Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Aaron Burr Arrested (But Not For That)On February 18, 1807, former Vice President Aaron Burr was arrested in the Mississippi Territory on charges of treason against the United States. Once one of the most powerful men in the young republic, Burr had fallen from political grace after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel and drifting to the margins of national life. Federal authorities accused him of plotting to carve out an independent nation in the western territories, possibly including lands belonging to Spain. The allegations sparked fear that the fragile Union could splinter only decades after independence.Later that year, Burr stood trial in Richmond, Virginia, before Chief Justice John Marshall, who was riding circuit. The case quickly became a constitutional showdown between executive power and judicial restraint. President Thomas Jefferson strongly supported the prosecution, but Marshall insisted that the Constitution’s Treason Clause be applied strictly. The Constitution requires proof of an “overt act” of levying war against the United States, not merely evidence of intent or conspiracy.Marshall ruled that prosecutors had failed to present sufficient proof that Burr had committed such an overt act. As a result, the jury acquitted him. The decision established an enduring precedent that treason must be narrowly defined and carefully proven. By demanding clear evidence of action rather than suspicion or political hostility, the court reinforced limits on the government’s power to punish alleged disloyalty. Burr’s trial remains one of the earliest and most significant tests of constitutional safeguards in American legal history.Bayer AG and its Monsanto subsidiary have proposed a $7.25 billion nationwide class settlement to resolve current and future claims that Roundup exposure caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Filed in Missouri state court, the agreement would run for up to 21 years and provide capped, declining annual payments. People diagnosed before or within 16 years after final court approval could seek compensation through the program. The settlement must still receive judicial approval.The proposal is part of a broader strategy tied to the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending review of Durnell v. Monsanto, which could determine whether federal pesticide labeling law blocks certain state failure-to-warn claims. Bayer has indicated that a favorable ruling could significantly limit future lawsuits, while the class program is designed to address claims regardless of the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs’ attorneys say the deal would cover both occupational and residential exposure and protect the rights of future claimants, while allowing individuals to opt out and pursue separate suits.Roundup litigation has generated tens of thousands of cases, with more than 40,000 already pending or subject to tolling agreements. Bayer inherited the legal challenges after acquiring Monsanto in 2018, and the ongoing litigation has weighed heavily on the company financially and reputationally. Previous jury verdicts have resulted in multibillion-dollar awards, some later reduced on appeal or by judges. The new proposal would replace an earlier settlement effort that collapsed in 2020 and aims to create a longer-term, more predictable compensation system.Bayer AG Unveils $7.3B Deal For Roundup Users - Law360Bayer proposes $7.25 billion plan to settle Roundup cancer cases | ReutersA Seattle federal jury found inventor Leigh Rothschild, several of his patent-holding companies, and his former attorney liable for violating Washington’s anti-patent trolling law after asserting patent infringement claims against Valve Corp. Jurors concluded the defendants acted in bad faith under the Washington Patent Troll Prevention Act and also violated the state’s consumer protection statute. Valve was awarded $22,092 in statutory damages.The jury also determined that Rothschild and his companies breached a 2016 global settlement and licensing agreement with Valve. Under that agreement, Valve paid $130,000 for rights to certain patents in exchange for a promise not to sue over them. Despite that covenant, Rothschild’s entities later filed a 2022 infringement lawsuit and sent a 2023 letter threatening additional litigation. The jury awarded Valve $130,000 for the first breach and $1 for the second, finding no valid justification for repudiating the agreement.In addition, jurors ruled that one asserted patent claim was invalid because it would have been obvious to a skilled professional at the time of filing. The dispute stemmed from Valve’s 2023 lawsuit accusing Rothschild of repeatedly pursuing claims covered by the prior settlement. The defense argued any mistakes were unintentional and not profit-driven, but the jury sided with Valve after a four-day trial.The case also involved procedural controversies, including sanctions over delayed financial disclosures and allegations that a defense filing contained fabricated quotations and citations generated by artificial intelligence. Post-trial motions are expected as the defense challenges aspects of the verdict.Valve Jury Says Rothschild, Atty Broke Anti-Patent Troll Law - Law360Beginning July 1, 2026, new federal limits will cap loans for professional degree students at $50,000 per year and $200,000 total, significantly changing how aspiring lawyers finance law school. Administrators and financial aid experts warn that the cap may push students to rely on private loans, which often carry higher interest rates and fewer protections. Unlike federal loans, private loans are generally not eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, making them riskier for students planning lower-paying public interest careers.Some admitted students are already reconsidering their options, choosing less expensive schools or withdrawing altogether after calculating potential debt burdens. Law schools may need to increase scholarships or other aid to support students who cannot secure private loans. Private lending has been minimal in legal education since 2006, when federal policy allowed graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, so there is uncertainty about how lenders will respond to renewed demand.Data show that about one-quarter of ABA-accredited law schools currently have average annual federal borrowing above the new $50,000 cap. At some elite institutions, graduates tend to earn high salaries, which may reassure private lenders. However, other schools with high borrowing levels report much lower median earnings, raising concerns about repayment risks. Experts warn that students at lower-ranked schools or from disadvantaged backgrounds could be hit hardest.In response, some schools are creating new financial strategies. The University of Kansas School of Law has launched an in-house loan program with a fixed 5% interest rate for borrowing above the cap. Santa Clara University School of Law is offering guaranteed scholarships to reduce tuition below the federal limit, and applications there have surged. Overall, the loan cap introduces financial uncertainty that could reshape enrollment decisions, access to legal education, and the long-term cost of becoming a lawyer.US law schools, students fear rising costs from new federal loan cap | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has introduced new software designed to help identify potential conflicts of interest involving the justices. The tool will compare information about parties and attorneys in pending cases with financial and other disclosures maintained by each justice’s chambers. These automated checks are intended to supplement, not replace, the justices’ existing internal review process when deciding whether to step aside from a case.Under current practice, each of the nine justices independently determines whether recusal is necessary. The move comes after the Court adopted its first formal code of conduct in 2023, which states that a justice should withdraw when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Critics have pointed out that the code lacks an enforcement mechanism and leaves recusal decisions solely in the hands of the justices themselves.To support the new system, the Court is also strengthening filing requirements. Parties will need to provide more detailed disclosures, including fuller lists of involved entities and relevant stock ticker symbols. These updated requirements will take effect on March 16. Advocacy groups welcomed the technological upgrade as a step toward better ethics oversight, noting that similar conflict-checking systems have long been standard in lower federal courts.US Supreme Court adopts new technology to help identify conflicts of interest | 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: Wesberry v. Sanders On February 17, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wesberry v. Sanders, one of the most consequential voting rights cases in American history. The dispute arose from Georgia’s congressional districts, where vast population disparities meant that some districts had two or even three times as many residents as others. In practical terms, this imbalance diluted the voting power of citizens in more populated, often urban, districts. James P. Wesberry challenged the system, arguing that it violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that members of the House of Representatives are chosen “by the People.”In a 6–3 decision, the Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black concluded that the Constitution requires congressional districts to be drawn so that “as nearly as practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” The ruling established the principle of “one person, one vote” for federal elections. It rejected longstanding districting schemes that favored rural regions at the expense of growing urban populations. The decision forced states to redraw congressional maps to ensure substantially equal populations across districts.Wesberry was part of the broader reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, alongside cases addressing state legislative districts. Together, these decisions reshaped American democracy by making representation more closely tied to population equality. By insisting that each vote carry roughly equal weight, the Court strengthened the constitutional promise of representative government. February 17, 1964, marks a turning point in election law and the modern understanding of political equality.A federal judge in New York has ruled that discrimination claims brought by a group of NFL coaches will proceed in court rather than in arbitration. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni denied the league’s request to compel arbitration, finding that the NFL’s arbitration system was not fair or neutral. The lawsuit was filed by former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores, later joined by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, who allege racial discrimination and retaliation in hiring practices. The case has been stalled for several years while the parties disputed whether it belonged in federal court or before an arbitrator.Judge Caproni relied heavily on a 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the NFL’s arbitration structure was fundamentally flawed. The appellate court criticized the system because the NFL commissioner served as the default arbitrator and controlled the procedures, raising concerns about neutrality. It held that such an arrangement did not allow Flores to effectively vindicate his statutory rights. Based on that reasoning, Judge Caproni determined that the arbitration clause could not be enforced for the remaining claims. She also declined to delay the case further while the NFL considers seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court.The coaches argue that requiring them to arbitrate before the league’s own commissioner would deprive them of a fair forum. Their attorneys praised the ruling, saying it affirms that employees cannot be forced into a process controlled by the opposing party’s chief executive. The NFL has not publicly responded to the latest order. The case will now move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.NFL Found To Fumble Arbitration Over Bias, Must Go To Court - Law360Ruling says Brian Flores lawsuit vs. NFL, teams can go to court - ESPNA Stanford psychiatry professor testified in a California bellwether trial that research supports the existence of social media addiction and its harmful effects on young people. Dr. Anna Lembke told jurors that peer-reviewed studies show heavy use of platforms such as Instagram and YouTube can contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. She cited a National Institutes of Health study tracking more than 11,000 minors, which found that children who were not initially depressed were more likely to develop depression after significant social media use. According to Lembke, the study undermines the argument that already-depressed teens simply gravitate toward social media.Her testimony contrasts with statements from Instagram’s CEO, who told the jury he does not believe social media addiction is real. The case is the first of several bellwether trials arising from thousands of consolidated lawsuits claiming platforms intentionally designed addictive features. The companies are accused of using tools such as autoplay, notifications, and infinite scrolling to encourage compulsive use. The claims focus on whether these design features are addictive, rather than on third-party content posted by users. Plaintiffs assert negligence, failure to warn, and concealment.During cross-examination, defense attorneys questioned Lembke about passages in her book describing her own compulsive reading of romance novels, attempting to challenge her views on addiction. She responded that her examples were meant to show how modern systems increase vulnerability to compulsive behavior, not to trivialize serious substance addictions. Defense counsel also argued that platform features are easy to disable, but Lembke maintained her analysis centered on their addictive qualities, not on user settings. Outside the courthouse, families held a rally memorializing children whose deaths they attribute to social media harms. The trial will continue next week.Stanford Prof Tells Jury Studies Confirm Social Media Addiction - Law360In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I argue that the IRS’s decision to expand tax relief for Americans held hostage abroad is both correct and incomplete. The agency currently freezes collections, halts enforcement notices, and abates penalties when taxpayers are physically incapable of complying due to foreign captivity. I contend that this relief is grounded not in diplomacy, but in a simple principle: incapacity makes compliance impossible. If that principle justifies relief abroad, it should apply equally when the U.S. government wrongfully detains someone at home.I explain that the IRS already has administrative authority to provide this type of relief, as confirmed in a recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. When notified by the State Department or FBI, the IRS places a “hostage indicator” on an account, pausing automated enforcement and suspending penalties during captivity and for six months after release. Although TIGTA identified some administrative flaws in how the system operates, the broader framework demonstrates that the agency can act without new legislation.By contrast, taxpayers subjected to wrongful domestic detention—particularly in immigration contexts—receive no comparable safeguard. The compliance system continues to generate notices, penalties, and interest even when individuals are cut off from mail, income, and legal assistance. I argue that this disparity undermines fairness and weakens the legitimacy that voluntary tax compliance depends on. Congress may move to formalize relief for foreign hostages, but the IRS does not need to wait to address domestic cases.I propose that the agency adopt a parallel framework for wrongful domestic detention, triggered by certification from a federal authority or court. Such a system would temporarily suspend collection activity and abate penalties during detention and a reasonable transition period after release. The goal is consistency: a tax system should not distinguish between foreign and domestic incapacity when the result is the same inability to comply.IRS Suspends Tax Obligations For Hostages Abroad—Do The Same At HomeIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that Massachusetts’ proposed regulation on taxing standardized software creates a rigid and impractical apportionment system for multistate businesses. Under the draft rule, any company seeking to allocate tax based on actual in-state use must register through MassTaxConnect and obtain a software apportionment certificate. At the time of purchase, the buyer must also submit a transaction-specific statement explaining its allocation percentage and supporting rationale. I contend that this framework imposes significant administrative burdens on businesses that operate across multiple states.Even companies willing to overpay rather than calculate precise usage would not have an easy option. If they decline to complete the required documentation, they must pay tax on 100% of the purchase price, regardless of how little of the software is actually used in Massachusetts. I argue that this approach effectively turns multistate buyers into compliance agents who must track usage, justify percentages, and retain records for possible audits. At the same time, the Department of Revenue would assume the role of reviewing and policing each allocation.I point out that enterprise software usage is often fluid and difficult to track, especially when licenses are pooled, accessed remotely, or bundled into broader contracts. Proving precise state-by-state use may be costly or even unworkable. Instead of forcing every buyer into this detailed regime, I propose a safe harbor option. Businesses could elect a fixed in-state percentage, such as 25%, and accept taxation on that amount without additional paperwork or registration.I explain that this alternative would not eliminate full apportionment for those seeking precision or refunds, but would provide a simpler path for others. The safe harbor could even operate on a transitional basis while the state evaluates how the broader certification system functions. Ultimately, I argue that modernization should not mean added complexity, and that a fixed-percentage election would promote voluntary compliance, reduce administrative strain, and provide

This Day in Legal History: Powell v. AlabamaOn February 16, 1932, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Powell v. Alabama, a case that would become a cornerstone of modern criminal procedure. The appeal arose from the notorious Scottsboro Boys prosecutions in Alabama, where nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women aboard a train. The trials moved with alarming speed, and the defendants were sentenced to death after proceedings that offered little meaningful access to legal counsel. In some instances, lawyers were appointed on the day of trial, leaving virtually no time to prepare a defense.The case forced the Court to confront whether such rushed representation satisfied the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. When the decision was issued later that year, the Court held that in capital cases, state courts must provide defendants with effective assistance of counsel. The justices emphasized that the right to be heard would mean little without the guiding hand of an attorney. The ruling did not yet create a broad right to counsel in all felony cases, but it marked a significant expansion of constitutional protections in state criminal proceedings.Powell signaled that fundamental fairness in state trials was subject to federal constitutional scrutiny. It also laid important groundwork for later decisions that would extend the right to counsel beyond capital cases. The case remains a defining example of how procedural safeguards can shape the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived part of Google’s challenge to a Wildseed Mobile LLC patent covering the creation and transmission of “hot links” through text messages. A three-judge panel vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had upheld one remaining claim of the patent, while invalidating the others. The appellate court found that the board failed to properly analyze Google’s argument that the claim was invalid in light of prior art.The disputed claim involved generating a hot link using either an SMS message or an instant message. Although Google addressed both aspects in its petition, the board focused only on the SMS portion and did not meaningfully address the instant messaging limitation. The Federal Circuit said the board neither evaluated whether prior art covered the instant messaging element nor explained why it declined to do so. Because of that omission, the panel sent the case back to the board for further review.Wildseed had accused Google of infringing the patent based on how advertisements function on YouTube. The lawsuit was initially filed in Texas in 2022 but later moved to federal court in California, where proceedings were paused pending the outcome of the PTAB review. In 2024, the board had already invalidated claims in two related Wildseed patents involving video ads and smartphone notifications.Google’s Hot Link Patent Claim Challenge Revived At Fed. Circ. - Law360Federal prosecutors have unveiled additional details in a criminal case accusing Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz of participating in a pitch-fixing scheme tied to sports betting. A superseding indictment filed in New York alleges that Clase exchanged coded text messages with associates and bettors before games to signal when he would throw specific pitches. The messages reportedly used poultry-themed language such as “rooster” and “chicken” to disguise the scheme. In one example, an associate allegedly texted Clase about throwing a “rock at the first rooster,” to which Clase responded affirmatively.Prosecutors claim that bettors used this advance information to place successful proposition bets on pitch speed, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the indictment, bettors earned at least $400,000 on wagers involving Clase and about $60,000 on wagers involving Ortiz. The players allegedly agreed to accept bribes of at least $12,000 each. Authorities also allege that some coordination occurred in person, including meetings at Clase’s home, and that payments were routed through intermediaries.The updated indictment adds Robinson Vasquez Germosen, who prosecutors say acted as a middleman and later lied to FBI agents about his knowledge of the scheme. He is charged with making false statements. Clase and Ortiz previously pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys maintain that the allegations are unproven and will be challenged at trial.MLB Pitcher Sent ‘Coded’ Texts For Rigged Pitches, Feds Say - Law360 UKA long-running dispute over ownership of a goldendoodle named Tucker has concluded with a private sealed-bid auction ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The case, Callahan v. Nelson, involved former partners Karen Callahan and Joseph Nelson, who had jointly acquired the dog while dating but could not agree on ownership after their 2022 breakup. Because the couple was never married, they could not rely on Delaware’s family law statute that allows courts to consider a pet’s well-being when dividing marital property.After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the matter reached the state’s premier business court, where Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David applied a property “partition” remedy. Rather than ordering shared custody or considering the dog’s best interests, the court required a single blind bidding process between the parties. The higher bidder would keep Tucker, and the other would receive the payment. The exact amount of the winning bid was not disclosed. Nelson ultimately submitted the top bid and retained the dog.The court explained that, absent statutory authority to weigh the animal’s welfare, traditional property principles favored an auction as the cleanest solution. A neutral attorney oversaw the process and noted that the dog’s value was subjective and personal, not easily tied to market measures. Callahan’s attorney said she was disappointed but would not seek to block the result, adding that the case sets helpful precedent for resolving similar pet ownership disputes.A key legal element in the case is the use of partition, an equitable remedy typically applied when co-owners of property cannot agree on how to divide it. Instead of physically splitting the property or forcing continued joint ownership, the court may order a sale and distribute the proceeds.Ex-Boyfriend Wins Tucker the Goldendoodle in Sealed Bid Auction 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: Bruno Hauptmann ConvictedOn February 13, 1935, a New Jersey jury convicted Bruno Hauptmann of kidnapping and murdering the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The crime had transfixed the nation for nearly three years and was widely labeled the “Crime of the Century.” The child was taken from the Lindbergh home in 1932, and despite a ransom payment, was later found dead. Public outrage was immediate and intense, with newspapers covering nearly every development in the investigation and trial.Hauptmann’s prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including ransom notes and expert testimony linking his handwriting to those notes. The government also introduced evidence tying marked ransom bills to Hauptmann’s possession. The trial raised early concerns about the reliability of forensic handwriting analysis and the influence of media attention on jury impartiality. Critics then and now have questioned whether the intense publicity compromised due process protections.The case also reshaped federal criminal law. In response to the kidnapping, Congress enacted the Lindbergh Law, formally known as the Federal Kidnapping Act. The statute made it a federal offense to transport a kidnapping victim across state lines, expanding federal jurisdiction over what had traditionally been a state crime. That shift reflected a broader trend during the early twentieth century toward increased federal involvement in criminal enforcement.Today, the Hauptmann conviction remains a staple in criminal law courses, not only for its tragic facts but also for its lasting procedural and constitutional implications.Goldman Sachs’ chief legal officer, Kathy Ruemmler, resigned after newly released Justice Department documents detailed her past communications with Jeffrey Epstein. CEO David Solomon announced that he accepted her resignation, which will take effect on June 30. Ruemmler said the media attention surrounding her prior legal work had become a distraction. The disclosures showed she exchanged numerous emails with Epstein between 2014 and 2019 and received gifts from him, including luxury items. Some emails revealed that she advised Epstein on how to respond to press inquiries about his treatment by prosecutors.The documents also noted that Epstein attempted to contact her by phone on the night of his 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. Ruemmler stated that she knew Epstein only in her capacity as a defense attorney and denied any knowledge of ongoing criminal conduct. Before joining Goldman, she led the white-collar defense practice at Latham & Watkins and previously served as White House counsel during the Obama administration.The broader document release has drawn attention to Epstein’s connections within major financial institutions, including UBS and JPMorgan. Ruemmler’s departure marks one of the most prominent banking exits linked to the renewed scrutiny of Epstein’s network.Top Goldman Sachs lawyer Ruemmler resigns after Epstein disclosures | ReutersA federal judge in Minnesota ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement improperly interfered with detainees’ access to their attorneys during a recent enforcement operation. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel found that ICE’s practices during “Operation Metro Surge” effectively denied thousands of people meaningful legal access. The order requires ICE to stop quickly transferring detainees out of Minnesota and to permit attorney visits and confidential phone calls. The ruling will remain in effect for 14 days while the case proceeds.The class action lawsuit was filed on January 27 on behalf of noncitizen detainees. According to the court, many individuals were moved out of state without notice, making it difficult or impossible for lawyers to locate them. In some instances, detainees were transferred so often that ICE itself lost track of their whereabouts. Judge Brasel concluded that while ICE did not formally deny the right to counsel, its actions in practice severely limited that right.The court also cited evidence that detainees were given limited phone access, sometimes sharing a small number of phones among dozens of people, with calls occurring in nonprivate settings. One asylum seeker with a valid work permit was held for 18 days despite a court order requiring his earlier release and was transferred across multiple states without explanation. The judge rejected ICE’s claim that it lacked sufficient resources, noting that the agency had committed substantial personnel and funding to the enforcement effort.ICE blocked detainees’ access to lawyers in Minnesota, judge finds | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced four new judicial nominations, including a White House attorney selected for a seat on the U.S. Court of International Trade. The nominee, Kara Westercamp, currently serves as associate counsel in the White House and previously worked at the Justice Department. If confirmed, she would join a nine-member court that handles disputes involving U.S. trade laws, including challenges to tariffs. Her nomination comes as numerous companies contest Trump’s sweeping global tariffs and seek refunds on duties already paid.Retailers and manufacturers such as Costco, Goodyear, and Revlon have filed lawsuits arguing that the tariffs exceed presidential authority. Earlier rulings from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit blocked most of the tariffs, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing the matter. Trump has publicly criticized the earlier decisions.In addition to Westercamp, Trump nominated Katie Lane to a federal district court in Montana, Sheria Clarke to a district court seat in South Carolina, and federal prosecutor Evan Rikhye to a 10-year term on the District Court of the Virgin Islands. All nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.Trump nominates White House lawyer to court hearing tariff cases | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is scheduled to appear in federal court in Minnesota to enter a plea related to charges stemming from his coverage of a protest at a St. Paul church. The protest targeted President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement surge in the state. Lemon, now an independent journalist, livestreamed the January 18 demonstration, which disrupted a worship service at Cities Church.Federal prosecutors charged him with conspiring to violate civil rights and with obstructing access to a house of worship under a statute also used in cases involving abortion clinic protests. His attorney argues that the prosecution infringes on Lemon’s First Amendment rights and characterizes the case as an attack on press freedom. Trump publicly supported the charges, while Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that authorities would protect the right to worship without interference.The protest occurred during broader demonstrations against federal immigration actions in Minnesota, where thousands had gathered to oppose the crackdown. Lemon was seen on video speaking with activists before and during the disruption and interviewing participants and congregants inside the church. Another journalist, Georgia Fort, faces similar charges and has denied wrongdoing, stating she was reporting rather than participating.Journalist Don Lemon to enter plea in Minnesota ICE protest case | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Bach stands as one of the central figures of the Baroque era, revered for the structural clarity and spiritual depth of his music. Born in 1685 into a long line of musicians, Bach spent much of his career serving as a church organist and cantor in German cities such as Arnstadt, Weimar, and Leipzig. Though not widely celebrated outside musical circles during his lifetime, his reputation has since grown to near-mythic status. His compositions balance intellectual precision with emotional resonance, blending intricate counterpoint with lyrical expression.This week’s closing theme is his Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007, likely composed around 1720 during his tenure in Köthen. The suite opens with one of the most recognizable preludes in all of classical music, built from flowing arpeggios that unfold with quiet inevitability. Written for unaccompanied cello, the piece demonstrates Bach’s ability to imply harmony and depth through a single melodic line. The suite follows the traditional Baroque dance structure, moving from Prelude through Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Menuets, and Gigue.For many listeners, the Prelude evokes clarity, order, and calm—qualities that make it a fitting close to the week. Its simplicity is deceptive; beneath the surface lies careful architecture and subtle harmonic movement. The work fell into relative obscurity until the twentieth century, when cellist Pablo Casals famously revived it and brought it to concert stages worldwide. Today, it remains a cornerstone of the cello repertoire and a touchstone of Baroque artistry. As a closing theme, it offers both reflection and renewal, ending not with flourish but with quiet confidence.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007–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: NAACP FoundedOn February 12, 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in New York City. Sparked by ongoing racial violence, including the 1908 Springfield Race Riot in Illinois, a group of Black and white activists came together to launch an interracial effort to combat racial injustice. The NAACP would become the most influential civil rights organization in the United States, pursuing its goals through strategic litigation, public education, and advocacy.In its early years, the NAACP focused heavily on using the courts to challenge discriminatory laws and practices, particularly in education and voting. It played a pivotal role in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Through its Legal Defense Fund—established in 1940 and headed for a time by Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice—the organization spearheaded a range of major civil rights cases.Beyond litigation, the NAACP was instrumental in pushing for anti-lynching laws, though federal anti-lynching legislation would take over a century to pass. The group’s efforts laid the legal and political foundation for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Its influence continues today as it monitors civil rights violations and advocates for racial justice nationwide.Tom Goldstein, a prominent U.S. Supreme Court advocate and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, testified in his own defense during his federal criminal tax trial in Maryland. Goldstein, accused of failing to report millions in poker winnings and misrepresenting debts on mortgage applications, told jurors he never intended to violate the law. He admitted omitting gambling debts to keep them hidden from his wife, and claimed he relied on accountants and firm managers for financial reporting. The trial, overseen by Judge Lydia Griggsby, has drawn attention for its mix of high-stakes legal and poker worlds. Goldstein is alleged to have reported only $27 million of $50 million in poker winnings to the IRS in 2016. He also faces allegations of channeling improper payments through his former law firm and requesting a $500,000 payment from actor Tobey Maguire be sent to a third party to cover personal debts. Maguire, a witness in the trial, is not accused of any misconduct. The defense has called more than a dozen witnesses, including IRS agents, poker players, and law firm executives. Goldstein retired from Supreme Court advocacy in 2023 after arguing over 40 cases. The trial continues with prosecutors set to cross-examine him following his testimony.Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein takes stand at his criminal tax trial | ReutersAttorney General Pam Bondi faced sharp criticism from lawmakers during a House Judiciary Committee hearing over the Justice Department’s handling of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Representative Thomas Massie accused Bondi of deliberately concealing the names of powerful individuals connected to Epstein, including billionaire Leslie Wexner, whose name was initially redacted in an FBI document. Bondi countered that Wexner’s name had already been made public in other documents and was quickly unredacted once flagged. Lawmakers across the aisle expressed frustration over what they called excessive and unjustified redactions, despite a federal law passed in November mandating broad disclosure of the Epstein files.Bondi defended the department’s efforts, highlighting the work of over 500 lawyers on a tight timeline, and insisted any release of victims’ identities was accidental. She repeatedly praised President Donald Trump during the hearing and criticized Democratic members, accusing them of political theatrics. Her confrontational style sparked further tension, especially when she refused to apologize to Epstein’s victims seated in the gallery, deflecting the request by referencing past administrations. The hearing reflects the ongoing controversy surrounding the Justice Department’s approach to transparency, its alignment with Trump-era politics, and the public’s demand for accountability in the Epstein investigation.US lawmakers accuse Bondi of hiding names of Epstein associates | ReutersThe Law School Admission Council (LSAC) announced that beginning August 2026, the LSAT will no longer be available online, citing rising concerns over cheating. The move comes after a period of hybrid testing, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed examinees to choose between in-person and remote formats. While remote testing will still be permitted in limited cases involving medical or geographic hardships, the default will now be in-person testing at designated centers. LSAC emphasized that the shift is meant to enhance test integrity and deter misconduct, which has become a growing concern—particularly after the organization suspended online testing in China due to reports of systemic cheating.Industry professionals, including LSAT prep company leaders, supported the decision, noting that online platforms made it easier for cheating rings to exploit the system through tactics like using cameras to capture test content or remotely accessing test takers’ computers. Some cheating services reportedly charged thousands of dollars to help candidates gain an unfair advantage. LSAC added that technical difficulties also played a role in the change, with most scoring delays stemming from remote testing issues. On the January 2026 exam, 61% of test takers opted for in-person testing, suggesting a trend back toward traditional methods.US law school admissions test ends online option over cheating concerns | 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: Nelson Mandela ReleasedOn February 11, 1990, Nelson Mandela was released from Victor Verster Prison in South Africa after 27 years of incarceration, marking a seismic shift in the country’s legal and political landscape. Mandela’s release followed a period of secret negotiations between the apartheid government and the African National Congress (ANC), and it signaled the beginning of the end of apartheid—a system of institutionalized racial segregation and oppression upheld by law. His imprisonment had become a global symbol of the fight against racial injustice and was frequently challenged by international human rights organizations and legal scholars as a violation of fundamental human rights.Mandela had been convicted in 1964 of sabotage and other charges under South Africa’s Suppression of Communism Act, following the infamous Rivonia Trial. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, spending much of his sentence on Robben Island under harsh conditions. Over the decades, growing international sanctions and internal unrest made apartheid increasingly untenable.Then-President F.W. de Klerk’s government began rolling back apartheid legislation in the late 1980s, and on February 2, 1990, de Klerk announced the unbanning of the ANC and his intention to release Mandela. Just nine days later, Mandela walked free, delivering a speech in Cape Town that emphasized reconciliation, peace, and the continuation of the struggle for full democratic rights.Mandela’s release was not just a political milestone—it was a legal one, too. It reflected a move away from laws based on racial supremacy and toward a constitutional order grounded in human rights. This transformation would culminate in South Africa’s 1996 Constitution, often lauded for its rights-based framework and independent judiciary.The Trump administration’s plan to repeal the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding—the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act—could reignite legal efforts to hold polluters accountable through public nuisance lawsuits. That finding enabled the EPA to regulate emissions from vehicles and power plants, but its reversal removes the legal framework that had previously shielded companies from such claims under a 2011 Supreme Court ruling. In that decision, the Court held that the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act displaced common-law nuisance suits against emitters. Without that EPA oversight, legal scholars believe plaintiffs may now argue that the courts are once again an appropriate venue for these claims.Public nuisance lawsuits, typically filed by states or municipalities, seek to hold companies accountable for harms caused to community health and safety. These cases have been historically difficult to win due to challenges in proving direct causation, but experts say the new regulatory gap could encourage a wave of litigation. Industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute have warned that repealing the endangerment finding could expose utilities to costly legal battles. While federal courts had largely blocked such claims, state courts have shown more openness, and the shift in federal policy may strengthen these legal efforts. Environmental advocates may now have renewed leverage to push power companies and other emitters into court.Trump’s repeal of climate rule opens a ‘new front’ for litigation | ReutersAttorney General Pam Bondi is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee this week amid intensifying legal scrutiny over the Justice Department’s management of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Lawmakers are expected to question Bondi about what they view as excessive redactions and the DOJ’s withholding of key documents, actions that may conflict with a bipartisan federal law passed in 2025 mandating the broad release of Epstein-related materials. Legal analysts suggest the DOJ’s reliance on legal privileges—such as investigatory and deliberative process exemptions—to justify redactions could face stiff challenges in court or through congressional oversight powers.The situation raises constitutional tensions between legislative oversight and executive privilege, particularly as the House panel, now under Republican control, examines whether the DOJ is shielding politically sensitive information. Some members of Congress have accused the Department of undermining transparency and potentially violating the statutory intent of the Epstein Disclosure Act, which narrowed the DOJ’s discretion in withholding records tied to convicted sex offenders or deceased suspects like Epstein.Bondi’s DOJ has been accused of prioritizing partisan enforcement over institutional neutrality, illustrated by failed prosecutions of Trump critics and an aggressive posture on immigration and protest-related cases. The sidelining of the DOJ’s civil rights division and the refusal to investigate federal shootings has further fueled concerns over selective enforcement and erosion of prosecutorial independence. Bondi’s testimony will serve as a key moment to defend the Department’s use of legal redactions and its broader approach to politically charged prosecutions.Bondi to face questions on Epstein files in House testimony | ReutersInstagram chief Adam Mosseri is set to testify in a Los Angeles courtroom this week in a groundbreaking lawsuit that could reshape how U.S. law approaches the intersection of product design and youth mental health. The case centers on a 20-year-old plaintiff who alleges she became addicted to Instagram as a child due to its deliberately addictive interface—particularly the “endless scroll” feature that loads content continuously to hold user attention. Her lawyers argue that Instagram’s design choices amount to a form of negligent product engineering that failed to account for known risks to children.This case raises novel legal questions: Can user interface (UI) design be treated as a defective product under tort law? Can tech companies be held liable not just for content but for the architecture of the platforms themselves? If the court accepts these arguments, it could establish precedent for treating addictive design as a public health harm similar to tobacco or opioid marketing practices.Mosseri is expected to face questioning over internal documents that, according to the plaintiff, show Meta was aware of the app’s mental health impact on vulnerable teens. Meta counters that these documents reflect efforts to mitigate harm, not evidence of negligence. Still, the case may test the limits of Section 230 immunity, as it focuses not on third-party content, but the platform’s own design—potentially sidestepping the traditional legal shield for tech companies.Hundreds of similar cases are pending, and this trial may serve as a bellwether for litigation nationwide. International developments, including Australia’s ban on social media for children under 16, suggest this is a growing legal frontier.Instagram’s leader to testify in court on app design, youth mental health | ReutersNovo Nordisk’s recent patent infringement lawsuit against Hims & Hers marks a pivotal legal development in the pharmaceutical industry’s battle with telehealth providers distributing compounded drugs. The suit, filed in Delaware federal court, targets Hims’ sales of compounded semaglutide—the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic—claiming these formulations infringe Novo’s patents. While compounding is allowed under certain FDA exemptions, those exemptions do not shield pharmacies or telehealth platforms from patent liability. This case challenges the assumption that FDA compliance protects against infringement claims, exposing a gray area where regulatory and intellectual property regimes collide.Historically, brand-name drugmakers focused on trademark challenges over how compounded drugs were marketed. Novo’s move into patent litigation signals a strategic escalation: it’s not about branding anymore—it’s about the act of making and selling the compound itself. Experts highlight that this is likely the first time a brand drug company has pursued patent claims directly against a compounding pharmacy or telehealth distributor, suggesting the industry now sees these entities as substantial commercial threats.The case also underscores a novel enforcement strategy: suing the telehealth platform facilitating sales rather than the dispersed network of compounding pharmacies, streamlining legal action and potentially setting precedent for centralized liability. Hims, already under regulatory scrutiny, had just halted plans to sell compounded semaglutide pills but remains a target due to its involvement in injectable forms.The outcome of this case may clarify how FDA-sanctioned compounding intersects with patent protections and could define the boundaries for how far telehealth companies can go in offering customized versions of patented drugs.Novo’s GLP-1 Patent Suit Against Hims Takes Aim at Compounding 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: 25th AmendmentOn February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, formally addressing presidential succession and disability for the first time in constitutional text. The need for such clarity had become urgent after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s repeated illnesses during his terms. Prior to this amendment, there was no definitive constitutional mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency or for managing presidential incapacity. The 25th Amendment established four key sections, each designed to ensure governmental stability during times of crisis.Section 1 confirmed that if a president dies, resigns, or is removed, the vice president becomes president—not just acting president. Section 2 allowed for the appointment of a new vice president, with confirmation by both the House and Senate, in the event of a vacancy. This provision was put to use shortly after its ratification when Gerald Ford was appointed vice president in 1973 following Spiro Agnew’s resignation. Section 3 allowed a president to voluntarily transfer power to the vice president by submitting a written declaration to Congress—used during temporary medical procedures like surgeries.Most controversial and significant is Section 4, which allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet (or another body designated by Congress) to declare the president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” This provision has never been fully invoked but has been a topic of discussion during times of perceived presidential instability. It establishes a legal mechanism for removing a president against their will, albeit temporarily, with congressional oversight. The amendment reflects a post-World War II concern for continuity of leadership in a nuclear age. Its ratification marks a critical evolution in constitutional law, ensuring the executive branch remains functional even under extraordinary circumstances.A federal lawsuit filed in Texas alleges that an 18‑month‑old girl detained by U.S. immigration authorities was sent back into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody after being hospitalized for a life‑threatening respiratory illness and then denied the medications doctors prescribed.According to the filing, Amalia and her parents were held at the family detention center in Dilley, Texas after a routine immigration check‑in in December. The toddler became severely ill in January with extremely high fever and breathing problems, and a hospital diagnosed her with multiple serious infections including COVID‑19, pneumonia and RSV. After about 10 days in the hospital, she was discharged with a nebulizer, respiratory medication and nutritional supplements—but those were confiscated when she was returned to the detention facility.The lawsuit says her parents repeatedly tried to obtain prescribed treatment from detention staff but were forced to wait in long lines and often were denied, contributing to the child’s health deterioration. Legal advocacy led to the family’s release after the emergency court filing; attorneys contend the case reflects broader problems with medical care, conditions and protections for children and families in immigration custody.Toddler was returned to ICE custody and denied medication after hospitalization, lawsuit says | ReutersThe Trump administration is proposing a significant change to federal employment law that would restrict fired federal workers from appealing their terminations to the independent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Under the plan, workers would instead have to appeal to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—a shift critics say would compromise impartiality, as the OPM director reports directly to the president.The MSPB, historically tasked with mediating disputes between federal employees and agencies, experienced a 266% spike in appeals cases during Trump’s second term, likely due to a surge in federal job cuts. In 2025, the federal workforce shrank by 317,000 employees, though OPM claims most departures were voluntary through buyouts rather than firings—an assertion not independently verified.This latest proposal would further President Trump’s second-term agenda to reduce the size of the federal workforce while also narrowing employees’ legal options for challenging dismissals. Trump has also weakened job protection enforcement by removing officials from agencies that safeguard civil service rights. Critics argue the proposal consolidates power over personnel disputes within the executive branch, potentially eroding longstanding civil service protections.Trump seeks to limit legal options for fired federal workers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week is about tax holidays for data centers–or the folly in offering them. India’s bold new play to become the backbone of global digital infrastructure isn’t just about its headline-grabbing 20-year tax holiday for data centers. The real shift is happening in the fine print—a 15% safe harbor for transfer pricing that removes much of the risk multinationals face when operating across borders. If a company like Microsoft India applies a simple 15% markup on services sold to its U.S. parent, the Indian government agrees not to challenge the pricing. That’s not just a tax break—it’s operational certainty, and it makes India’s offer much more attractive than anything U.S. states currently have on the table.In contrast, American states are still offering scattered subsidies—property tax breaks, zoning perks, utility discounts—without any unified vision or reliable regulatory structure. There’s no equivalent to India’s safe harbor. No clarity on transfer pricing. No coordination across state lines. The result is what I see as economic development policy by improv, where officials hand out incentives like they’re bidding on a sports arena rather than negotiating infrastructure strategy.And what do U.S. taxpayers get in return? A burst of construction, a few permanent jobs, and a long-term commitment to expensive infrastructure upgrades for data centers that don’t meaningfully plug into the local economy. Meanwhile, India is making an offer that fits squarely onto a multinational’s balance sheet—pre-agreed pricing, national alignment, and a clear path to long-term cost savings.I don’t think the solution is to try to beat India at its own game. But if states are going to offer incentives, they need to extract something real in return: energy infrastructure, broadband expansion, or compute resources that benefit the public. Otherwise, they’re just footing the bill for someone else’s global expansion. 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: Opium is Prohibited in the USOn February 9, 1909, the United States took its first significant federal step toward regulating narcotics when Congress passed a law banning the importation of opium for non-medical purposes. The act, officially titled “An Act to Prohibit the Importation and Use of Opium for Other Than Medicinal Purposes,” marked the beginning of a century-long evolution in American drug policy. While opium had long been associated with addiction and social issues—particularly in Chinese immigrant communities—prior regulation had occurred mostly at the state and local levels. This federal statute aimed to curb both domestic consumption and the growing international trade in opium, which had become a concern for moral reformers, physicians, and public officials.The 1909 law was as much a product of racialized anxieties and diplomatic concerns as it was a health policy. U.S. officials were influenced by the growing global temperance movement and international agreements like those discussed at the International Opium Commission in Shanghai that same year. Domestically, the law paved the way for a broader federal role in drug control, leading to later landmark legislation such as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. It also helped define narcotics as a matter of federal concern rather than simply a moral or local issue.While the 1909 statute was limited in scope—it did not criminalize possession or use, only importation—it established the principle that Congress could regulate substances in the interest of public health and welfare. That principle would be expanded in later decades as the War on Drugs developed. The opium ban illustrates how early 20th-century American legal policy began to intertwine with international diplomacy, race, and evolving conceptions of public health.A landmark trial began this week in a California state court to determine whether Instagram and YouTube can be held liable for allegedly harming a young woman’s mental health through addictive platform design. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman identified as K.G.M., claims that Meta (parent company of Instagram and Facebook) and Google (which owns YouTube) designed their platforms in a way that fostered addiction from a young age, contributing to her depression and suicidal ideation. Her legal team argues the companies were negligent, failed to provide warnings, and that the platforms substantially contributed to her psychological harm.A verdict in her favor could open the door for thousands of similar lawsuits currently pending against major tech firms like Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok. Notably, Snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff before trial, while Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify. The defense plans to emphasize external influences in K.G.M.’s life and highlight efforts they’ve made around youth safety.The case challenges longstanding U.S. legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields internet companies from liability for user-generated content. However, if the jury accepts the argument that the harm stems from platform design rather than content, it could weaken those defenses. Parallel legal battles are underway, including over 2,300 federal lawsuits and a separate trial in New Mexico where Meta is accused of enabling child sexual exploitation.Instagram, YouTube addiction trial kicks off in Los Angeles | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal court ruling that requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to release frozen funding for the $16 billion Hudson Tunnel Project, which aims to upgrade vital rail infrastructure connecting New York and New Jersey. Judge Jeannette Vargas issued a preliminary injunction ordering the unfreezing of the funds after officials from both states warned that construction would cease due to lack of financing. The administration filed a notice of appeal two days later.The funding had been halted in September pending a review of the project’s adherence to new federal restrictions on race- and sex-based criteria in contracting. According to a source, Trump recently proposed unfreezing the money if Democrats agreed to rename Washington Dulles Airport and New York’s Penn Station after him—an offer that was widely condemned.The Hudson Tunnel, which was damaged during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, remains a critical piece of rail infrastructure, handling over 200,000 passengers and 425 trains each day. The Gateway Development Commission, which oversees the project, expressed readiness to resume work once funding is reinstated. Approximately $2 billion of the $15 billion federal allocation—approved under the Biden administration—has already been spent.Trump administration appeals ruling on releasing New York City tunnel funds | ReutersA divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration’s policy of mandating detention without bond for individuals arrested during immigration enforcement operations. The 2-1 decision is the first appellate ruling to affirm the policy, despite widespread opposition from hundreds of lower-court judges across the country who have deemed it unlawful. The ruling applies to Texas and Louisiana, states that hold the largest populations of immigration detainees.The policy relies on an expanded interpretation of the term “applicants for admission” under federal immigration law. Traditionally applied to individuals arriving at the border, the Department of Homeland Security argued in 2025 that it also applies to undocumented individuals already residing in the U.S. This interpretation was adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals and made mandatory by immigration judges nationwide.The case before the court involved two Mexican nationals, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias, who had previously persuaded lower courts they were wrongly denied bond hearings. The appeals court reversed those rulings, with Judge Edith Jones writing that the statute’s plain text supported the administration’s view. Judge Dana Douglas dissented, arguing that the interpretation stretched beyond what Congress intended in the 1996 immigration law.Other circuit courts are expected to weigh in on similar challenges, and the issue may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.US appeals court upholds Trump’s immigration detention policy | ReutersA federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration’s request to delay proceedings in its appeal to reinstate executive orders targeting four major U.S. law firms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the cases—challenging orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—will move forward and be combined with a related appeal involving attorney Mark Zaid’s revoked government security clearance.The Justice Department had sought to postpone the law firm appeals until after the Zaid case was decided, a move that could have delayed resolution for months. But the court rejected that approach, siding with the law firms, which argued they deserved a timely judgment on whether the government unlawfully targeted them.Trump’s executive orders accused the firms of using the legal system against him and criticized their diversity policies, directing the government to strip them of security access and limit their interactions with federal agencies. Four federal judges previously struck down the orders as unconstitutional, finding they violated free speech and due process rights. The administration is now appealing both those rulings and the one involving Zaid.Trump administration loses bid to delay appeals over law firm executive orders | 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: 20th AmendmentOn February 6, 1933, the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially went into effect, reshaping the timeline of federal political power transitions in the United States. Commonly known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” it was ratified just weeks earlier, on January 23, 1933, but became operative on this day. The amendment moved the inauguration dates of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20 and newly elected members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.This was a significant reform. Previously, there had been a long delay—about four months—between election and inauguration. The result was a period where outgoing officials retained power despite potentially losing their mandates, often leading to inaction and political stagnation. This was particularly problematic during times of crisis. For example, after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1932 election, he had to wait until March to take office while the nation was deep in the throes of the Great Depression, and President Hoover remained largely inactive.The 20th Amendment also clarified procedures for what should happen if the president-elect dies before taking office, a scenario not fully accounted for in earlier constitutional provisions. Section 3 addresses this contingency, while Section 4 gives Congress the authority to legislate procedures for succession and emergencies.By speeding up the transfer of power, the amendment reduced the influence of “lame duck” sessions, promoting a more responsive and democratic governance structure. It also underscored a constitutional shift toward greater efficiency in the federal system.The Trump administration has appointed 33 new immigration judges, 27 of whom are temporary, following the dismissal or departure of over 100 judges since Trump’s return to office in January 2025. This reshaping of the immigration court system is part of a broader push to increase deportations and speed up case processing. The newly sworn-in judges will serve in courts across 15 states, including Texas, California, and New York.A significant number of the appointees have military experience—half of the permanent judges and all of the temporary ones—reflecting a Pentagon-supported effort to deploy Defense Department lawyers into immigration roles. Critics, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argue that the mass firings have severely depleted judicial capacity, especially amid a record backlog of 3.2 million pending immigration cases.The administration is also set to introduce a regulation reducing the time migrants have to appeal deportation rulings from 30 to 10 days. This fast-track process would give the Board of Immigration Appeals greater authority to summarily dismiss appeals, a move likely to draw legal challenges given prior rulings against similar reinterpretations of immigration law.Trump administration names 33 new immigration judges, most with military backgrounds | ReutersBrad Karp has stepped down as chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP following revelations of his extensive correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein. The emails, released by the Department of Justice, revealed years of personal and professional interaction between Karp and Epstein, including Karp’s praise of legal arguments dismissing victims’ claims and discussions about sensitive financial matters involving Epstein’s associates. Though Karp has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing, the disclosures created internal and public pressure leading to his resignation.Karp will remain at the firm in a non-leadership role, while corporate department head Scott Barshay has assumed the chairmanship. Barshay is known for high-profile mergers, including deals involving Chevron and Anheuser-Busch. Karp had led the firm since 2008, building its revenue significantly and taking on both corporate defense and progressive political causes.The fallout also reignited criticism over Paul Weiss’ controversial 2025 deal with the Trump administration. In that arrangement, Karp brokered pro bono legal commitments in exchange for the rescission of an executive order that limited the firm’s federal work—an effort that involved direct lobbying by Robert Kraft and a meeting with Donald Trump.Epstein emails lead Brad Karp to resign as Paul Weiss law firm chairman | ReutersA federal jury in Phoenix has ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to Jaylynn Dean, who said she was assaulted by a driver at age 19. The trial, the first of over 3,000 consolidated cases, served as a bellwether to assess the legal strength and settlement value of similar claims. The jury found the driver acted as an agent of Uber, making the company liable, but declined to award punitive damages.Dean’s lawyers argued Uber knowingly failed to implement safety improvements despite rising reports of assaults. The case highlighted Uber’s marketing to women as a safe option, which attorneys said misled passengers about real risks. Dean was intoxicated when she ordered a ride in Arizona in 2023 and was allegedly attacked after the driver stopped the vehicle.Uber denied liability, stating the driver had no criminal record and that the incident was unforeseeable. The company emphasized that it passed background checks and claimed the jury’s decision supported its broader safety efforts, though it plans to appeal.The trial has implications for both Uber and Lyft, whose shares dipped following the verdict. Analysts believe the case may lead to enhanced background screening across the ride-hailing industry.Uber ordered to pay $8.5 million in trial over driver sex assault claims | ReutersA legal fight has emerged between a group of U.S. states and pharmacist T.J. Novak, a whistleblower seeking a portion of the $4.7 billion opioid settlement the states reached with Walgreens. Novak previously filed a federal False Claims Act case accusing Walgreens of unlawfully filling opioid prescriptions and billing government health programs. The U.S. government settled with Walgreens for $300 million, including $150 million tied to Novak’s claims—earning him a whistleblower payout of over $25 million.Novak now argues that the states’ massive 2022 settlement with Walgreens also resolved his state-level claims under their respective false claims statutes, entitling him to additional compensation. The states dispute this, saying their deal addressed public nuisance concerns, not false claims violations. They warn that granting Novak a cut would force courts into a complex and inconsistent analysis across 28 different state laws and could open the door to broad whistleblower entitlements in future state actions.Key states like Rhode Island, North Carolina, and Virginia filed briefs opposing Novak’s claim, stressing the differences in statutory frameworks and the nature of the claims resolved. The outcome could impact future whistleblower litigation involving parallel state and federal claims tied to nationwide corporate settlements.States square off with opioids whistleblower over payout from $4.7 billion Walgreens settlement | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Felix Mendelssohn.This week’s closing theme is Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, by Mendelssohn, a composer whose refined lyricism shaped the early Romantic era. Born in 1809, Mendelssohn was a prodigy who bridged Classical form and Romantic expression with grace and clarity. His Lieder ohne Worte—or “Songs Without Words”—are brief piano pieces that aim to convey the emotional depth of a song, but without lyrics. Op. 109, one of the last in the series, is especially introspective and serene, a quiet farewell rendered in music alone.Today, February 6, holds subtle resonance in Mendelssohn’s legacy. Though his death is commonly dated to November 4, 1847, some historical sources using the Julian calendar recorded it as February 6, making this date a quiet point of remembrance in certain circles. In that light, Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, feels like a particularly appropriate selection—a final musical gesture from a composer who believed some feelings transcend words.It’s also a fitting close to a week of heavy stories—legal struggles, political reshuffling, and institutional reckonings. Mendelssohn offers no commentary, just clarity and calm. In the hush of his music, we’re reminded that reflection doesn’t always need a headline.Without further ado, Lied ohne Worte, Op. 109, by Felix Mendelssohn – 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: FDR’s Court Packing PlanOn February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, better known as the “court-packing plan.” This controversial legislation aimed to expand the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to as many as fifteen. Roosevelt’s justification was to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, but the underlying motive was widely understood to be frustration with the Court’s consistent invalidation of New Deal legislation. The plan would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70½ who refused to retire.At the time, the Supreme Court had struck down several key components of Roosevelt’s New Deal, including the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Although Roosevelt had just won re-election in a landslide in 1936, the proposal met immediate and bipartisan resistance in Congress and the press. Critics argued it threatened the separation of powers and judicial independence. Even members of Roosevelt’s own party viewed the move as a dangerous overreach.Ultimately, the bill failed in the Senate. However, the controversy arguably pressured the Court to adopt a more favorable view of New Deal legislation. Justice Owen Roberts’s shift in support of certain New Deal programs came to be dubbed “the switch in time that saved nine.” While Roosevelt did not get to add new justices through his plan, he eventually appointed eight Supreme Court justices over his long presidency, reshaping the Court over time.Georgia’s Fulton County has filed a legal challenge over an FBI seizure of 2020 election records, arguing the search was overly broad and requesting the return of the documents. The motion, filed in federal court, also seeks to unseal the affidavit behind the warrant. The FBI searched the Fulton County Election Hub in Union City on January 28 as part of its investigation into President Donald Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud in Georgia during the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden. According to the warrant, agents were authorized to confiscate all physical ballots, tabulator tapes, and voter rolls from multiple voting methods. County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. criticized the process, noting the absence of an inventory or orderly transition of records, which raises concerns about potential document loss or tampering. He expressed skepticism about the value of any returned materials under such circumstances. The raid, perceived by local officials as politically motivated, has sparked fears of federal overreach and interference ahead of the 2026 midterms.Georgia’s Fulton County challenges seizure of election records | ReutersJones Day, a major international law firm, has filed a lawsuit in New York state court against private equity firm Centre Lane Partners and multiple affiliated companies, alleging over $9.6 million in unpaid legal fees. The firm claims it served as Centre Lane’s outside counsel since 2018, providing legal services across litigation, financing, acquisitions, and regulatory matters. Though Centre Lane reportedly had a consistent payment history, Jones Day alleges payments ceased in 2024 despite continued promises. Relying on assurances that payments were forthcoming, Jones Day says it rendered millions more in services, which it now claims were based on false representations.Notably, more than half of the unpaid fees stem from Jones Day’s defense work in an ongoing antitrust case involving a Pennsylvania glass plant closure and an FTC investigation. As of last month, Jones Day began formally withdrawing from representing Centre Lane in active cases, and the law firm Greenberg Traurig has taken over in the antitrust matter. Among the defendants named are Centre Lane portfolio companies, including Anchor Hocking and Corelle Brands. The case remains unassigned in New York’s Supreme Court, with no counsel yet listed for the defendants.Law firm Jones Day sues private equity firm, alleging $9.6 million in unpaid fees | ReutersThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified Abbott’s recall of certain glucose monitoring devices as a Class I recall—the most serious level—after the products were linked to seven deaths and 860 serious injuries. The affected devices include specific lots of the FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensors, which have been found to display inaccurately low blood sugar readings. Such faulty readings can lead users to make harmful treatment decisions, such as consuming too many carbohydrates or incorrectly adjusting insulin doses.Abbott disclosed that the devices may provide incorrect readings over extended periods, increasing the risk of serious medical complications for users who rely on continuous glucose data. The recall and its classification signal heightened concern from federal health regulators due to the potential for severe harm or death. As of early January, these issues had already caused significant patient harm. Abbott has not publicly detailed the total number of units affected or the geographic scope of the recall.Abbott recalls glucose sensors after seven deaths linked to faulty readings | ReutersIn an exclusive obtained by Bloomberg Law, the U.S. Department of Justice has directed all 93 U.S. attorney’s offices to designate prosecutors for newly formed “emergency jump teams” by February 6. These teams are intended to provide short-term support in jurisdictions experiencing critical events—particularly those involving alleged assaults on or obstruction of law enforcement. The internal memo from DOJ Executive Office Director Francey Hakes outlines the initiative as a rapid-response measure to bolster prosecutorial presence in areas facing urgent demands.The move follows a wave of resignations in the Minneapolis U.S. attorney’s office amid growing discontent over political targeting and controversial assignments, such as a disputed investigation into the widow of a protester killed by an ICE officer. While the memo does not directly mention Minneapolis, it aligns with Trump administration efforts to maintain aggressive law enforcement in left-leaning jurisdictions facing staff shortages.Offices previously affected by similar surges, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and D.C., have also suffered attrition, partly due to repeated grand jury refusals to indict protestors. The memo frames the jump teams not as litigators but as support staff to assist in command operations—handling triage, reviewing legal filings, and managing logistics.The order coincides with overt recruitment of ideologically aligned attorneys, including a public social media call for applicants who support Trump’s anti-crime platform. Additionally, the jump teams will help implement Attorney General Pam Bondi’s December directive to prioritize investigations into leftist groups like antifa.DOJ Orders Emergency Surge Prosecutors From All US Attorneys (2) 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: BlockburgerOn February 4, 1932, the United States Supreme Court decided Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), a case that established an enduring rule in American criminal law known as the Blockburger test. This test is used to determine whether two offenses are sufficiently distinct to permit multiple punishments or prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.In the case, the defendant was charged with multiple violations of the Harrison Narcotics Act for selling morphine on different occasions. The legal question was whether he could be prosecuted separately for each sale and for selling without proper prescription and for selling not in the original stamped package, even if these occurred during the same transaction.The Court held that each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not. If that’s the case, then they are distinct for double jeopardy purposes. This became the “same elements” test, sometimes called the Blockburger test, and it remains a key tool for analyzing double jeopardy claims today.Notably, the test doesn’t focus on whether the charges arise from the same conduct or transaction, but on whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.This legal principle has been cited in thousands of cases, and it continues to shape how prosecutors and courts evaluate overlapping criminal charges.Ryan W. Routh, convicted of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump weeks before the 2024 presidential election, is scheduled for sentencing on Wednesday. Prosecutors are seeking a life sentence, citing months of planning, the use of disguises and multiple cellphones, and Routh’s readiness to kill others to carry out the plot. He was arrested near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course in September 2024 after fleeing the scene and leaving behind a rifle and gear resembling body armor. At trial, Routh represented himself, making erratic statements and offering little in the way of a legal defense. He was convicted of five charges, including attempted assassination and illegal firearm possession. Routh claims he did not intend to kill Trump and has requested a 27-year sentence along with psychological treatment. The incident was the second assassination attempt on Trump during the campaign season. Prosecutors emphasized that Routh’s actions could have succeeded had it not been for Secret Service intervention. Following the verdict, Routh attempted to stab himself with a pen in court and had to be restrained. Trump praised the conviction, calling Routh “an evil man with an evil intention.”Man convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump to be sentenced | ReutersNetflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos faced sharp questioning from U.S. senators over the company’s proposed $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery, a deal that could reshape the streaming and entertainment landscape. At a Senate antitrust hearing led by Republican Mike Lee, lawmakers from both parties expressed concern that the merger could reduce competition, limit job opportunities for entertainment workers, and reduce content diversity. Lee warned the deal might let Netflix dominate streaming and steer major Warner Bros franchises away from theaters or rivals. Sarandos defended Netflix’s position, citing competition from platforms like YouTube, though senators noted YouTube’s ad-based model differs from subscription services.The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the merger alongside a competing bid from Paramount Skydance. Paramount’s proposal faces financing challenges, and its CEO, David Ellison, has ties to Donald Trump, raising political questions. Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioned Sarandos on whether Trump would influence the deal’s approval, a notion Sarandos said he couldn’t confirm. Sarandos argued that all viewing time on television is in direct competition, but senators remained skeptical of Netflix’s claims that its competition includes ad-supported platforms. The hearing reflects broader unease about consolidation in streaming, and the DOJ’s decision will ultimately shape the industry’s direction.Netflix co-CEO faces grilling by US Senate panel over Warner Bros deal | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice and a majority of state attorneys general are appealing a major antitrust ruling in the case against Google over its dominance in the online search market. Although a federal judge previously determined that Google held a monopoly, he declined to impose significant structural remedies, such as requiring Google to sell its Chrome browser or stop paying Apple to make Google the default search engine on Apple devices. The government’s appeal is expected to target this leniency.Google is also appealing the ruling and has requested a delay in compliance with the judge’s order to share certain data with competitors while the appeals process is ongoing. The case, originally filed in 2020, marks one of the most significant antitrust challenges against a tech company in decades. The court noted that newer players like OpenAI have recently emerged, potentially altering the competitive landscape.The ruling was widely viewed as a partial win for Google, frustrating regulators who had hoped for broader changes to curb the company’s influence in digital advertising and search. The appeal signals continued government efforts to pursue more aggressive antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.US files appeal in Google search antitrust case | 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: Fifteenth Amendment RatifiedOn February 3, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. The amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Its ratification was the third and final of the Reconstruction Amendments, following the Thirteenth (abolishing slavery) and Fourteenth (guaranteeing equal protection and due process) Amendments.The Fifteenth Amendment was a direct response to the systemic disenfranchisement of Black Americans in the post-Civil War South. While it granted a legal foundation for Black men’s suffrage, implementation faced immediate resistance. Southern states adopted literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other discriminatory practices to circumvent the amendment and suppress Black political participation.Despite its passage, the amendment’s guarantees would not be meaningfully enforced until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nearly a century later. The legal battles stemming from the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise have shaped much of the country’s voting rights jurisprudence and continue to echo in current debates about voter ID laws, redistricting, and access to the ballot box.A U.S. federal judge is set to hear arguments on February 5 regarding Danish company Ørsted’s request to lift the Trump administration’s pause on its offshore Sunrise Wind project near Long Island, New York. Ørsted has asked for a preliminary injunction, warning that without a decision by February 6, it could lose access to a specialized vessel crucial for cable installation, putting the project’s timeline, financial viability, and even survival at risk. The Interior Department halted five offshore wind projects in December, citing newly obtained, classified national security concerns, particularly radar interference. Ørsted’s filing states the company has already committed over $7 billion to the Sunrise Wind project, which is about 45% complete and projected to power nearly 600,000 homes by October.Judge Royce Lamberth, who previously granted an injunction for Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island, will preside over the case. Four similar wind developments have already won legal relief allowing construction to continue during litigation. The ongoing delays reflect broader tensions between offshore wind expansion and the Trump administration’s skepticism of the technology, as well as evolving security concerns.US judge to consider last project challenge to Trump offshore wind pause | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. Pretti was killed during an enforcement operation that has since drawn national outrage and led the Trump administration to alter its tactics in Minnesota. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the FBI is conducting a preliminary review, with potential involvement from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, though he emphasized that the investigation is still in early stages.Video footage verified by Reuters shows Pretti being tackled by agents while holding a phone, and an officer retrieving a firearm from his body just before shots were fired. The Justice Department said a formal criminal civil rights probe would only proceed if the evidence supports it. Local officials have voiced distrust of the federal response and are conducting their own inquiry. Pretti is the second protester killed by federal agents in Minneapolis this month, and his family, represented by attorney Steve Schleicher, is demanding a transparent and impartial investigation. So far, no similar federal probe has been opened into the earlier shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer.US Justice Dept opens civil rights probe into Alex Pretti shooting, official says | ReutersIn this week’s column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Volkswagen’s decision to cancel plans for a new Audi plant in the U.S. highlights the limitations of using tariffs as a cornerstone of industrial policy. The assumption underpinning tariff-heavy strategies is that the U.S. market is irresistible enough to force global firms to onshore production, even as tariffs erode that market’s size and appeal. Tariffs have come to function like sin taxes—meant to discourage consumption—but unlike cigarettes or soda, the goal with trade policy is not abstention, but investment and economic engagement. Instead, firms like VW are responding by pulling back, as higher costs reduce consumer demand and make U.S. market share too small to justify large-scale investment. The belief that global manufacturers can swiftly build U.S. capacity ignores the time, cost, and uncertainty involved, especially in capital-intensive sectors. VW’s exit is rational: it doesn’t make financial sense to break ground on a multibillion-dollar plant when the target market is shrinking and returns are questionable.Policymakers need to move beyond blunt tools and design trade incentives based on real market data, such as U.S. demand and potential return on investment. That means requiring ROI modeling before tariffs are imposed, and asking whether the targeted company has enough exposure to be moved by them. If the answer is no, we risk losing access to competitive products, jobs, and consumer choice—not gaining them. Trade policy should be surgical, not punitive, and should acknowledge that capital follows incentives, not threats.In a piece I wrote for Forbes late last week, and with apologies for a double dose of me today: I examined California’s long-running flirtation with a mileage-based tax to replace its declining gas tax revenues—and how what began as a test program has quietly become a form of policymaking through delay. In 2014, the state authorized a pilot program to study a “road usage charge,” a per-mile fee designed to keep transportation funding solvent as gas consumption drops. That pilot wrapped up in 2017 and showed the system works: vehicles can be tracked, billing can be simulated, and the technical challenges are manageable. But nearly a decade later, no mileage tax has been implemented, and new legislation—AB 1421—would extend the advisory committee until 2035.The real issue now isn’t feasibility but political avoidance. The state has drifted into a passive strategy where permanent pilots and advisory boards take the place of real decisions. This kind of inertia has a name: policy drift—when the law remains formally unchanged, but materially obsolete. California’s ongoing study phase has become a way to defer a difficult conversation about revenue and equity in a post-gasoline economy. The technology exists, and other states have already tested it. What’s missing is political will and public engagement.AB 1421 doesn’t collect revenue or educate voters—it simply extends the status quo under the guise of preparation. From the outside, it looks like planning. In practice, it’s a weather balloon designed to measure political tolerance, not policy readiness.California Mileage Tax—Pilot Programs And Permanent Policy Inertia 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: Treaty of Guadalupe HidalgoOn February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, officially ending the Mexican-American War and significantly altering the legal and territorial landscape of the United States. The treaty ceded vast swaths of land to the U.S., including present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of several other western states—about half of Mexico’s territory at the time. In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed $3.25 million in claims by American citizens against Mexico. Legally, the treaty promised to protect the property rights and civil liberties of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, but these promises were inconsistently honored in practice.The treaty’s ratification triggered significant legal and constitutional debates about the extension of slavery into new territories, setting the stage for the intensifying sectional conflicts that led to the Civil War. It also marked the beginning of long-standing disputes over land grants and water rights that would shape western property law. Moreover, the treaty’s vague wording left many issues—such as tribal sovereignty and citizenship—unresolved, leading to future litigation and policy struggles.The treaty was signed in the town of Guadalupe Hidalgo, near Mexico City, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in March 1848. It remains a foundational document in U.S. legal history, frequently cited in discussions of land rights, citizenship, and the limits of treaty enforcement.Our first story today is a bit off topic.In today’s digital world, every click, swipe, and login happens under a legal regime you didn’t negotiate—Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and community guidelines that quietly shape your rights and obligations online. These documents form a system of private lawmaking, where companies act as legislators, drafting rules users must follow, often with little recourse or transparency. You don’t sign them, but courts often treat them as binding contracts. Clauses about arbitration, content ownership, surveillance, and data sharing carry real legal weight. Yet these terms can change overnight, unilaterally, and without notice.TOSTracker was created to bring transparency to this ecosystem. It’s a non-commercial research tool that tracks and archives the evolution of digital contracts over time. With over 150 companies and nearly 250 historical versions of key documents thus far, TOSTracker offers timestamped, hash-verified, and citable records of how these texts change. It provides full version histories, detects redlines at the word and section level, and supports programmatic access through an API. Whether you’re studying arbitration creep, GDPR compliance, or how moderation rules evolve, TOSTracker gives you the empirical backbone to do it.All content is normalized and archived via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, with cryptographic hashes ensuring document integrity. Importantly, it doesn’t interpret the law—it captures the text and structure so you can. For legal researchers, privacy advocates, and anyone concerned with digital governance, this is a window into how private law is made, revised, and enforced online. It’s not a product; it’s a dataset, an archive, and a call to look more closely at the legal architecture of everyday tech.We’re also actively seeking contributors to help expand the archive. If you come across a consumer-facing legal document—like a Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, community guidelines, or EULA—that isn’t already tracked, you can submit it directly through the site. This includes documents behind logins, from smaller platforms, or covering underrepresented industries and regions. Submissions help close coverage gaps, diversify the dataset, and improve the foundation for legal research into how digital rights are defined and redefined over time. Your input directly supports transparency in an area where the law is often invisible.Check it out at tostracker.app if your research overlaps with digital contracts, user rights, or the evolving boundary between public law and platform governance.The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sent warning letters to 42 major law firms over concerns that their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices may be anticompetitive. The FTC emphasized that firm-wide agreements to meet diversity benchmarks—particularly those tied to programs like Diversity Lab’s certification—could unlawfully restrict competition in the legal labor market by influencing hiring, compensation, or promotions. These letters arrive amid a broader rollback of DEI initiatives under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has eliminated related programs in government and targeted private sector efforts.Firms such as Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Skadden Arps, and Latham & Watkins—some of which had previously been challenged by Trump-era executive orders—are among those named. Some reached compromises with the White House, offering pro bono legal work in exchange for eased scrutiny, while others fought and won legal challenges against the orders. The FTC’s scrutiny centers on participation in Diversity Lab’s voluntary DEI certification, which encourages firms to ensure at least 30% of leadership candidates are from underrepresented groups. Though previously upheld in court as non-discriminatory, the FTC now frames such collective DEI practices as potentially violating competition law.US Federal Trade Commission warns law firms about DEI hiring | ReutersImmigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit in Boston challenging a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that allows agents to enter homes without judicial warrants. The suit, brought by the Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center, targets a May 2025 memo—recently revealed via a whistleblower complaint—that permits ICE officers to use administrative warrants instead of warrants signed by a federal judge. These administrative forms, issued internally by the Department of Homeland Security, were previously insufficient for home entries under longstanding practice.The plaintiffs argue that using such warrants for home arrests violates the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal advocates claim the policy removes a crucial constitutional safeguard just as ICE ramps up enforcement tactics in states like Minnesota, where multiple recent actions have already been deemed unlawful by judges. The lawsuit comes after fatal incidents in Minneapolis during anti-ICE protests, intensifying scrutiny of federal immigration operations.ICE officials defend the policy, asserting that individuals subject to removal have already received due process. However, the lawsuit challenges that rationale, pointing out that due process does not override constitutional protections against warrantless home intrusions.Lawsuit challenges ICE ability to enter homes without warrants from US judges | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is facing federal charges over his role in covering a protest at a Minnesota church opposing President Trump’s immigration crackdown. The protest, which disrupted a church service in St. Paul on January 18, was livestreamed by Lemon and targeted the church because one pastor was allegedly also an ICE official. Lemon was arrested by the FBI, spent a night in custody, and appeared in court where he confirmed he plans to plead not guilty. He and six others, including independent journalist Georgia Fort, were indicted under laws prohibiting obstruction of access to houses of worship—a legal framework typically used against abortion clinic protests.Free press advocates and constitutional lawyers are raising concerns about the charges, framing them as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration targeting critics, including journalists. Lemon’s attorneys argue this is a political prosecution meant to suppress press freedom and distract from ongoing crises. In the archived livestream, Lemon is seen documenting the protest rather than leading it, further fueling First Amendment concerns. The DOJ’s case hinges on a controversial interpretation of laws rarely, if ever, used to prosecute journalists for protest coverage after the fact. Legal experts say there is no clear precedent for the charges, and press freedom groups are warning of escalating threats to constitutional protections.Ex-CNN journalist Don Lemon faces Minnesota protest charges | 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: Hitler Appointed ChancellorOn January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, a moment that marked the beginning of one of the darkest legal and political transformations in modern history. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not seize power in a coup; his rise was accomplished through entirely legal means under the Weimar Constitution. Once in office, the Nazi regime moved swiftly to erode civil liberties, beginning with the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended constitutional protections like freedom of speech, assembly, and due process. This decree, signed by President Hindenburg, gave the government extraordinary powers under the guise of national emergency.Shortly thereafter, the Enabling Act of March 1933 granted Hitler the authority to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag, including laws that violated the constitution itself. The judiciary, instead of serving as a check on executive overreach, largely complied or cooperated, enabling legal persecution of Jews, political dissidents, and other marginalized groups. Laws were passed systematically to isolate, disenfranchise, and ultimately exterminate entire populations, all with the appearance of legality and bureaucratic order.What happened in Germany is a stark reminder that authoritarianism often arrives wrapped in the language of law and order. The rule of law is not inherently just—it depends on who writes the laws, how they are enforced, and whether constitutional checks are robust enough to resist consolidation of power. Today, as various democracies grapple with executive overreach, politicized judiciaries, and emergency powers, the legal path taken in 1933 offers a chilling historical parallel. The slow erosion of legal norms, once set in motion, can be devastatingly hard to reverse.A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living and working in the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority by terminating protections that had been extended under the Biden administration. The court emphasized that, since Congress created TPS 35 years ago, no administration had claimed the power to cancel a country’s designation while it remained in effect. Judges found that the statute’s language clearly limits executive authority and does not permit unilateral termination mid-designation.Despite the ruling, the decision will not immediately restore protections because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the policy to remain in effect while the case continues on appeal. The court noted that the termination has left hundreds of thousands of migrants in fear of detention, deportation, and family separation, often to countries where they previously faced violence. The ruling also upheld a finding that TPS protections for Haitians were unlawfully ended, though the administration has pursued separate efforts to terminate those protections. One judge wrote separately to argue that the policy was influenced by racist stereotyping, citing public statements by senior officials about Venezuelan and Haitian migrants. Advocacy groups welcomed the ruling but stressed that, because of the Supreme Court’s order, affected migrants remain vulnerable in the meantime.Trump administration unlawfully ended Venezuelans’ legal status, US court rules | ReutersA significant wave of attorneys has left the U.S. federal government since Donald Trump returned to office, fueling a major shift in the legal workforce. Between January and November 2025, over 8,500 licensed attorneys exited federal service, leading to a net loss of 6,524—one of the sharpest declines in decades. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was especially affected, with notable departures from its Civil Rights Division and Federal Programs Branch, and the closure of its Tax Division. Some resignations were linked to policy disagreements, while others were the result of force reductions or shifting departmental priorities.This exodus has dramatically reshaped the hiring market for large law firms. In 2025, top-grossing firms hired over 1,100 lawyers directly from government positions, more than doubling the rate seen in prior years. Recruiters report a flood of interest from government attorneys, many of whom began reaching out even before Trump’s inauguration. However, while high-ranking officials and prosecutors remain in demand, lower-level attorneys without niche skills are facing a tougher private market.The overall federal workforce, not just lawyers, has contracted significantly under Trump’s renewed efforts to reduce government size. The DOJ alone has seen a net loss of nearly 9,000 employees. While the number of federal lawyers remains close to 2017 levels, the recent surge in departures marks a striking reversal of long-standing hiring trends.Lawyers leaving US government drive workforce shift | ReutersMassachusetts Governor Maura Healey has proposed legislation that would block other states from deploying their National Guard troops into Massachusetts without her approval. The move comes in response to President Donald Trump’s controversial use of the National Guard in 2025, when troops from various states were sent to cities like Chicago and Los Angeles without consent from local governments—breaking with long-standing norms regarding domestic military deployment.Several states already have similar laws, designed to prevent out-of-state Guard deployments unless coordinated through mutual agreement or in federally controlled situations. However, legal gray areas remain when the federal government asserts control over state troops. Last year, the Trump administration attempted to deploy federalized National Guard units from California and Texas to assist immigration enforcement in Portland, Oregon. That effort was met with lawsuits from state officials, who claimed no valid emergency justified the action; the troops were withdrawn before the legal battle concluded.Healey’s bill aims to reinforce state sovereignty over such deployments and to guard against federal overreach in the absence of local consent. The National Guard is typically used across state lines only in emergency situations like natural disasters, and even then, usually with approval from affected states.Massachusetts bill aims to block National Guard deployment from other states | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.This week’s closing theme is the Lacrymosa from Mozart’s Requiem in D minor, a work shrouded in both mystery and mourning. Mozart began composing the Requiem in 1791, the final year of his life, and died before completing it—adding an eerie depth to a piece already suffused with sorrow and transcendence. The Lacrymosa movement in particular is a haunting meditation on grief, built around the Latin text “Lacrimosa dies illa” (“That tearful day”), which describes the final judgment and the weeping of the soul.The music swells with mourning, yet carries within it an unmistakable dignity—grief not as chaos, but as reckoning. Today, as we reflect on events that echo the legal and moral breakdowns of the past—and resound in the present—the Lacrymosa feels like a fitting elegy. It reminds us that great tragedy often begins under the guise of order, and that mourning is not only for the dead, but for the living systems and values that can perish when unchecked power takes root.Mozart, though apolitical and far removed from the 20th century, composed music that reaches across time to articulate the emotional weight of collective loss. The unfinished nature of the Requiem also mirrors the historical unfinished business of justice—how societies reckon with their past, or fail to. This piece, suspended between the sacred and the human, between hope and despair, offers a solemn moment of reflection as the week closes.Without further ado, the Lacrymosa from Mozart’s Requiem in D minor – 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: “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