to challenge it, arguing that the scientific evidence wasn’t rigorously vetted.The litigation has dragged on for years, complicated by failed bankruptcy attempts by J&J to shield itself from liability. While the company denies its talc contains asbestos or causes cancer, prior jury verdicts have yielded multi-billion-dollar awards for plaintiffs, though some have been overturned. The case could become a major bellwether for corporate liability and the legal standard for expert scientific evidence in mass torts.Experts can testify about suspected J&J talc products’ cancer link, special master recommends | ReutersLindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned prosecutor and former personal attorney to the president, is leaving her post at the U.S. Justice Department after a federal judge sharply rebuked her for continuing to act as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia beyond her legally allowed interim term. Appointed without Senate confirmation, Halligan’s authority expired after 120 days, yet she continued using the title—prompting Judge David Novak to call her conduct a “charade” and warn of potential disciplinary action.Halligan had led politically charged investigations targeting Trump adversaries like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, though those cases were dismissed due to questions over her legitimacy. The Justice Department is appealing those rulings, but the controversy has sparked internal tension, with Novak criticizing the DOJ’s recent filings as inflammatory and unprofessional.Her departure follows Senate Democrats’ refusal to advance her formal nomination, citing the “blue slip” tradition that allows home-state senators to block nominees. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed Democrats for obstructing Halligan’s tenure, while Trump allies hinted at retaliation if the court names a replacement. The episode underscores ongoing friction between the judiciary, the Justice Department, and Trump’s efforts to assert political control over federal prosecutions.After judge’s rebuke, Trump ally Halligan to leave US Justice Department | ReutersA Massachusetts judge has ruled that Kalshi, a New York-based prediction market platform, cannot offer sports betting services in the state without a proper gambling license. The decision comes after Attorney General Andrea Campbell sued Kalshi, arguing that it was illegally offering unlicensed sports wagers to residents, including users as young as 18. Judge Christopher Barry-Smith agreed, stating that state oversight of sports betting protects public health and financial interests.Kalshi, which allows users to bet on outcomes of events like sports, politics, and the economy, claimed that its operations fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), due to its status as a registered contract market. The judge rejected that argument, ruling that federal oversight of financial instruments does not override state authority to regulate gambling.Kalshi plans to appeal the injunction, which could be finalized following a hearing. This marks the first court-ordered halt of Kalshi’s operations in a state, though it faces similar legal challenges elsewhere. The case underscores growing friction between emerging event-based financial markets and traditional gambling laws.Kalshi cannot operate sports-prediction market in Massachusetts, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn January 20, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that began as a minor dispute over an undelivered judicial commission and ended by redefining American constitutional law. The story traces back to the final days of the Adams administration, when outgoing President John Adams rushed to appoint Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. John Marshall, then serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and incoming Chief Justice, sealed the commissions but failed to deliver several of them. One of the would-be judges, William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, to hand over the commission.The case placed Marshall in a precarious position, as he was being asked to rule on a problem he had helped create. Marshall first held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission and that the law ordinarily provided a remedy when such rights were violated. He then turned to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which appeared to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall concluded that this provision conflicted with Article III of the Constitution, which strictly limits the Court’s original jurisdiction. Rather than ordering Madison to act, Marshall declared that the statute itself was unconstitutional.By denying Marbury his commission while simultaneously asserting the power to strike down an act of Congress, Marshall executed a strategic legal maneuver that avoided a direct confrontation with the executive branch. The Court emerged stronger despite losing the immediate case. In explaining why the Constitution must prevail over conflicting statutes, Marshall articulated the principle of judicial review. That reasoning transformed the Supreme Court from a relatively weak institution into the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner’s explicit permission. The case was brought by three licensed concealed-carry holders and a local gun rights group after Hawaii enacted the law in 2023. Under the statute, individuals must have clear verbal or written authorization, including posted signage, before bringing a handgun onto most business premises. A lower federal court initially blocked the law, but the Ninth Circuit later ruled that the measure likely complies with the Second Amendment.Hawaii has argued that the law appropriately balances gun rights with property owners’ authority to control access to their premises. The challengers contend that the rule effectively prevents lawful gun owners from engaging in everyday activities such as shopping, dining, or buying gas. The challengers are supported by the Trump administration, which claims the law severely burdens the practical exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court declined to review other portions of the law involving bans in sensitive places like beaches and bars.The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of the Court’s recent expansion of gun rights, particularly its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. That decision also reshaped how courts evaluate gun regulations by focusing on historical analogues rather than modern policy goals.US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Hawaii handgun limits | ReutersA federal judge has allowed Dominion Energy to resume construction on its $11.2 billion offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia, marking another courtroom loss for President Donald Trump’s efforts to curb offshore wind development. Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dominion could restart work while it continues to challenge a stop-work order issued by the Interior Department. That order had halted several offshore wind projects based on newly cited, classified national security concerns related to radar interference.Walker found that the government’s suspension was overly sweeping as applied to Dominion’s project and emphasized that the cited security risks related to turbine operations, not ongoing construction. Earlier in the week, other offshore wind developers had secured similar rulings, allowing their projects to move forward despite the administration’s objections. Dominion has already invested close to $9 billion in the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which is expected to supply electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes. The company said it would focus on safely resuming construction while continuing to pursue a long-term resolution with federal regulators.The decision underscores the legal and financial stakes for the offshore wind industry, as project delays can threaten multi-billion-dollar investments. At the same time, lawsuits challenging federal actions and the administration’s opposition to offshore wind continue to create uncertainty for the sector. Several states, particularly along the East Coast, view offshore wind as critical to meeting growing energy demand and reducing emissions as electricity use increases.US judge allows Dominion offshore wind project to restart, another legal setback for Trump | ReutersFlorida has joined Texas in scaling back the American Bar Association’s role in determining which law school graduates may sit for the state bar exam. In a 5–1 decision, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ABA will no longer serve as the sole accrediting body for Florida bar eligibility, though graduates of ABA-accredited schools will remain eligible. The court said it plans to allow graduates of law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies to take the bar, even though no such agencies currently specialize in law school accreditation.The court framed its decision as an effort to expand access to affordable legal education while protecting academic freedom and nondiscrimination. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis praised the move, criticizing the ABA as overly partisan and arguing it should not control entry into the legal profession. The ABA responded that the ruling reaffirms state authority over licensing and said it would continue to promote the value of national accreditation standards.Florida’s decision follows a similar move by the Supreme Court of Texas, which recently announced plans to develop its own criteria for approving non-ABA law schools. Other states, including Ohio and Tennessee, are also reviewing their accreditation rules. These developments come amid escalating conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump’s administration, which has taken steps to reduce the organization’s influence across multiple areas, including judicial nominations and legal education.Within the ABA, the controversy has prompted internal reforms aimed at reinforcing the independence of its law school accreditation arm. One Florida justice dissented, warning that abandoning exclusive reliance on the ABA was an unnecessary and risky departure from a system that had functioned well for decades.Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA’s law school oversight role | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I argue that the Internal Revenue Service’s partnership audit program has effectively been dismantled under the second Trump administration, with specialized auditors fired, pushed out, or leaving altogether. These weren’t ordinary revenue agents but highly trained experts who understood the most complex partnership structures and could spot abuse hidden deep inside tiered entities. Once that kind of institutional knowledge walks out the door, it can’t simply be rebuilt by restoring funding later. There is no meaningful private-sector substitute for this expertise, and when these specialists leave government, they often stop doing enforcement work entirely.I explain that this collapse isn’t just a federal tax problem—it’s a looming state budget issue. High-income states that rely heavily on progressive income taxes are especially vulnerable when wealthy taxpayers shift income through opaque pass-through structures. For decades, states have relied on federal audits and enforcement as a backstop, but that dependency has now become a serious liability. I suggest that states step into the vacuum by hiring former IRS partnership specialists and building dedicated partnership audit units within their own revenue departments.With relatively modest investment, states could recover revenue that would otherwise vanish into complex and lightly monitored structures. I also propose a multistate enforcement compact that would allow states to share audit resources, staff, and findings, creating a decentralized alternative to federal enforcement. The core message is that while federal capacity has been allowed to wither, the expertise still exists—and states may be the last institutions capable of preserving it.IRS Partnership Audit Brain Drain Is an Opportunity for States This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 18th Amendment to the US ConstitutionOn January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history by establishing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. The amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” for consumption in the United States and its territories. It was the culmination of decades of temperance activism, led by organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, which argued that alcohol was responsible for societal problems including crime, poverty, and domestic violence.The amendment passed Congress in December 1917, but ratification by the states was required for it to take effect. That threshold was reached on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it. One year later, on January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act—the federal statute enforcing the amendment—went into effect, ushering in the Prohibition era.However, the law led to unintended consequences. Rather than curbing alcohol consumption, it fueled the rise of organized crime, as bootleggers and speakeasies flourished across the country. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for prohibition waned through the 1920s.Ultimately, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment ever to be entirely repealed. The legacy of the 18th Amendment remains significant as a historical experiment in moral legislation and the limits of constitutional power.A federal judge in Virginia will soon decide whether Dominion Energy can resume construction on its $11.2 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was halted by the Trump administration last month. The Interior Department paused five offshore wind projects on December 22, citing classified concerns about radar interference and national security. Dominion is now challenging that pause in court, arguing that it violated procedural and due process laws and is causing the company significant financial harm—around $5 million in daily losses. Dominion has already invested nearly $9 billion in the project, which began construction in 2023 and is planned to power 600,000 homes.Similar legal challenges from other developers, including Orsted and Equinor, have already succeeded in federal courts in Washington, allowing their Northeast offshore wind projects to proceed. Those decisions raise the stakes for Dominion’s case, which could influence the broader offshore wind industry amid continued hostility from the Trump administration toward the sector. Trump has long criticized wind energy as costly and inefficient. While the outcomes of these lawsuits may let projects move forward, industry uncertainty remains due to ongoing legal battles and political opposition.US judge to weigh Dominion request to restart Virginia offshore wind project stopped by Trump | ReutersA federal judge in Boston, William Young, said he will issue an order to protect non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s deportation of pro-Palestinian student activists. The upcoming order would block the government from altering the immigration status of the scholars who are parties to the case, absent court approval. Young emphasized that any such action would be presumed retaliatory and would require the administration to prove it had a legitimate basis.The lawsuit stems from Trump’s executive orders in early 2025 directing agencies to crack down on antisemitism, which led to arrests and visa cancellations for several students, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk. These moves targeted those expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views on campus. Young previously ruled that these actions violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights of non-citizen academics.In his comments, Young described Trump as “authoritarian” and sharply criticized what he called the administration’s “fearful approach to freedom.” He limited his forthcoming order to members of academic groups like the AAUP and Middle East Studies Association, rejecting a broader nationwide block as too expansive. Meanwhile, the administration, which plans to appeal Young’s earlier ruling, accused the judge of political bias.US judge to shield scholars who challenged deporting of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersA federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department seeking access to the state’s full, unredacted voter registration list. Judge David Carter ruled that the department’s claims were not strong enough under existing civil rights and voting laws, and that turning over detailed voter data—such as names, birth dates, driver’s license numbers, and parts of Social Security numbers—would violate privacy protections.Carter emphasized that centralizing such sensitive information at the federal level could intimidate voters and suppress turnout by making people fear misuse of their personal data. The lawsuit, filed in September by the Trump administration, targeted California and other Democrat-led states for allegedly failing to properly maintain voter rolls, citing federal law as justification for demanding the data.California Secretary of State Shirley Weber welcomed the decision, stating her commitment to defending voting rights and opposing the administration’s actions. The DOJ had reportedly been in discussions with the Department of Homeland Security to use voter data in criminal and immigration probes. Critics argue the push was driven by baseless claims from Trump and his allies that non-citizens are voting in large numbers.US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details | ReutersWhy can’t people harmed by ICE just sue the agents themselves?U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2003. It enforces immigration laws and investigates criminal activities involving border control, customs, and immigration. ICE derives its authority from various federal statutes, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its agents operate with broad discretion during enforcement actions.Suing ICE agents or the agency itself is legally difficult. Individuals cannot usually sue federal agents directly because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the government and its employees from lawsuits unless explicitly allowed by law. One such exception is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government when its employees cause injury or damage while acting within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, victims can bring wrongful death or negligence claims, as Renee Good’s family is now considering.However, FTCA claims are limited. Plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages or a jury trial, and compensation is capped based on state law where the incident occurred. The government is also shielded from liability for discretionary decisions made by its employees—meaning if the ICE agent used judgment during the incident and it’s deemed reasonable, the claim can be dismissed. In Good’s case, the government will likely argue self-defense.Suing ICE agents personally is even harder. The Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents case in 1971 created a narrow legal path for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, but courts have since restricted its use. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens does not apply to border agents conducting immigration enforcement, further insulating ICE officers from personal liability.Criminal prosecution of federal agents is also rare. State prosecutors may bring charges, but only if they can prove the agent acted clearly outside the scope of their duties and in an objectively unlawful way—a high bar that is seldom met.This week’s closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven. Beethoven, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, revolutionized the classical tradition with works that bridged the Classical and Romantic eras.This week’s theme is Franz Liszt’s transcription of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — specifically, the first movement, Allegro con brio, catalogued as S.464/5. As one of the most iconic works in classical music, Beethoven’s Fifth needs little introduction, but hearing it through Liszt’s fingers offers a fresh perspective on its brilliance. In this solo piano version, Liszt doesn’t simply condense Beethoven’s orchestral power—he reimagines it, capturing the storm, structure, and spirit of the original with astonishing fidelity and virtuosity.The movement begins with the unforgettable four-note “fate” motif, its rhythmic insistence rendered on the piano with punch and precision. From there, Liszt unfolds Beethoven’s dramatic argument, demanding the pianist conjure the textures of a full orchestra with nothing but ten fingers and a well-calibrated pedal. Every surging crescendo, sudden silence, and harmonic twist remains intact, though filtered through Liszt’s Romantic sensibility and pianistic imagination.It’s a piece that asks as much of the performer as it does of the listener—requiring clarity, power, and emotional depth. As a transcription, it’s both a tribute and a transformation, placing Beethoven’s revolutionary energy in the hands of a single interpreter. We chose this movement not just for its fame, but for how it exemplifies two musical giants in dialogue—Beethoven, the architect of modern symphonic form, and Liszt, the artist who made the orchestra speak through the piano.Without further ado, Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — the first movement, Allegro con brio. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes,

This Day in Legal History: Williams v. FloridaOn January 15, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Williams v. Florida, a significant case interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a trial by jury. The petitioner, Johnny Paul Williams, was convicted in a Florida court by a six-member jury and argued on appeal that his constitutional rights had been violated because the jury did not consist of twelve members. The Court, in a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Byron White, rejected this argument and held that the Constitution does not require a twelve-person jury in criminal cases.The ruling marked a turning point in how procedural aspects of jury trials were viewed under the Constitution. Drawing on historical analysis and functional reasoning, the Court concluded that the number twelve was a “historical accident” rather than a constitutional mandate. It emphasized that what mattered was whether the jury could fulfill its essential purpose: promoting group deliberation, guarding against government overreach, and representing a fair cross-section of the community.The Court’s opinion opened the door for states to use smaller juries in certain criminal trials, leading to greater procedural flexibility. However, the ruling was not without its critics, including dissenting justices who warned that reducing jury size could dilute the quality of deliberation and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. The Court later clarified in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that juries smaller than six members were unconstitutional, setting a lower boundary on size.Williams v. Florida continues to shape discussions around the structure and fairness of criminal jury trials. It reflects a broader judicial approach that balances historical tradition with evolving interpretations of fairness and efficiency in the criminal justice system. The decision also illustrates how constitutional protections, while deeply rooted, are not frozen in time but subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny.On January 17, 2026, a U.S. District Court will hear a request from Norwegian energy company Equinor to resume construction on its Empire Wind offshore project off the coast of New York. The company is suing the Trump administration after it suspended offshore wind development in federal waters, citing national security concerns related to radar interference. Equinor argues that the $4 billion project, now 60% complete, faces cancellation if construction doesn’t continue by January 16. The case follows a recent decision allowing Danish company Ørsted to resume work on its own halted project off Rhode Island.The legal challenge is one of several confronting the Trump administration’s broader effort to stall offshore wind development. Trump officials have paused work on five federal wind leases, citing a classified Defense Department assessment. Offshore wind companies say these actions threaten billions in investment and the viability of long-term energy goals. Empire Wind is projected to power about 500,000 homes once completed.US court to weigh New York project challenge to Trump offshore wind halt | ReutersThe Trump administration has reversed its decision to lay off nearly all employees of the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. In a recent federal court filing in Boston, the DOJ stated that it rescinded the September layoff notices issued to 13 CRS staff members, citing “administrative discretion.” Civil rights groups, including two NAACP chapters and the Ethical Society of Police, had sued to block the terminations, arguing they were part of an unlawful attempt to dismantle the agency.Though the employees have been reinstated, it remains unclear if they will resume work on CRS functions. The plaintiffs have asked the court to hold a hearing to determine the practical impact of the reversal and whether CRS operations will truly continue. Under the Trump administration, the CRS reportedly stopped accepting new service requests and faced budget cuts, with the current White House proposal offering no funding for it. However, a bipartisan appropriations bill in Congress would allocate $20 million to support the agency.Previously, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied a temporary restraining order to stop the layoffs but said the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success. She is still considering whether to issue a permanent injunction to prevent dismantling the CRS.Trump administration reinstates fired employees of DOJ race-relations agency | ReutersTesla has agreed to enter mediation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to try to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging widespread racial harassment at its Fremont, California factory. The EEOC claims Tesla allowed a hostile work environment where Black employees were subjected to slurs, racist graffiti—including swastikas and nooses—and other forms of discrimination, some of which appeared on vehicles coming off the assembly line. Tesla has denied the allegations, arguing it was unaware of the conduct and accusing the EEOC of seeking publicity.U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley approved a pause on some discovery deadlines to prioritize mediation efforts. The EEOC and Tesla are currently selecting a mediator, with talks potentially beginning in March or April. Both sides must report to the judge by June 17 if mediation fails. The lawsuit, filed during the Biden administration in September 2023, is part of a series of legal challenges Tesla has faced over workplace issues at its Fremont facility.In a separate case, Tesla recently avoided a class-action lawsuit when a California judge ruled that over 6,000 Black workers at the plant could not proceed as a group, citing a lack of willing witnesses.Tesla agrees to mediation that could resolve US agency’s racism lawsuit | ReutersSix federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned on January 13, 2026, in a move that may disrupt the Justice Department’s intensified efforts to crack down on public benefits fraud. Among those stepping down are Joe Thompson, the former acting U.S. attorney for the district, and Harry Jacobs, a key figure in cases involving misused child nutrition program funds. Both were central to the high-profile Feeding Our Future investigation, which scrutinized alleged fraud in federal nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.Sources say the resignations were linked to political pressure from the Trump administration, including demands to investigate the widow of Renée Nicole Good, who was killed by a U.S. immigration officer earlier this month. The DOJ reportedly declined to pursue charges against the officer, leading to internal dissent.Minnesota Governor Tim Walz condemned the resignations as evidence of the Trump administration’s politicization of the DOJ, accusing it of forcing out experienced, nonpartisan staff. The departures come amid a broader exodus from the department, including five senior lawyers from the Civil Rights Division, which had worked closely with Minnesota prosecutors after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.Attorney General Pam Bondi recently announced a new DOJ fraud division and plans to deploy prosecutors from other regions to Minneapolis. The White House has also ramped up enforcement in other liberal-leaning districts, which has led to more prosecutions related to immigration protests and officer assaults—and in some cases, grand jury rejections of those prosecutions.Six US Prosecutors Resign in Minnesota as Crackdown Builds (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Wong Kim ArkOn January 14, 1898, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, firmly establishing the doctrine of birthright citizenship under the Constitution.The case arose after Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens, was denied reentry to the country following a trip abroad. Federal officials argued that because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and barred from naturalization, Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen.The Court rejected that position, holding that citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by the nationality or immigration status of one’s parents. In a 6–2 decision, the Court relied heavily on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment.The majority emphasized that the Amendment codified the common-law rule that nearly all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens. This interpretation directly limited the government’s ability to deny citizenship based on race or ancestry.The decision came at a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment and restrictive immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act. By ruling in Wong Kim Ark’s favor, the Court drew a clear constitutional boundary around congressional power over citizenship.The case has since served as the cornerstone for modern citizenship law in the United States. It remains one of the most frequently cited precedents in debates over immigration, nationality, and constitutional identity.The Supreme Court of the United States is expected to release one or more decisions as it resumes issuing opinions, while several major cases remain unresolved. Among the most closely watched is a challenge to sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump. The justices typically do not announce in advance which cases they will decide, adding uncertainty to each decision day. The tariffs case, argued in November, raises significant questions about the scope of presidential authority and its economic consequences worldwide.Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers statute to justify tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, framing trade deficits and drug trafficking as national emergencies. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices appeared skeptical that the statute authorized such broad trade measures. Lower courts have already ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, and his administration is now seeking reversal. The lawsuits were brought by affected businesses and a coalition of states, most led by Democrats. Other pending cases involve voting rights, religious liberty, campaign finance limits, the firing of a Federal Trade Commission official, and the legality of conversion therapy bans. Together, these disputes reflect a Court grappling with the limits of executive power and regulatory authority.Supreme Court set to issue rulings, with Trump tariffs case still pending | ReutersConservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold state laws that bar transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams. The Court heard lengthy arguments in cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where lower courts had ruled in favor of transgender students challenging the bans. A majority of the justices expressed concern about adopting a nationwide rule amid ongoing debate over whether medical treatments can eliminate sex-based athletic advantages. Conservative members of the Court emphasized fairness and safety in women’s sports, while liberal justices largely signaled support for the transgender challengers. The states argued that their laws lawfully classify athletes by biological sex and are necessary to preserve equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Lawyers for the challengers contended that the bans discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of constitutional equal protection and federal education law. The Trump administration defended the state laws, urging the Court to leave policy decisions to legislatures rather than judges. The outcome could have far-reaching effects beyond sports, influencing other restrictions on transgender people in public life. A decision is expected by the end of June.US Supreme Court conservatives lean toward allowing transgender sports bans | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of Pennsylvania must continue defending against a lawsuit alleging collusion in financial aid practices. The case claims that elite universities worked together to limit competition and give preferential treatment to wealthier applicants. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly rejected the schools’ efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, finding enough evidence for the claims to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs argue that the universities violated federal antitrust law over two decades by breaching promises not to consider applicants’ financial circumstances. Several other prominent universities previously settled similar claims for a combined total of nearly $320 million, though the remaining defendants deny any wrongdoing. The lawsuit represents more than 200,000 current and former students seeking substantial damages. The judge pointed to evidence suggesting the schools coordinated financial aid policies to avoid competing against one another. He also concluded that the plaintiffs properly defined a nationwide market for elite private universities and filed their claims within the allowable time frame. The decision clears the way for a jury to determine whether the schools unlawfully inflated the cost of attendance.Cornell, Georgetown, UPenn must face lawsuit over financial aid | ReutersThe British Broadcasting Corporation has moved to dismiss Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit stemming from its editing of a January 6, 2021 speech. The broadcaster argues that a Florida court lacks authority over the case because the program was not broadcast in that state. It also contends Trump cannot show he suffered harm, noting that he was re-elected after the documentary aired. Trump alleges the BBC misleadingly combined excerpts of his speech in a way that implied he encouraged supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol, while excluding remarks calling for peaceful protest. The lawsuit asserts violations of Florida’s deceptive and unfair trade practices law and seeks billions of dollars in damages across two claims. The BBC has acknowledged the editing error and apologized but maintains the lawsuit is legally flawed. In court filings, the broadcaster argues Trump failed to plausibly allege “actual malice,” a requirement for defamation claims brought by public officials. The BBC also disputes Trump’s claim that the documentary was available to U.S. audiences via streaming platforms. It has asked the court to pause discovery while the dismissal motion is pending, citing unnecessary expense if the case is thrown out.BBC seeks to have Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit dismissed | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald’s fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald’s conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn’t a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean’s trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court’s ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho’s law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia’s ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women’s sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court’s next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup’s appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup’s Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company’s mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico’s state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs’ claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn’t even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn’t permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Hattie Wyatt Caraway Elected to SenateOn January 12, 1932, Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas became the first woman elected to the United States Senate in her own right, marking a milestone in American legal and political history. Initially appointed to her late husband Thaddeus Caraway’s Senate seat, she was widely expected to serve only as a placeholder until a male successor could be elected. Instead, Caraway defied expectations by entering the special election and winning, quietly but firmly asserting her independence. Her victory came just over a decade after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote and laid the groundwork for their broader participation in political life.Caraway’s campaign was bolstered by the support of Louisiana Senator Huey Long, whose populist style and energetic barnstorming helped draw attention to her candidacy. Despite being soft-spoken and reserved on the Senate floor, Caraway developed a reputation for diligence and loyalty to her constituents. She went on to win a full term later that year, becoming the first woman to do so and serving in the Senate until 1945.Her election symbolized a shift in legal and cultural attitudes toward women in government roles. While women had begun entering state legislatures and the House of Representatives, the Senate had remained all-male until Caraway’s election. Her success challenged deeply rooted assumptions about women’s capacity for leadership and helped open the door for future female senators. She focused much of her legislative work on issues affecting veterans, farmers, and rural communities.U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani announced she would block the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate temporary legal status for 10,000 to 12,000 migrants from seven Latin American countries. These individuals had entered the U.S. under family reunification parole programs that allowed them to live legally with relatives while waiting for visa approval. The Department of Homeland Security had moved to cancel the programs, which were launched or updated during the Biden administration, arguing they were being misused to bypass regular immigration protocols.Judge Talwani criticized the government for failing to provide proper legal notice to the affected migrants, many of whom are children, and emphasized that the U.S. must also follow the law. The plaintiffs’ attorney called the government’s move harmful and disruptive, especially to families and school-aged children. A Justice Department lawyer argued that the administration had the legal authority to revoke parole.The case is part of a broader legal battle over Trump’s efforts to dismantle humanitarian parole programs initiated under President Biden, which had provided temporary protection to hundreds of thousands of migrants. Talwani had previously issued rulings blocking similar rollbacks, but higher courts overturned them. Her upcoming order is expected to offer temporary relief to thousands facing imminent deportation.US judge to block Trump move to end thousands of Latin American migrants’ legal status | ReutersOn January 10, Indonesia became the first country to temporarily block access to Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot, citing concerns over the platform’s ability to generate AI-produced pornographic content, including disturbing depictions of minors. The country’s Communications and Digital Minister condemned non-consensual sexual deepfakes as serious human rights violations and emphasized the need to protect dignity and digital safety. This action follows growing international criticism of Grok’s content safeguards, with some governments in Europe and Asia launching investigations.xAI, the company behind Grok, responded by limiting image generation features to paying users while working to address security flaws that had allowed the creation of sexualized images. However, its public response to Reuters included a dismissive automatic message: “Legacy Media Lies.” Musk, posting on X, insisted users generating illegal content would be held accountable as if they had uploaded it directly.Indonesia’s firm stance highlights the absence of similar decisive action from the United States, where Grok and xAI are based—raising questions about America’s professed commitment to protecting victims of online abuse. The U.S.’s failure to lead on this issue stands in stark contrast to its claimed leadership in defending digital rights and vulnerable populations.Indonesia temporarily blocks access to Grok over sexualised images | ReutersU.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government has more than enough funds—nearly $774 billion in cash on hand—to handle any tariff refunds that may result from a potential Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s emergency tariffs. However, Bessent noted that any repayments would be distributed gradually over weeks or even up to a year. He expressed skepticism that the Court would rule against the tariffs, and criticized potential refunds as corporate windfalls, questioning whether companies like Costco, which sued the government, would pass any refunded money back to consumers.While many importers argue that they should be reimbursed if the Court finds Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unlawful, Bessent claimed the actual number of refundable tariffs is lower than the estimated $150 billion cited by some trade analysts. He declined to offer a precise figure. He also disputed the idea that Trump’s tariffs significantly contributed to inflation, asserting that there was little evidence of cost pass-through to consumers.Bessent warned that if the Supreme Court does rule against the tariffs, the decision could be complex rather than a simple reversal, which might complicate refund logistics. He added that a delay in the ruling increases the odds of a decision favoring Trump. Treasury’s projected end-of-quarter balance of $850 billion and an expected reduction in the 2025 calendar-year deficit are seen as bolstering its ability to manage any financial impact.Bessent says US Treasury can easily cover any tariff refunds | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell revealed that the Fed had been served with grand jury subpoenas by the U.S. Department of Justice, escalating tensions between the central bank and the Trump administration. The subpoenas reportedly relate to Powell’s June 2025 congressional testimony about renovations to the Fed’s headquarters, but Powell described the move as part of a broader campaign of political intimidation aimed at undermining the Fed’s independence. He stated unequivocally that the threat of criminal charges was tied to the Fed’s refusal to set interest rates according to presidential preferences.President Trump denied involvement in the DOJ probe, but his administration has long clashed with Powell over interest rate policy and spending. Trump has publicly floated removing Powell and Fed Governor Lisa Cook, whose case is pending before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, markets reacted to the news with falling stock futures and a surge in gold prices, reflecting investor unease over the attack on central bank autonomy.Republican Senator Thom Tillis condemned the subpoenas, pledging to block any future Fed nominee until the legal matter is resolved. The DOJ’s inquiry is reportedly focused on whether Powell misled Congress about ballooning renovation costs, which reached $2.5 billion. Though the administration alleges possible misconduct, critics see the legal threat as part of a pressure campaign to force Powell out ahead of his term’s expiration in May.Fed Served With DOJ Subpoenas, Powell Vows to Stand Firm (5) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Schenck v. United StatesOn January 9, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in Schenck v. United States, a foundational case in American free speech law. Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, had been convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I. The case raised critical constitutional questions about the boundaries of the First Amendment in times of national crisis. Schenck’s defense argued that his actions were protected political speech. However, the government maintained that his words posed a threat to wartime recruitment and national security.The Court would go on to unanimously uphold Schenck’s conviction in a decision authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Although the ruling came in March 1919, the arguments heard on January 9 and 10 set the stage for what became a pivotal moment in legal history. In his opinion, Holmes introduced the “clear and present danger” test, writing that the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of causing substantive evils Congress has a right to prevent. He famously noted that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.This standard marked the beginning of a more nuanced approach to free speech jurisprudence, where context and consequences mattered. It reflected the tensions between civil liberties and national security during wartime. Although later cases would refine or move away from the “clear and present danger” test, Schenck remains a foundational precedent in American constitutional law. The case also marked the rise of Holmes as a central figure in shaping First Amendment doctrine.The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue at least one opinion this Friday, potentially including a highly anticipated decision on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case represents a significant test of presidential authority, especially in the context of Trump’s use of emergency powers under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump imposed these tariffs after returning to office in 2025, targeting nearly all U.S. trading partners and citing national emergencies such as trade deficits and drug trafficking, including fentanyl, as justification.During oral arguments in November, justices from both ideological sides expressed skepticism about the legal basis for the tariffs. Lower courts previously ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority, prompting his administration to appeal. Trump has defended the tariffs as strengthening the U.S. economy and warned that a ruling against them would severely harm the country.The case was brought by affected businesses and a coalition of 12 states—mostly led by Democrats—arguing that the tariffs were unlawfully broad. The outcome could have major implications for global trade and executive power. The Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, is also considering other significant cases, including a challenge to part of the Voting Rights Act and a First Amendment dispute over a Colorado ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBT minors.Supreme Court set to issue rulings as Trump awaits fate of tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled in favor of New York Yankees star Aaron Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association, rejecting a Long Island man’s attempt to trademark the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes The Judge.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision that Michael Chisena’s filings infringed on Judge’s common law trademark rights.Chisena filed for the trademarks in 2017 during Judge’s breakout rookie season, claiming he planned to use them on clothing. He denied any connection to professional sports and insisted he had never seen Judge play. However, the USPTO’s appeals board cast doubt on his good faith, noting the suspicious timing of the filings and their close link to Judge’s rising fame.Judge and the MLBPA opposed the applications in 2018, arguing they would likely confuse consumers by associating the phrases with Judge’s well-known public persona. They emphasized that the baseball star’s last name, with its clear legal overtones, naturally lent itself to those phrases, which had become synonymous with him early in his career.The appeals court affirmed that Judge had built strong common law trademark rights through commercial use, and that Chisena’s applications lacked merit. Chisena, who represented himself in court, also lost a related claim involving an image of a gavel and scales over a baseball diamond.Yankees’ Judge clinches win in ‘All Rise,’ ‘Here Comes The Judge’ trademark case | ReutersLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile Manhattan shooting in December 2024, is set to appear in federal court Friday to challenge the possibility of facing the death penalty. Mangione, 27, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges including murder, stalking, and firearms offenses, and remains in custody while awaiting trial.His attorneys will argue before U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett that prosecutors failed to meet legal standards for the firearm-related murder charge—the only count that could result in a death sentence. They are also seeking to dismiss the entire indictment, claiming Mangione’s constitutional rights were violated, which they argue should disqualify the government from pursuing capital punishment.While New York outlawed the death penalty in 2004, the ban applies only to state prosecutions. Because Mangione is being tried in federal court, the death penalty remains a legal possibility. He also faces separate charges at the state level, where a conviction could carry a life sentence.Judge Garnett has yet to decide on either the motion to dismiss the death-eligible charge or the broader request to throw out the indictment. No trial date has been set for the federal or state proceedings.Mangione, suspect in health insurance CEO murder, fights death penalty charge in court | ReutersVice President JD Vance announced the creation of a new assistant attorney general role focused on fighting fraud involving taxpayer money. The position will have nationwide jurisdiction and is intended to strengthen federal oversight and enforcement against misuse of public funds. Vance stated that a nominee for the role will be named in the coming days, signaling the administration’s commitment to addressing financial misconduct within programs funded by taxpayers. The announcement was made during a White House press briefing, reflecting a broader effort to enhance government accountability—at least, ostensibly.Vance announces new assistant attorney general role to combat taxpayer fraud | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week’s closing theme features one of the most charming and instantly recognizable pieces in the classical repertoire: the first movement of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso.” Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata showcases Mozart’s extraordinary ability to blend elegance, wit, and emotional nuance with apparent ease. The opening movement is not a fast-paced sonata-allegro form, as one might expect, but rather a gentle theme and variations, a structure that allows Mozart to explore the same musical idea through shifting textures, moods, and embellishments.“Andante grazioso” lives up to its title—graceful and moderately paced, it opens with a lilting, almost courtly theme that feels both poised and playful. As the variations unfold, Mozart’s genius becomes more apparent: he adds rhythmic complexity, dynamic contrasts, and increasingly virtuosic flourishes, while always keeping the original melody in sight. The movement is accessible but never simplistic, classical in form yet deeply expressive.K. 331 is the same sonata that ends with the famous “Rondo alla Turca,” but it is in this opening Andante that we see Mozart at his most refined and imaginative. He draws the listener in not through drama, but through balance, warmth, and an almost conversational intimacy between performer and listener. This piece has been beloved for centuries, not only by pianists but also by those new to classical music.As we close the week, the delicate ornamentation and unhurried beauty of “Andante grazioso” offers a kind of musical exhale—a moment of elegance and clarity in contrast to the noise of modern life. It’s a quiet reminder of why Mozart remains one of the most enduring voices in Western music.Without further ado, Mozart’s Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – “Andante grazioso” – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Delivers First State of the Union AddressOn January 8, 1790, President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in New York City, the temporary capital of the United States. This moment marked the formal inauguration of a constitutional duty outlined in Article II, Section 3, which requires the president to periodically give Congress information on the “State of the Union.” Washington’s address was brief—just over 1,000 words—but carried significant weight, as it was the first time a sitting president had spoken to the legislature under the newly ratified Constitution.In his remarks, Washington emphasized the need to build public credit, maintain national defense, and promote science and literature. He called on Congress to consider a system of uniform weights and measures and to establish a national post office. Notably, he stressed the importance of establishing laws that would encourage “a due respect for property” and “the security of liberty.” His recommendations helped shape the early legislative agenda and solidify the constitutional structure of government roles.The address was delivered in person, following British parliamentary tradition, but Thomas Jefferson would later abandon this practice in favor of written messages, considering in-person speeches too monarchical in tone. Washington’s speech helped define the president’s role not merely as an executive but as a constitutional communicator, responsible for setting national priorities in collaboration with Congress.The legal legacy of this event lies in the precedent it established: that the president would serve not only as head of state and government, but also as an active participant in shaping legislative goals through regular, formal communication. Over time, this annual message evolved into a major political and legal event, shaping policy narratives and underscoring the balance of powers between the branches of government.Tysen Duva, a long-serving federal prosecutor from Florida, was recently sworn in as head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division, a powerful role now seen as vulnerable to political pressure under President Trump’s second term. Duva replaces acting chief Matthew Galeotti, who, despite not being a permanent appointee, had earned respect for shielding the division from direct political interference and maintaining operational independence, particularly in white-collar and public corruption cases. Duva, who has no prior managerial experience at this scale, will now oversee over 1,000 prosecutors amid ongoing departmental turmoil, internal resignations, and controversial Trump-driven interventions.His appointment follows internal conflict, including a recent case where Duva clashed with a Trump-aligned U.S. attorney who tried to fast-track charges against a Democratic congresswoman. While the charges ultimately proceeded, the case highlights the complex political dynamics Duva must now navigate. Though Duva has pledged impartiality and praised Galeotti’s example, his lack of a close working relationship with Deputy AG Todd Blanche—unlike Galeotti—may limit his autonomy.Observers note that the Criminal Division has largely avoided the most contentious political directives of the Trump administration so far, including investigations into Trump’s critics and cultural flashpoints like gender-affirming care. However, experts warn that Duva may face tighter constraints going forward, with limits placed on certain enforcement areas like overseas bribery and tariff violations. DOJ veterans emphasize that how Duva manages pressure from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Blanche, and the White House will determine the future direction of the department’s criminal enforcement strategy.Political Tension Awaits DOJ’s Unproven Criminal Division ChiefThe UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has contacted Elon Musk’s platform X and his AI company xAI, seeking clarification on how they are complying with UK data protection laws. The inquiry follows reports raising concerns about Grok, X’s built-in AI chatbot, and its ability to generate images that may involve the use of personal data. The ICO emphasized that individuals have the right to expect lawful and respectful handling of their personal information on social media platforms. The regulator is requesting details on the safeguards X and xAI have in place to protect user privacy and uphold legal standards under UK data law.Reports have intensified regulatory concern by alleging that Grok has generated explicit images involving underage individuals. The claims raise serious legal and ethical questions under UK data protection and child‑safety laws. Such allegations heighten scrutiny of how training data is sourced, what safeguards are in place to prevent harmful outputs, and how quickly platforms respond when prohibited content is identified. The ICO’s outreach suggests regulators are assessing whether existing controls are adequate to prevent the creation or dissemination (clearly not) of unlawful material and to protect minors’ rights.UK data watchdog contacts Musk’s X over Grok AI images | ReutersFord Motor Company has refiled a lawsuit accusing three California attorneys of orchestrating a fraudulent overbilling scheme to collect more than $100 million in legal fees under the state’s Lemon Law. The amended complaint, allowed after a judge dismissed the original case in November, drops law firms as defendants and instead targets individual lawyers Steve Mikhov, Roger Kirnos, and Amy Morse, formerly of Knight Law Group. Ford alleges the attorneys operated a “Fee Motion Department” that submitted fake time entries, including implausible claims such as multiple 24-hour workdays and even a single day billed at 57.5 hours.The lawsuit claims these practices defrauded courts and automakers by inflating legal fees in warranty cases involving defective vehicles. California’s Lemon Law allows recovery of attorney fees for reasonable legal work, but Ford argues the defendants manipulated this provision for profit. Ford’s legal team says the amended filing includes new details drawn from testimony, reinforcing their claim that the lawyers exploited the court system. The accused attorneys have denied wrongdoing and previously argued the case is a retaliatory move by Ford meant to intimidate lawyers representing consumers. The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.Ford takes fresh aim at lawyers in lawsuit claiming overbilling scheme | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon’s PlumbersOn January 7, 1972, President Richard Nixon announced the formation of a special unit within the White House to investigate and prevent leaks of classified information, which would eventually evolve into the so-called “Plumbers” unit. This decision followed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, which deeply embarrassed the Nixon administration. Although the formal establishment of the Plumbers occurred in July 1971, Nixon’s January 7 remarks to his aides marked a turning point in the administration’s shift toward covert activity to manage political threats.The Plumbers were tasked with stopping or punishing perceived enemies of the administration. This group would go on to commit the break-in at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, and many of its members were later involved in the June 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex—an event that ultimately unraveled Nixon’s presidency. The actions undertaken by the Plumbers and their associates triggered investigations into abuse of executive power, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice.This date is significant in legal history because it underscores the dangers of unchecked executive authority and the use of government resources for political ends. The legal fallout from these events led to reforms in campaign finance, surveillance, and oversight of executive conduct, including the passage of the Ethics in Government Act and the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act.Nicolás Maduro’s arraignment in a U.S. federal court marks a rare and complex legal confrontation over the prosecution of a sitting foreign leader. Charged with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, Maduro pleaded not guilty and asserted he remains Venezuela’s legitimate president. His defense hinges on two main arguments: a claim of head-of-state immunity under international law and an allegation that he was unlawfully abducted by the U.S. military. The U.S. government counters that Maduro lost legitimacy after a disputed 2018 election and is not entitled to immunity.Legal scholars suggest that immunity claims in criminal cases are uncommon but not unprecedented. Former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega attempted a similar defense, which failed, though he never held the official title of president. U.S. courts have dismissed civil suits against sitting leaders based on State Department recognition, but criminal immunity has a narrower scope. The court will also examine whether Maduro’s alleged actions were part of his official duties—a critical factor in determining immunity.Even if immunity is denied, prosecutors may still face challenges proving Maduro’s direct involvement in the conspiracy. Analysts note the indictment lacks strong ties between Maduro and specific terrorist or trafficking acts, though the Justice Department may be withholding key evidence. The defense is expected to argue aggressively that Maduro’s arrest violated international law, echoing arguments rejected in the Noriega case.Maduro’s immunity claim tests US power to prosecute foreign leaders | ReutersNick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of slain filmmaker Rob Reiner, is scheduled to enter a plea this Wednesday to two counts of first-degree murder in the fatal stabbings of his parents. His initial court appearance in December was postponed at his defense attorney’s request, citing complex legal issues. Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Reiner, 70, were found dead in their Los Angeles home on December 14, both having suffered multiple stab wounds. The killings, which occurred just hours before a planned event with the Obamas, shocked both Hollywood and political communities where Rob Reiner had long been influential.Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek the death penalty, though capital punishment is currently under a moratorium in California. The case has drawn intense public scrutiny, especially after reports that Nick argued with his parents at a holiday party the night before their deaths. He was later found and arrested near a downtown park.Nick Reiner, who lived in a guest house on the property, has a well-documented history of drug addiction and homelessness. His struggles formed the basis of the 2015 film Being Charlie, which he co-wrote with his father. Rob Reiner, known for his role as “Meathead” in All in the Family and for directing beloved films like The Princess Bride and A Few Good Men, was a towering figure in both entertainment and Democratic politics. Michele Reiner was a producer and former photographer known for her 1980s portrait of Donald Trump. The motive behind the killings remains unclear.Son of slain Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner due back in court | ReutersA panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared doubtful of Meta Platforms’ effort to dismiss over 2,200 lawsuits alleging that its platforms—along with those of Snapchat, YouTube, and TikTok—were intentionally designed to be addictive to young users. At the heart of the appeal is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields these companies from liability for harm allegedly caused by their platform designs, not just user content.The judges questioned whether it was premature to consider the companies’ immunity claims at this stage, given that the underlying cases are still in early litigation. They noted that most appeals occur only after a final judgment has been issued. Meta’s attorney argued that defending such massive litigation now, without immunity protection, would be an undue burden. However, the panel suggested the district judge—Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers—had left the door open to revisiting Section 230 defenses later in the process.The lawsuits, brought by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals, claim the platforms contributed to rising youth mental health issues like depression and body image disorders. The plaintiffs argue these are not content-related claims but rather focus on harmful platform features that fall outside Section 230 protections.Judge Jacqueline Nguyen pointed out that the language of Section 230 doesn’t clearly grant the sweeping immunity Meta is claiming. Other judges on the panel, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, also showed skepticism toward the broad interpretation of immunity being asserted by the companies.US appeals court appears skeptical of Meta, social media companies’ bid to cut off addiction lawsuits | ReutersSeveral major class action lawsuits with billions of dollars at stake are set for key appellate decisions in 2026, targeting high-profile companies across tech, entertainment, sports, and real estate. In one case, Live Nation is appealing a ruling that certified a nationwide class action accusing it of inflating ticket prices over 15 years for events at major venues, involving over 400 million ticket sales.Apple is also facing renewed scrutiny as consumers seek to reinstate a class action alleging its App Store rules created a monopoly, leading to $20 billion in overcharges. A lower court had decertified the class of nearly 200 million customers, but the 9th Circuit has agreed to review that decision.Meanwhile, the NCAA is defending a historic $2.8 billion settlement compensating college athletes for past use of their name, image, and likeness. Although the deal received widespread support, appeals have temporarily delayed payments to affected athletes.The NFL is facing a critical appeal after a $4.7 billion jury verdict over its “Sunday Ticket” broadcast package was thrown out last year. Consumers and businesses want that verdict reinstated, arguing the NFL monopolized out-of-market game access.In the hotel sector, the 3rd Circuit will decide whether to revive claims that Atlantic City resorts, including Caesars and MGM, colluded on room prices using algorithmic pricing software—similar to claims already dismissed in a Las Vegas case now potentially heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.Finally, the 8th Circuit will examine objections to settlements totaling over $668 million in a class action accusing real estate firms, including Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway-owned HomeServices, of fixing commission rates nationwide. Plaintiffs say the deals are fair; critics argue they don’t go far enough.Billions in balance for US companies fighting class action appeals in 2026 | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: January 6 InsurrectionOn January 6, 2021, a significant and unprecedented legal and constitutional crisis unfolded in the United States. As a joint session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College results of the 2020 presidential election, a mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol. The attack followed weeks of false claims about election fraud and a rally earlier that day in which Trump urged his supporters to “fight like hell.” The violent breach forced lawmakers to evacuate, delayed the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, and resulted in deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage.Legally, the event triggered a cascade of consequences. Hundreds of participants were arrested and charged with offenses ranging from unlawful entry and assaulting federal officers to seditious conspiracy. High-profile members of far-right groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were prosecuted, with some leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy, a Civil War-era charge rarely used in modern times. The attack also led to Trump’s second impeachment, the first time in U.S. history a president was impeached twice. He was charged with incitement of insurrection, although the Senate ultimately acquitted him.In the broader legal aftermath, January 6 prompted legislative and judicial scrutiny of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, with Congress passing reforms in 2022 to clarify the vice president’s limited role in certifying election results. The attack also raised questions about the limits of First Amendment protections when political speech turns into violent action, and about the potential disqualification from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists from holding public office.Barry Pollack, the U.S. attorney best known for securing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s release deal, is now representing Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in a high-profile U.S. narcotics case. Maduro, who was captured in a U.S. military operation along with his wife, pleaded not guilty this week in a Manhattan federal court to charges of leading a cocaine trafficking conspiracy involving guerrilla groups and drug cartels. Pollack plans to challenge the legality of Maduro’s capture—calling it a “military abduction”—and is also expected to raise arguments about foreign leader immunity.These arguments face steep legal obstacles. The U.S. no longer recognizes Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president, having rejected the results of his 2018 re-election. Furthermore, U.S. courts have historically been reluctant to dismiss cases based on how a defendant was brought to U.S. soil. Still, Pollack’s involvement signals a serious defense strategy grounded in international legal questions and executive immunity claims.Pollack’s experience with politically charged and internationally sensitive cases is extensive. He recently helped negotiate Assange’s release from a British prison through a plea deal that allowed the WikiLeaks founder to avoid U.S. imprisonment and return to Australia. His track record also includes work on behalf of a former CIA officer and an acquitted Enron executive.Assange’s lawyer Barry Pollack to fight Maduro’s US narcotics charges | ReutersWith a new Republican majority appointed by President Donald Trump, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is expected to shift sharply away from pro-union policies that defined its recent Democratic era. After nearly a year of paralysis caused by Trump’s unprecedented firing of Democrat Gwynne Wilcox—leaving the board without the quorum needed to issue decisions—the Senate confirmed two Republican nominees in December 2025, restoring its ability to act and giving conservatives control of the five-member board for the first time since 2021.Key Biden-era decisions are now vulnerable to rollback. These include expanded union rights such as representation without secret-ballot elections, bans on mandatory anti-union employer meetings, and broader remedies for fired workers. Critics say these moves strayed from precedent; federal courts are reviewing them, but outcomes will vary by jurisdiction unless the Supreme Court weighs in.Union election rules are also likely to change. Under Biden, the NLRB accelerated the election process and made it harder for decertification efforts to proceed—moves unions supported to counter employer delays. Republicans are expected to reverse these rules, potentially making it easier to dissolve existing unions.The board’s political independence is also under scrutiny. A court recently upheld Trump’s removal of Wilcox, challenging legal protections meant to shield NLRB members from dismissal without cause. If the Supreme Court supports similar arguments in upcoming cases, the NLRB’s structural independence could be weakened, raising concerns about politicization and fairness in labor adjudications.Meanwhile, lawsuits by major companies like Amazon and SpaceX are targeting the board’s role as both prosecutor and judge in its own cases, claiming constitutional violations. If courts side with these challengers, it could force Congress to restructure the agency—perhaps by limiting its powers or shifting cases to federal courts.NLRB poised for major policy shifts in 2026 with new Trump-appointed majority | ReutersWisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan resigned following her conviction for obstructing the arrest of a migrant in her courtroom, a case that became entangled in broader national tensions over immigration enforcement. Dugan, elected to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2016, was found guilty in December 2025 of helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national facing domestic violence charges, evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who were present at the courthouse. She had denied wrongdoing, claiming she followed a courthouse policy requiring staff to notify supervisors of ICE’s presence.Her conviction drew sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers, with some calling for impeachment, especially as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to crack down on local interference with federal immigration policy. Dugan had been suspended from her judicial duties during the legal proceedings. Prosecutors framed the case as a warning that public officials are not above the law, highlighting the Justice Department’s willingness to pursue charges against judges who obstruct federal enforcement actions.Before serving as a judge, Dugan led a local Catholic Charities chapter that provided refugee resettlement services. Her background and the nature of the charges underscored the ongoing conflict between local protections for immigrants and federal efforts to expand deportations.Wisconsin judge resigns after being convicted of obstructing migrant arrest | ReutersMy column this week is on a novel cruise tax. Hawaii’s attempt to expand its transient accommodations tax to include cruise ship passengers hit a temporary roadblock when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a New Year’s Eve stay, pausing enforcement of the new “green fee.” The law, which took effect January 1, aims to place cruise cabins on equal tax footing with hotels by imposing an 11% tax on the portion of a cruise fare linked to overnight stays while docked in Hawaiian ports. Hawaii argues this is a general, nondiscriminatory tax on short-term lodging rather than a fee tied to the ship itself. To bolster its legal case, the state is framing cruise cabins as equivalent to hotel rooms, and emphasizing that the tax is based on services consumed on land, not the ship’s movement or port access.The cruise industry, however, contends the tax violates the Constitution’s Tonnage Clause, which prohibits states from levying duties on ships for merely entering or staying in port. They’ve also invoked the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884, which restricts port-related charges not linked to specific services. But Hawaii’s defense is that the tax is not about access or vessel status—it is a consumption tax on guests staying overnight, regardless of whether the bed is on land or in a moored ship. The policy avoids targeting ships and instead captures revenue from tourism, aligning maritime and land-based lodging under a consistent legal framework.The Department of Justice has joined the cruise industry’s challenge, suggesting the issue’s seriousness. If litigation continues, the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately decide whether this tax model is constitutionally sound. Still, Hawaii’s approach—drafting a neutral, consumption-based tax rather than a maritime-specific charge—may serve as a blueprint for other coastal states looking to tap into cruise tourism revenue without triggering constitutional violations. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Federal Court Strikes Down “Balanced Treatment” Law in ArkansasOn January 5, 1982, a federal district court in Arkansas issued a landmark ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, striking down a state law that required public schools to give “balanced treatment” to both evolution and creation science. The law, known as Act 590, had been passed in 1981 and mandated that schools teach creationism—defined in the statute as a scientific model based on a literal interpretation of the Bible—alongside evolution. The law was immediately challenged by a coalition of clergy, educators, and scientists who argued that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.Judge William Overton ruled that Act 590 was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious viewpoint under the guise of science. In his decision, Overton provided a clear and influential definition of what constitutes science, stating that scientific theories must be guided by natural law, testable, and subject to falsification. He found that “creation science” failed all of these criteria and was therefore religious in nature, not scientific. The court also concluded that requiring its teaching in public schools constituted state endorsement of religion.The ruling marked one of the first major judicial rejections of efforts to include religious doctrine in public school science curricula following the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), which struck down laws banning the teaching of evolution altogether. McLean v. Arkansas would go on to shape the legal and educational landscape in future church-state separation cases, including the pivotal 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard, which similarly invalidated a Louisiana law promoting creationism in schools.Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro appeared in a New York court after a surprise U.S. military operation captured him in Caracas. The high-stakes raid, likened to the 1989 Panama invasion, involved U.S. Special Forces breaching Maduro’s security and flying him to Manhattan, where he faces drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. His wife, Cilia Flores, was also captured. Maduro is accused of running a cocaine network in collaboration with major criminal groups like Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel and Colombia’s FARC.The capture sparked international outrage. Russia, China, Cuba, and other allies condemned the raid, while U.S. allies cautiously emphasized legality and diplomacy. The U.N. Security Council is set to review the operation’s legality. Meanwhile, Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, shifted from initial outrage to signaling willingness for cooperation with the U.S., a notable pivot considering her past as a fiery Chavista loyalist.President Trump justified the move as a counter to drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and the past nationalization of U.S. oil assets. He also made clear his aim to reopen Venezuela’s oil sector to U.S. companies. However, he has sidelined Venezuela’s opposition leaders, disappointing figures like María Corina Machado. Despite Maduro’s removal, his political allies remain in power, and the military’s loyalty appears unchanged. Venezuelans at home are wary, bracing for possible unrest.Venezuela’s Maduro due in court, loyalists send message to Trump | ReutersTrump’s efforts to further reshape the federal judiciary in 2026 are facing a slowdown due to a shortage of vacancies. After returning to office in 2025, Trump secured the confirmation of 26 judicial nominees—more than in the first year of his initial term. However, only 30 new judicial seats have opened since then, compared to the 108 vacancies available when he first took office in 2017. This is largely due to aggressive judicial appointments by both Trump and former President Biden over the past decade, which filled many potential retirements with younger judges.Some judges eligible for senior status—a form of semi-retirement—have opted to remain active. Experts suggest this could be due to either personal preference or distrust among conservative judges about Trump’s choices for replacements. The appellate court nominations have particularly slowed, with only three judges announcing retirements in 2025. Still, Trump managed to flip the balance of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and strengthen conservative influence in district courts across states like Missouri, Florida, and Mississippi.Despite the low number of available seats—currently 49—Trump still has opportunities to make appointments, especially in Republican-led states. However, 13 of those vacancies are in states with at least one Democratic senator, triggering the “blue slip” custom, which allows senators to block judicial nominees from their states. While this tradition doesn’t apply to appellate courts, it still limits district court nominations. Senate Republicans remain divided on whether to uphold the blue slip norm.Trump’s ability to further reshape judiciary in 2026 hindered by few vacancies | ReutersIn 2026, U.S. law schools are facing a mix of rising interest in legal education and mounting regulatory and financial pressures. A major shift comes from President Trump’s 2025 budget, which capped federal loans for professional degrees at $50,000 annually and $200,000 total. With many law schools charging over $50,000 per year (excluding living costs), incoming students may need to seek private loans, which often come with higher interest rates and stricter credit requirements. In response, some schools—like Santa Clara University—are offering across-the-board scholarships to help bridge the gap.Law school accreditation is also in flux. The American Bar Association (ABA), traditionally the primary accreditor, is facing political attacks over its diversity standards and regulatory burden. Texas is planning to develop its own law school approval system for bar eligibility, and other states like Florida and Ohio are exploring similar options. The ABA is now working to streamline its standards amid this pressure.July 2026 will also see the debut of the “NextGen UBE,” a shorter, skills-focused national bar exam that replaces some memorization with practical assessment. Some states, however, are opting out or creating their own licensing alternatives.Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is gaining traction in legal education. A growing number of law schools are integrating AI training into their curricula, and platforms like Harvey are being adopted by faculty and students alike.Despite the looming challenges, interest in law school remains strong. Applicant numbers rose 20% over the previous year, building on an 18% increase in 2024, and first-year enrollment is also trending upward.US law schools face loan limits, oversight pressures in 2026 | ReutersU.S. courts are poised to play a decisive role in shaping how copyright law applies to generative AI this year, as lawsuits from major publishers, creators, and tech companies come to a head. At issue is whether AI developers like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and others can invoke the legal doctrine of fair use when training models on copyrighted materials, or whether they must pay license fees—potentially amounting to billions.The legal landscape shifted dramatically in 2025. A class action by authors against Anthropic resulted in a $1.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind, while The New York Times, Disney, and other major rights holders filed fresh lawsuits. Judges began issuing preliminary rulings on whether AI training qualifies as transformative fair use, with conflicting outcomes. One judge called AI training “quintessentially transformative,” supporting tech companies’ claims, while another warned that generative AI could harm creators by saturating the market with competing content.Several high-profile cases remain active in 2026, including those involving AI-generated music and visual art. Meanwhile, some copyright holders are choosing collaboration over litigation. Disney, for example, invested $1 billion in OpenAI and granted use of its characters, while Warner Music dropped lawsuits against AI firms to co-develop music tools. These deals hint at possible industry-wide licensing frameworks, though ongoing litigation could still dramatically reshape the economic and legal norms governing AI.AI copyright battles enter pivotal year as US courts weigh fair use | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Fundamental Laws of 1906On December 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II signed the “Fundamental Laws of 1906,” marking a pivotal moment in the Russian Empire’s struggle between autocracy and constitutionalism. This act came in response to the Revolution of 1905, a period of mass unrest fueled by political repression, economic hardship, and a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The October Manifesto, issued two months earlier, had promised the establishment of a legislative Duma and the expansion of civil liberties. However, the Fundamental Laws, signed in December, revealed the Tsar’s intention to retain ultimate authority despite these concessions.The document laid out a framework for governance, establishing a bicameral legislature with the Duma as its lower house, but Article 4 made clear that “the All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power.” This meant that, legally, any legislative progress remained subordinate to the Tsar’s will. The laws also granted the Tsar control over the military, foreign policy, and the ability to dissolve the Duma at his discretion.While the Fundamental Laws introduced formal legal structures and acknowledged the existence of limited civil rights, they were largely symbolic gestures rather than meaningful reforms. Instead of curbing autocratic rule, the laws codified it, cloaking absolute monarchy in the appearance of legality. This duality deepened public dissatisfaction and political fragmentation.Rather than stabilizing the empire, the signing of the Fundamental Laws sowed further distrust in the regime and highlighted the Tsar’s unwillingness to relinquish power. These contradictions contributed to the failure of the Duma system and fueled revolutionary momentum that would ultimately culminate in the revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration reached an agreement to review certain NIH grant applications that had been stalled or rejected amid a broader legal challenge over cuts to diversity-related research funding. The agreement followed a federal court ruling in Boston that found the NIH acted unlawfully when it canceled grants based on their perceived ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Though the Supreme Court later paused part of that ruling and shifted some aspects of the litigation to a court specializing in monetary claims, the review process for future NIH funding remained in legal limbo.Under the new agreement, the NIH will re-evaluate previously frozen or withdrawn grant applications, though it is not required to fund any specific proposals. Plaintiffs in the case, including researchers and several Democratic-led states, argued that the impacted studies—focusing on topics like HIV prevention, LGBTQ health, Alzheimer’s, and sexual violence—serve vital public health needs.One of the plaintiffs, University of New Mexico postdoctoral researcher Nikki Maphis, said the agreement allows important scientific work to resume after what she described as an “arbitrary and destructive freeze.” The underlying NIH policy change, which cut funding for projects deemed to reflect ideological rather than scientific priorities, remains contested. A prior ruling blocking the policy is still under appeal by the Department of Health and Human Services.Trump administration agrees to review stalled NIH research grants after lawsuit | ReutersThe Trump administration’s aggressive defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has pushed the agency to the brink of collapse, jeopardizing one of the few federal institutions explicitly designed to protect everyday Americans from financial harm. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has long served as a crucial recourse for people facing predatory lending, credit reporting errors, identity theft, and financial discrimination. The agency has helped return more than $21 billion to consumers since its founding. And yet, under President Trump’s second term, it’s being systematically dismantled—through funding cuts, legal challenges, and staffing reductions—with the administration openly declaring its intent to shut the agency down.In the absence of the CFPB, those wronged by financial institutions—like Bianca Jones, who battled a credit reporting error that nearly cost her a home, or Morgan Smith, who turned to the agency after being targeted by identity theft—may find themselves with nowhere to turn. The administration claims the CFPB promotes a political agenda, but the result is fewer protections for those already vulnerable. Rules around medical debt, overdraft fees, credit card terms, and mortgage lending have been gutted. Investigations have been shelved. Enforcement is evaporating.Critics argue that other regulators can fill the gap, but the CFPB was created because no one else was doing the job. Without it, financial institutions are more likely to abuse their power with impunity.You should ask yourself: who benefits when a consumer watchdog is taken offline? Because it certainly isn’t the teachers, the single parents, the sick, or the struggling borrowers trying to make sense of a system stacked against them. It’s the companies who’d rather not answer for what they do in the dark.Trump’s funding cuts put America’s consumer watchdog on the brink of collapse | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled that it cannot hear Amazon’s constitutional challenge to the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), deepening a circuit split on the issue and increasing the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court review. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Amazon’s case stemmed from a labor dispute and was therefore barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits courts from intervening in active labor disputes. Amazon had filed the lawsuit to halt an NLRB case claiming it was a joint employer of unionized drivers working for a subcontractor and therefore obligated to bargain with their union.Amazon’s broader claim—that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional because its board members and judges are protected from at-will removal—has gained traction elsewhere. The 5th Circuit, in a recent case involving Elon Musk’s SpaceX, ruled that such protections are unlawful and allowed a similar challenge to proceed. But the 9th Circuit firmly disagreed, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with labor board proceedings, regardless of the constitutional claims involved.This ruling aligns with a 3rd Circuit decision and stands in direct conflict with the 5th Circuit, setting the stage for a high-stakes resolution by the Supreme Court. Importantly, the 9th Circuit’s ruling doesn’t completely shut the door on such challenges—employers can still raise constitutional objections in NLRB proceedings and appeal after the fact. But for now, Amazon and other companies must make their case through the channels Congress established for resolving labor disputes.US court says it can’t hear Amazon’s NLRB challenge, deepening circuit split | ReutersA Utah judge has granted the release of most of the transcript and audio from a closed hearing in the high-profile case involving the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The hearing, held in October, addressed courtroom safety measures for the accused, Tyler Robinson, who is charged with aggravated murder and other serious offenses. Prosecutors allege Robinson fired a single fatal shot from a rooftop during a university event where Kirk was speaking, and they intend to seek the death penalty.Judge Tony Graf ruled that only about one page of the 80-page transcript would remain redacted, primarily for safety and security reasons. He also clarified that media organizations do not need special legal status to cover the proceedings, rejecting a request that would have guaranteed them advance notice of any future attempts to close hearings.Graf has already decided that Robinson can appear in civilian clothing but must remain physically restrained in court. However, media outlets are prohibited from photographing or filming his restraints, as defense attorneys argued such images could bias potential jurors. A hearing set for February will address whether cameras will be allowed in the courtroom at all.Kirk’s death, which occurred during a campus debate, triggered widespread condemnation of political violence from across the ideological spectrum.Judge grants release of redacted transcript of Charlie Kirk case hearing | ReutersAs 2025 winds down, my Bloomberg column this week is a year-end piece reflecting not just on what was written, but on which ideas still resonate because the problems they address remain unresolved. The lasting relevance of several pieces underscores how little has shifted in tax and policy debates. A July column urging states to break free from federal tax volatility feels even more urgent now, as states still cling to unstable baselines. Early in the year, hopes that efficiency rhetoric (read: DOGE) might close the tax gap faded, with political discomfort around auditing the wealthy preventing any meaningful change. April’s look at the step-up in basis revealed how death, not borrowing, remains the biggest capital gains loophole—and one Congress left untouched in the 2025 tax law. A May column on IRS immigration enforcement gains new resonance as the crackdown deepens, pushing some immigrant workers further from voluntary compliance. And October’s piece on Pung v. Isabella County remains live, with the Supreme Court set to decide whether fairness in tax foreclosures means market value or simply what the government collects.Each of these columns anticipated weather patterns we’re now standing in—proof less of foresight and more of inertia. If 2026 brings more engagement, even without clear solutions, there’s hope that next year’s retrospective won’t feel like a reprint with new dates.Read the 5 Most Relevant Technically Speaking Columns of 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd