Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Elk v. WilkinsOn November 3, 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Elk v. Wilkins, ruling that Native Americans were not automatically U.S. citizens under the Constitution. The case involved John Elk, a Native American who had left his tribal affiliation and tried to register to vote in Omaha, Nebraska. He argued that by assimilating into American society and residing outside his tribe, he had placed himself under U.S. jurisdiction and thus should be granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The Court disagreed, holding that Native Americans born into tribal nations were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the sense required by the 14th Amendment unless naturalized through an act of Congress.This decision legally excluded Native Americans from the rights and protections afforded to other Americans, including the right to vote and equal protection under the law. It reinforced a system in which Native identity and U.S. citizenship were treated as mutually exclusive. While the Dawes Act of 1887 later allowed certain Native Americans to obtain citizenship by accepting land allotments and assimilating, this was a piecemeal and coercive process. True universal birthright citizenship for Native Americans was not granted until 1924, with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act, which declared all Native Americans born in the U.S. to be citizens.The Elk decision underscores the deep contradictions in American legal history regarding sovereignty, race, and citizenship, and it illustrates how constitutional protections were unequally applied. It remains a key moment in understanding the legal marginalization of Indigenous peoples in the United States.Daniel Ginzburg, a solo practitioner based in New Jersey, will argue his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, going up against renowned litigator Lisa Blatt. Ginzburg, who runs his practice with just a laptop and Dropbox, turned down offers from major law firms—including Blatt’s own—to retain control over the case and seize the rare opportunity to appear before the justices. His case centers on a procedural issue: whether a default judgment entered against his client, Coney Island Auto Parts, by a Tennessee bankruptcy court should be vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction.The underlying dispute involves a $48,696 debt related to bankruptcy proceedings filed by Vista-Pro Automotive in 2014. Ginzburg argues that the judgment was void from the start, but the Sixth Circuit denied relief, ruling his client’s challenge came too late—a position that conflicts with other federal appellate courts. This circuit split helped pave the way for Supreme Court review.Ginzburg, who emigrated from the former Soviet Union and graduated from St. John’s School of Law, took the case on a contingency basis after years of litigation. Despite the steep odds and high-profile opposition, he has spent months preparing, including mock arguments with law professors. Blatt, representing the bankruptcy trustee, argues that Ginzburg’s client had years to object and failed to act in time.Ginzburg remains focused on the procedural integrity of the system, saying his motivation is simple: “I wanted to win.” Yet even if successful, the case could be remanded for further proceedings in bankruptcy court.NJ Solo Practitioner to Face Lisa Blatt in Supreme Court DebutFBI Director Kash Patel forced out a senior official, Steven Palmer, who oversaw the bureau’s aviation operations, shortly after online scrutiny emerged over Patel’s use of an FBI jet to attend a personal event. Patel’s trip to State College, Pennsylvania—where his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins, performed the national anthem—was revealed through publicly accessible flight data and Patel’s own social media posts. Following the media attention, Palmer, a 27-year FBI veteran and acting head of the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), was told to resign or be fired. Though FBI directors are required to use government aircraft for security reasons, the optics of Patel’s travel sparked criticism, especially given his past remarks condemning similar behavior by former directors.Palmer’s firing marks the third leadership ouster within CIRG under Patel, reinforcing a pattern of high-level dismissals since his appointment. His predecessor, Brian Driscoll, is among a group of former officials suing the administration for allegedly retaliatory terminations tied to perceived political disloyalty. The FBI’s leadership page now lists Devin Kowalski, previously head of the San Juan office, as the new CIRG chief—a change that was reportedly planned before the jet controversy. Patel’s spokesman defended the director’s travel practices as compliant and cost-conscious, dismissing criticism as politically motivated.FBI Ousts Leader as Patel Fumes Over Attention to Agency Jet UseA federal judge in Rhode Island has ordered the Trump administration to immediately resume food assistance payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), despite an ongoing government shutdown. Judge John J. McConnell ruled that full benefits must be paid by Monday or, at the very least, partial payments must begin by Wednesday. He criticized the administration’s refusal to use $5.25 billion in congressionally approved contingency funds, calling the decision arbitrary and emphasizing the irreparable harm caused by payment delays to millions of low-income Americans.The administration had claimed it lacked authority to distribute the funds during the shutdown, which began on October 1, but McConnell rejected this argument. He noted that Trump himself had previously issued guidance during his first term stating that contingency funds could be used in such scenarios. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he does not want Americans to go hungry and directed his lawyers to seek clarity on funding SNAP legally, which the judge cited approvingly in his order.In addition to the Rhode Island case, another federal judge in Boston ruled similarly in a separate lawsuit brought by 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, saying the administration was wrong to assert it couldn’t use contingency funds. The USDA previously warned it may not have enough money to cover November benefits, which cost up to $9 billion monthly. Judge McConnell suggested the agency could also tap into a separate $23 billion fund if needed.Trump administration must pay food aid benefits within days, judge says | 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: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory’s readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada’s population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada’s leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada’s admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada’s telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state’s motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada’s admission also helped secure support for Lincoln’s re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE’s requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama’s address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama’s D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump’s mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto’s defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn’t committed any violence.After White and Valdivia’s suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob’ | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department’s recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani’s ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency’s employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs’ law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client’s withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master’s authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week’s closing theme is Saint-Saëns’ Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death’s dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music’s most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—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: October ManifestoOn October 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia issued the October Manifesto in response to mounting unrest and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Russian Empire. The 1905 Revolution had erupted earlier that year following the Bloody Sunday massacre, in which unarmed protesters were gunned down by imperial guards. Strikes, peasant revolts, and mutinies within the military and navy intensified public pressure for reform. The October Manifesto promised several liberalizing measures: the creation of a legislative Duma (parliament), expansion of civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience, and a commitment that no law would be enacted without the Duma’s consent.Though revolutionary factions remained skeptical, the manifesto temporarily quelled widespread unrest and led to the formation of Russia’s first constitutional structure. It marked the first time autocratic power in Russia was publicly limited by law, at least in theory. However, the tsarist regime maintained significant control: Nicholas retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and manipulate election laws. Conservative forces viewed the manifesto as a concession made under duress, while radicals criticized it as too limited and unenforceable.The October Manifesto also split opposition forces. Some liberals, known as Octobrists, supported working within the new constitutional framework. Others, including the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, dismissed the document as a façade and continued to push for broader revolution. In legal terms, the manifesto introduced the concept of legislative consent into Russian governance, establishing a precedent for popular representation in lawmaking. Although the Duma’s actual power remained constrained, the October Manifesto set the stage for future political conflicts that would culminate in the Russian Revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration’s recent approvals for oil and gas leasing in Alaska and road development projects are drawing scrutiny from environmental groups, who say the decisions were made opaquely during a government shutdown, limiting their ability to challenge them in court. These projects include reopening leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), issuing permits for the 211-mile Ambler Road to mining sites, and approving a controversial land exchange to allow road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. Environmental attorneys argue that key documents and analyses justifying these decisions remain unavailable, complicating legal strategies.The Interior Department, operating with a reduced staff, has only offered links to decision documents, providing little insight into environmental protections or regulatory compliance. Although these projects have been previously contested in court, the lack of transparency surrounding the latest approvals hinders further action. Some legal experts suggest potential conflicts of interest—such as the U.S. acquiring a stake in a company tied to the Ambler Road—could be grounds for future lawsuits. Additionally, the Izembek land swap may face legal challenges for bypassing required congressional approval.Environmental Groups Challenged in Fighting Trump’s Alaska MovesThree former Morgan Stanley financial advisers are suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a recent advisory opinion that they argue unlawfully shields the bank from arbitration claims related to unpaid deferred compensation. Filed in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that the Labor Department’s September 9 finding—that Morgan Stanley’s deferred compensation plan does not qualify as an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA—conflicts with two prior court rulings that said it does.The plaintiffs, Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, say the opinion was “arbitrary and capricious” and would undermine their efforts, and those of other former employees, to arbitrate claims over canceled or unpaid compensation. They also claim Morgan Stanley is already using the Labor Department’s stance to dismiss ongoing claims and seek reimbursement of legal costs.Though Morgan Stanley is not a defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs argue the agency overstepped its authority and are asking the court to revoke the advisory opinion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Sheresky et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, raises broader questions about administrative agencies issuing legal interpretations that can influence private litigation outcomes without proper judicial or legislative review.Former Morgan Stanley advisers sue US Labor Department | ReutersEli Lilly has announced a new partnership with Walmart to offer its weight-loss drug Zepbound at discounted, direct-to-consumer prices through Walmart pharmacies nationwide. This marks the first time customers using the LillyDirect platform can pick up the medication in person at a retail location. The lowest dose of Zepbound will be available for $349 per month for self-paying patients.The move is part of Lilly’s broader strategy to expand access and boost market share in the competitive obesity drug space, currently valued at around $150 billion. Zepbound competes directly with Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy, but recent data suggests Lilly has pulled ahead in prescriptions, despite Novo’s earlier market entry.Lilly reported that around 35% of Zepbound prescriptions in Q2 came from cash-paying customers using LillyDirect. Both Lilly and Novo have also made their weight-loss drugs available through various telehealth platforms, further expanding patient access.Lilly, Walmart launch first retail pick-up option for weight-loss drug | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week looks at the escalating tensions surrounding digital services taxes (DSTs), with France once again moving to raise its DST—from 3% to 15%—primarily targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. The U.S. has responded with familiar threats of tariffs and trade retaliation, repeating a now well-worn pattern of diplomatic pushback without addressing the underlying issue. That issue is structural: the global tax framework was built around physical presence, but today’s digital economy allows companies to generate profits in countries where they have no offices, employees, or infrastructure.As frustration builds in countries watching tech firms reap profits without corresponding local tax contributions, DSTs have become a tool to reclaim taxing rights. In response, nearly 140 countries have worked through the OECD to build a two-pillar international solution. Pillar One aims to reallocate taxing rights based on where users are located; Pillar Two introduces a global minimum tax. Yet, while other countries move forward, the U.S. continues to resist fully embracing Pillar One—out of concern for political optics and revenue loss.That resistance is counterproductive. By refusing to commit to a multilateral framework, the U.S. is guaranteeing the very outcome it opposes: a fragmented global tax landscape where each country sets its own rules. The current whac-a-mole strategy—reacting to every unilateral move with threats—offers no long-term protection for U.S. companies and only heightens global instability. It’s time for the U.S. to stop playing defense and help finalize a framework that reflects the realities of the digital economy.Whac-A-Mole Taxation Battles Will Persist Without A Global Deal 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: Black TuesdayOn October 29, 1929, the United States experienced one of the most catastrophic financial events in its history—Black Tuesday, the climax of the stock market crash that helped trigger the Great Depression. While primarily remembered as an economic crisis, this day also had profound and lasting legal consequences that reshaped American financial regulation and the federal government’s role in the economy.In the immediate aftermath, the lack of oversight and rampant speculation that had fueled the 1920s bull market came under intense scrutiny. The legal system responded in the 1930s with a suite of landmark legislative reforms designed to stabilize financial markets and restore public confidence. Chief among these were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established mandatory disclosure requirements for public companies and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce federal securities laws.These laws introduced the legal principle that corporations owe a duty of candor to investors and that misleading or fraudulent statements can be subject to civil and criminal penalties. They also laid the foundation for modern financial regulation, including rules governing insider trading, market manipulation, and fiduciary duties of brokers and advisors.The legal legacy of October 29, 1929, is thus not limited to market losses but includes the birth of a federal regulatory framework that continues to govern securities markets today. It marked a turning point where the federal government took a permanent role in policing Wall Street and protecting investors through statutory and administrative mechanisms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Argentina’s appeal of a $16.1 billion judgment related to its 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF. The judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in 2023, awarded $14.39 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and $1.71 billion to Eton Park Capital Management, former minority shareholders of YPF. They claimed Argentina violated contractual obligations by failing to make a tender offer when it nationalized 51% of YPF from Spanish energy firm Repsol.Argentina argues the case should not be heard in a U.S. court, citing sovereign immunity, misapplication of Argentine law, and the principle of international comity. It also contends the damages are vastly overstated—amounting to 45% of its 2024 national budget. The litigation has been financially backed by Burford Capital, which could receive a large payout if the appeal fails.The appeal arrives as President Javier Milei, a libertarian reformer, works to stabilize Argentina’s economy with austerity measures, having recently achieved a rare budget surplus. Meanwhile, Argentina is also separately appealing a court order to hand over YPF shares, an order currently on hold. The U.S. government has not taken a stance on the appeal but opposed the share turnover, citing foreign policy risks.Argentina to ask US appeals court to overturn $16.1 billion YPF judgment | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Bilal Essayli was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for California’s Central District, which includes Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli’s continued service beyond the 120-day interim period allowed by law was improper since he had neither been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This decision disqualifies him from serving in the acting role but allows him to remain as first assistant U.S. attorney.The ruling does not dismiss three criminal indictments issued during Essayli’s tenure, as they were signed by other prosecutors and no due process violations were found. Still, the judgment raises concerns about leadership stability in the largest federal judicial district in the country, serving roughly 19 million people.Essayli’s appointment was part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of bypassing Senate confirmation for key prosecutorial roles. A similar ruling recently invalidated the acting U.S. attorney appointment in Nevada, and another decision in New Jersey blocked Alina Habba, a Trump ally, from participating in prosecutions. These appointments are now under appeal.Judge disqualifies ‘acting’ US attorney in California | ReutersThe celebrity video platform Cameo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court, accusing it of unlawfully using the name “Cameo” for a new feature in its Sora video generation app. Cameo claims that OpenAI’s use of the term for AI-generated virtual likenesses causes brand confusion and threatens the distinctiveness of its trademark.OpenAI launched Sora as a standalone app in late September, and its feature—also named “Cameo”—lets users create AI-generated videos that can include virtual celebrities. Cameo argues this directly competes with its own service, where users pay real celebrities for personalized video messages. The company pointed to examples of AI-generated videos featuring public figures like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul, claiming this puts OpenAI in head-to-head competition with their business model.Cameo said it attempted to resolve the issue privately, but OpenAI declined to change the feature’s name. OpenAI responded that it disagrees with the lawsuit, arguing no one can monopolize a generic term like “cameo.”The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court injunction to stop OpenAI from using the name “Cameo.”OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora’s ‘Cameo’ feature | ReutersTexas has hired the law firm Keller Postman—which previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta—to lead a new lawsuit alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Filed in Panola County, the suit accuses Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, Tylenol’s current owner, of misleading consumers by marketing the drug to pregnant women despite knowing potential developmental risks tied to its active ingredient, acetaminophen.Ashley Keller, a senior partner at the firm, said the case will be handled on a contingency basis, meaning Texas pays only if it wins, similar to prior deals with Meta and Google. The firm’s effective hourly rate under that model can reach $3,780, though its total fees are capped at 11% of any recovery. Keller defended the state’s approach, saying the firm invests heavily and shares the litigation risk with Texas.The lawsuit builds on ongoing national litigation over acetaminophen and childhood developmental disorders, though courts have previously rejected similar claims. A 2024 federal ruling in New York dismissed related cases after expert testimony linking acetaminophen to ADHD was excluded. Texas’ case, however, is distinct because it focuses on state-level claims of deceptive trade practices and fraudulent transfer, alleging J&J unlawfully moved Tylenol liabilities to Kenvue.Texas Returns to Keller Postman to Link Tylenol to Child Autism 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: Volstead ActOn October 28, 1919, the Volstead Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto, laying the legal foundation for Prohibition in the United States. Formally titled the National Prohibition Act, the law was intended to provide for the enforcement of the 18th Amendment, which had been ratified earlier that year and prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors.The Volstead Act, named after Representative Andrew Volstead of Minnesota who introduced it, defined what constituted “intoxicating liquors”—a key point of contention. It set the threshold at anything containing more than 0.5% alcohol by volume, thereby banning even beer and wine, which many Americans had not expected to be included. The law also outlined penalties and enforcement mechanisms, giving the federal government new policing powers.Prohibition officially began in January 1920, sparking a surge in bootlegging, speakeasies, and organized crime. While intended to curb alcohol consumption and related social problems, the law instead fueled a vast illicit economy. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for Prohibition declined steadily throughout the 1920s.The Volstead Act remained in effect until the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933, marking the only time a constitutional amendment has been entirely undone by a subsequent amendment. The legacy of the Volstead Act lingers in ongoing debates about federal regulation, moral legislation, and the limits of enforcement.In a push to speed up electricity access for the fast-growing data center sector, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has directed federal energy regulators to consider a rule that would streamline how new projects connect to the electric grid. The proposed rule, sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), would allow customers to file combined requests for both energy demand and generation at the same site—cutting study times and costs. Wright also asked FERC to explore completing grid project reviews within 60 days, a sharp departure from the years-long timelines currently common.This move comes as U.S. power demand rises sharply, largely due to artificial intelligence workloads, prompting the Trump administration to seek expanded capacity, particularly from fossil fuel and nuclear sources. Though the Energy Secretary cannot compel FERC to act, the Republican-led commission will now weigh the proposals. Industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute praised the initiative as a necessary step to stay competitive, while environmental advocates criticized the fast-tracked timelines as reckless, especially during a government shutdown.Wright also urged FERC to ease the permitting process for hydroelectric development, drawing praise from the hydropower industry, which sees regulatory delays as a major barrier to growth. The proposals reflect the administration’s strategy to meet surging energy demand quickly, though they raise concerns about environmental oversight and procedural rigor.US pushes regulators on connecting data centers to grid | ReutersTexas’s new Business Court, launched in September 2024 across five major cities, is quickly becoming a boon for law firms, attracting a wave of high-stakes commercial litigation and prompting staffing increases. Major firms like Jackson Walker, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Baker Botts are leading the charge, with over 220 cases already filed—far exceeding early expectations. The court, designed to compete with Delaware’s Court of Chancery and bolster Texas’s business-friendly reputation, is drawing interest from corporate giants like AT&T, BP, and Exxon Mobil.Lawyers are treating the venue as a prestige arena for complex business disputes, and firms are responding by hiring, publishing guides, and producing media content to market their expertise. For example, Norton Rose launched a video series on court developments, while Haynes Boone created an internal task force to track rule changes.The court’s promise of faster timelines—often under 18 months compared to multi-year waits in traditional courts—is one of its major selling points. Judges are aiming to build out a body of corporate case law to make Texas a viable alternative to Delaware for resolving business disputes. Despite no trials yet, over three dozen cases are jury-bound in the next year, signaling strong demand. The court’s rapid rise suggests it could reshape where and how major commercial litigation happens in the U.S.Law Firms Join Early Winners in ‘Very Hot’ Texas Business CourtThe head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal worker union, is urging Senate Democrats to help end the nearly month-long government shutdown—the second longest in U.S. history. AFGE President Everett Kelley called for an immediate reopening of the government through a “clean” short-term funding bill, aligning with a version passed by the Republican-controlled House in September.Democrats have resisted that approach, instead demanding that Republicans first agree to renew subsidies for Obamacare insurance plans. Kelley’s statement increases pressure on Democrats, as federal employees begin to feel the financial strain—many missed their first full paycheck last week, and essential services like food aid and air traffic control are being impacted.Kelley also called for guaranteed back pay for all affected workers and urged bipartisan efforts to fix the broken appropriations process and address rising costs. A senior Senate GOP aide noted the union’s position might signal a turning point in negotiations, potentially encouraging Democrats to reconsider the short-term funding route.Federal Worker Union Calls to End Shutdown, Pressuring DemocratsMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Italy’s decision to raise its flat tax on wealthy foreign residents—a move that reflects the unsustainability of luring the rich with short-term tax deals. Italy isn’t backtracking because its plan failed outright; it’s doing so because it succeeded just long enough to paper over a deeper revenue gap. The original policy, a 100,000-euro annual payment to exempt new wealthy residents from foreign income taxes, was a bold but limited solution that boosted luxury markets without delivering long-term fiscal stability. Now, Italy is bumping that fee up to 300,000 euros by 2026 to keep the scheme afloat.That’s a warning for the U.S., where the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act followed a similar path—offering generous upfront tax cuts to high earners with no lasting funding mechanism. Rather than building resilience into the tax system, both countries are layering short-term relief on top of structural deficits, leaving future policymakers to scramble for temporary fixes. I argue for automatic sunset provisions that scale back preferential tax treatment when equity or revenue metrics worsen, allowing tax codes to serve as stabilizers instead of giveaways. Metrics like tax revenue as a share of GDP or the Gini coefficient could trigger phaseouts without requiring political intervention.Italy’s flat tax is a case study in what happens when fiscal policy becomes a subscription model for the wealthy: the price keeps going up, and the returns diminish. The U.S. is running a version of the same play, just with fewer disclosures and rosier assumptions. 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: Copyright Act of 1976On October 27, 1978, key provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 officially took effect, modernizing U.S. copyright law for the first time in nearly 70 years. Although signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, the Act delayed implementation of its core provisions until this date to allow for public and institutional adjustment. The law marked a major shift in how copyright was conceived, particularly by aligning U.S. law more closely with international standards.One of the most important changes was the extension of copyright protection to unpublished works, which had previously existed in a murky legal space. The Act also introduced the concept of works being protected once they were “fixed in a tangible medium of expression”, rather than requiring publication or registration, making protection more automatic and accessible. It moved away from the fixed-term system—previously 28 years with a renewal—toward a life-plus-50-years standard for most works, further updated to life-plus-70 years in 1998.Additionally, the law provided for fair use codification, laying out a four-factor test still used by courts today. It also clarified authorship and ownership rights, especially in the context of work-for-hire arrangements, and created clearer paths for compulsory licensing of certain works, including music.The Copyright Act of 1976 thus ushered in a more author-centric and technologically adaptive framework. It was designed with an eye toward the emerging digital era, even though it predates the internet. The Act remains the backbone of American copyright law today, regularly referenced and amended as new challenges arise.What I guess could be broadly considered a feel-good story, Isaac Stein’s pivot from federal tax attorney to full-time hot dog vendor during the government shutdown is equal parts charming and quietly damning. With the IRS idled and thousands of public workers furloughed, Stein has taken his sidelining as an opportunity to live out a childhood dream — running a hot dog cart named SHYSTERS, complete with Moon Pies, RC Cola, and a slogan that reads, “The Only Honest Ripoff in D.C.” Wearing his usual business suit, he blends satire and performance art while serving construction workers, telecommuters, and other locals near the D.C. Metro.What began as a quirky weekend hobby has become a daily operation thanks to the indefinite work stoppage. Stein, 31, brings a regulatory lawyer’s precision to the permitting process and a people person’s flair to sidewalk commerce, referencing old-school D.C. aesthetics and childhood nostalgia with every dog he serves. Customers who can explain the cultural significance of RC Cola and Moon Pies even get a nickel off — an appropriately ironic twist in a city where billions of dollars are stuck in limbo.But the charm of this setup — a suit-clad lawyer slinging hot dogs under a punny sign — shouldn’t distract from the underlying issue: Stein, like hundreds of thousands of other federal workers, is benched not by choice but by political dysfunction. He can afford to make it into an art project; others can’t. The shutdown has real economic and emotional consequences, and not everyone has the resources or flexibility to turn lost income into a pop-up business. As clever and good-humored as SHYSTERS is, it also reminds us that “doing something fun” is not a substitute for stable governance or paychecks that come on time.Washington lawyer on furlough lives out dream of running a hot dog cart | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has appointed Michael Selig as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), signaling a continued push to make the U.S. a global hub for digital assets. Selig, currently the CFTC’s chief counsel for its crypto task force, confirmed his selection alongside David Sacks, the White House’s lead official for AI and crypto policy. Both praised the move as aligning with broader goals to modernize financial regulations and support innovation in digital markets.Selig stated he would prioritize freedom, competition, and innovation while helping establish the U.S. as the “Crypto Capital of the World.” His appointment follows a series of pro-crypto policy moves under Trump, including passage of the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts, both aimed at creating clearer regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies.Selig replaces Brian Quintenz, whose stalled nomination was reportedly derailed by lobbying efforts from Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss. The episode highlighted tensions within the crypto industry over regulatory leadership. Selig brings both public and private sector experience to the role, having previously worked at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher before joining the CFTC in March 2025. His appointment reflects the administration’s continued alignment with digital asset advocates and its willingness to reshape financial oversight around emerging technologies.Trump names Michael Selig to chair CFTC; Selig cites crypto capital goal | ReutersExxon Mobil has filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging two newly enacted climate disclosure laws that require large companies to publicly report greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. In its complaint filed in federal court, Exxon argues that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling it to endorse views on climate reporting it disagrees with. The company contends that California’s mandated frameworks are misleading, unnecessary, and conflict with existing voluntary disclosures and federal regulations.SB 253, set to take effect in 2026, targets companies earning over $1 billion annually and requires them to report both direct and indirect emissions — including those from suppliers and consumers. SB 261 applies to firms with over $500 million in revenue and mandates disclosure of climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies. Exxon says the laws amount to forced speech and overreach by the state, particularly given the overlap with federal disclosure requirements.While tech giants like Apple, Ikea, and Microsoft backed the legislation, major industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau Federation opposed it, calling the mandates burdensome. California has defended similar environmental policies in the past, but the outcome of this case could shape how far individual states can go in regulating corporate climate disclosures, especially when federal standards already exist.Exxon sues California over climate disclosure laws | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Vetoes War Powers ResolutionOn October 24, 1973, President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution (H.J. Res. 542), a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad. The resolution came in the wake of growing public and congressional frustration over the Vietnam War and secret military actions in Southeast Asia. The law required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and prohibited armed forces from remaining in conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Nixon, in a written veto message, declared the measure “unconstitutional and dangerous,” arguing that it infringed on the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.Despite Nixon’s objections, Congress overrode the veto on November 7, 1973, with bipartisan support, thereby enacting the War Powers Resolution into law. This override marked a rare and forceful assertion of legislative authority over foreign military engagements. The resolution aimed to correct what many in Congress saw as decades of executive overreach in matters of war and peace. However, its constitutional legitimacy has remained contested. Presidents from both parties have often complied only in part—or ignored it altogether—asserting that the resolution unlawfully limits executive authority.While the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent unilateral military action, it has had limited practical effect in restraining presidents from engaging in hostilities without express congressional approval. Legal scholars continue to debate its enforceability and the constitutional balance it attempts to strike. The 1973 veto and subsequent override encapsulate enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of U.S. military power.Two federal judges—Julien Neals of New Jersey and Henry Wingate of Mississippi—recently admitted that erroneous rulings issued from their chambers were the result of law clerks or interns improperly using AI tools. The judges revealed in letters to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the flawed opinions contained fictitious citations or parties due to unvetted generative AI research. Judge Neals said a law school intern used ChatGPT, which led to nonexistent case quotes in a June 30 order, violating his chambers’ unwritten policy against AI use. He has since formalized that policy. Judge Wingate reported that a law clerk used Perplexity AI to help draft a July 20 restraining order, which contained completely inaccurate case details. He acknowledged the draft “should have never been docketed” and is now requiring dual reviews of all drafts and hard-copy verification of cited cases.Legal scholars were critical of the situation, arguing that the use of AI does not relieve judges of their duty to verify citations and legal reasoning. Professors Stephen Gillers and Bruce Green both questioned how such oversights could occur and whether this reflects a broader trend of judges signing off on unverified drafts. Senator Chuck Grassley, who initiated an inquiry into the incidents, urged the judiciary to develop robust AI policies to prevent similar breakdowns in judicial accuracy. Interim guidance from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now cautions against using AI for core judicial tasks and emphasizes user accountability.Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out (1)Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the House of Representatives to officially swear her in, and the case has been assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23 to succeed her late father, Raúl Grijalva, has not yet been seated, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has delayed scheduling her swearing-in. Her formal entry into Congress would reduce the Republican majority and enable Democrats to trigger a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Judge McFadden is known for conservative rulings, though his record includes some independent decisions, such as restoring the Associated Press’ White House access. Grijalva’s legal team is examining the implications of his assignment to the case.Grijalva argues that the delay is not just procedural but prevents her from doing the basic work of a representative. Without a formal swearing-in, she lacks an office budget, staff, constituent services, and a working phone line. The number for her late father’s office still routes to outdated voicemails. In contrast, Speaker Johnson downplayed the significance of the delay, suggesting Grijalva can still serve constituents informally. The case, Ariz. v. House of Representatives, now centers not only on procedural norms but also on the balance of political power in a narrowly divided House.Grijalva’s Lawsuit to Force House Swearing-In Draws Trump JudgeNew York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to plead not guilty today in federal court to charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of misrepresenting a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia property as a second home to secure a lower mortgage interest rate—saving nearly $19,000—when she allegedly used the home as a rental investment. James denies wrongdoing and plans to challenge the charges, calling them baseless.The case marks a dramatic turn for James, a Democrat who last year won a $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Although the monetary penalty was overturned on appeal, the court upheld the underlying fraud finding. James is one of several public figures who have clashed with Trump and are now facing criminal charges under his administration, alongside former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.Critics, including a third of Republicans according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, believe Trump is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target perceived enemies. The lead prosecutor in the James case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was appointed by Trump after he replaced a prior prosecutor who raised concerns about the strength of the case. James’ team argues Halligan is unlawfully serving in the role and has already moved to dismiss the charges. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.NY Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump adversary, to plead not guilty to mortgage charge | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Johann Strauss, Jr.This week’s closing theme features Johann Strauss Jr. and a spirited dive into the Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss – I (”Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss – I”). Known as the “Waltz King,” Strauss Jr. was born on October 25, 1825, in Vienna and became the most celebrated composer of light dance music in the 19th century. While his father, Johann Strauss Sr., founded the family’s musical dynasty, it was Strauss Jr. who elevated the Viennese waltz to international acclaim, transforming what had been a lively but modest ballroom dance into a glittering art form.Strauss Jr. composed over 500 works, including waltzes, polkas, and operettas, many of which captured the charm and social energy of Habsburg Vienna. His most famous pieces—like The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Woods, and Vienna Blood—remain fixtures in concert halls and New Year’s galas to this day. The selection in Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt offers a snapshot of this legacy, blending elegance, momentum, and melodic wit with unmistakable Viennese flair.Beyond their musical appeal, these waltzes represent a cultural moment: a fading empire still wrapped in gilded pageantry, danced into memory by the music of Strauss. They also underscore Strauss Jr.’s gift for orchestration—light but never shallow, sentimental yet never saccharine. His music invites listeners not just to hear, but to move, swirl, and feel the rhythm of a society twirling on the edge of modernity.As we close this week, let the shimmering 3/4 time of Johann Strauss Jr. remind us of both the power of beauty and the politics of public joy. In the same way his music bridged popular entertainment and sophisticated art, so too does this moment ask us to consider how culture can move between courts, crowds, and chambers alike.Without further ado, Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss, the first movement – 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: PATRIOT Act IntroducedOn October 23, 2001, just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3162, the bill that would become the USA PATRIOT Act. Officially titled the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” the legislation represented one of the most significant expansions of domestic surveillance and law enforcement powers in modern U.S. history. The bill was drafted rapidly, largely by the Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft, and was introduced with bipartisan support.Key provisions of the act included expanded authority for wiretaps, the ability to access business and personal records through National Security Letters, and increased surveillance of internet and email communications. Section 215, in particular, allowed the government to obtain “any tangible things” relevant to a terrorism investigation, a phrase later scrutinized for its vagueness. Civil liberties organizations quickly raised concerns about the law’s impact on privacy, due process, and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.Despite these objections, the bill moved swiftly through Congress. The House passed it on October 24, and the Senate followed on October 25. President George W. Bush signed it into law on October 26, 2001. In the years that followed, the PATRIOT Act would become a focal point in debates over national security versus individual rights, particularly as revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA surfaced in the 2010s.Some provisions were later challenged in court, amended by Congress, or allowed to expire. Nevertheless, the PATRIOT Act reshaped the legal framework for counterterrorism in the U.S., leaving a legacy still felt in debates over surveillance, transparency, and executive power today.Several major lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., posted record or near-record revenues in the third quarter of 2025, driven by policy shifts under President Donald Trump and rising client demand for regulatory guidance. Ballard Partners led the surge, reporting a 400% year-over-year increase and nearly $25 million in lobbying revenue. Other top performers included BGR Group ($19.1 million), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck ($18.9 million), Holland & Knight ($13.9 million), and Hogan Lovells ($4.4 million), each claiming their best quarter yet.The increase in lobbying activity was largely fueled by the Trump administration’s aggressive moves on tariffs, trade, and the implementation of a sweeping tax-and-spending bill signed in July. Lobbyists noted that even during the early October government shutdown, regulatory deadlines such as public comment periods on tariffs kept work moving. Akin Gump reported $16.3 million, its best third quarter ever, and K&L Gates earned $5.4 million.Overall lobbying expenditures have continued to climb, with companies spending over $2.53 billion by late July 2025. Industries like pharmaceuticals, health products, and tech accounted for a significant share of that spending, reflecting ongoing regulatory and legislative uncertainty.Lobbying firms record 3rd quarter gains amid Trump policy shifts | ReutersPaul Ingrassia, nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, withdrew from consideration after losing Republican support in the Senate. He announced his withdrawal ahead of a scheduled confirmation hearing, citing an insufficient number of GOP votes. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had already postponed a prior hearing in August amid growing concerns.Senate Republicans distanced themselves from Ingrassia after Politico published alleged chat messages from him. His connections to controversial figures — including his legal work for Andrew Tate and attendance at a rally for White nationalist Nick Fuentes — drew additional scrutiny. Senator Thom Tillis labeled him “unfit to serve,” and Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the nomination was unlikely to move forward.The Office of Special Counsel plays a crucial role in enforcing civil service protections, particularly amid Trump’s push to reshape the federal workforce. It also oversees Hatch Act compliance, which limits political activity by federal employees. With the Merit Systems Protection Board now restored, a new nominee will be needed to confront upcoming legal battles over career employee protections.Trump’s Special Counsel Nominee Withdraws After GOP BlowbackIn Delaware court, tensions escalated between bidders and creditors over who should win control of Citgo Petroleum’s parent company, PDV Holding, as part of a court-ordered auction aimed at compensating creditors tied to Venezuela’s defaults and expropriations. The case, which has dragged on for eight years, now faces a decisive moment after three bidding rounds.A $5.9 billion offer from Amber Energy, affiliated with Elliott Investment Management, has been recommended by the court-appointed auction officer. However, Citgo’s legal team and Venezuelan representatives argue the offer is too low, especially compared to a $7.9 billion bid from a Gold Reserve subsidiary. They also allege flaws in the auction process itself.Amber’s bid includes a key side deal to pay $2.1 billion to holders of a disputed Venezuelan bond, making timing crucial since the agreement expires in early December. Gold Reserve, on the other hand, seeks to distribute more of the proceeds among a wider group of creditors, raising concerns over whether bondholders should benefit at all given unresolved legal questions about the bond’s validity.Judge Leonard Stark also heard motions from Venezuela and Gold Reserve to disqualify him, court officer Robert Pincus, and two advisory firms over alleged conflicts of interest. The U.S. Treasury Department’s approval is still required to finalize the auction, and both the Maduro government and Venezuela’s opposition oppose the sale.Bidders, creditors battle in US court over who should win Citgo auction | 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: US Naval Blockade of CubaOn October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy delivered a televised address announcing that the United States would impose a naval “quarantine” on Cuba. This action followed the discovery of Soviet nuclear missile installations on the island, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. The announcement marked the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a 13-day standoff that brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before. In his address, Kennedy framed the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba as a direct threat to American national security and international peace. He warned that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviet Union, prompting a full retaliatory response.The legal foundation for the blockade, while not formally declared an act of war, was justified under the collective security framework of the Organization of American States (OAS). The U.S. sought and received OAS backing to frame the blockade as a multilateral action rather than a unilateral act of aggression. Over the next six days, the world watched as U.S. Navy ships encircled the island, intercepting Soviet vessels bound for Cuba. Behind the scenes, intense diplomatic negotiations unfolded between the White House and the Kremlin.Ultimately, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the missile sites in exchange for a U.S. public pledge not to invade Cuba and a secret agreement to remove American missiles from Turkey. The crisis ended without military conflict, but it exposed the fragility of Cold War-era deterrence. The blockade, while effective, raised unresolved legal questions about executive war powers, international law, and the role of regional organizations in legitimizing force. It also led directly to the establishment of the “hotline” between Washington and Moscow and spurred negotiations for the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.President Donald Trump responded to reports that he is seeking $230 million from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for legal costs tied to federal investigations, stating he is not personally involved in the request but would donate any awarded money to charity. The New York Times reported that Trump is pursuing compensation, alleging the investigations against him were politically motivated. Trump claimed he has not been in direct contact with his lawyers about the matter but believes the DOJ owes him for what he called unfair treatment related to election interference investigations.Trump has filed two administrative claims—typically a precursor to a lawsuit. One challenges the FBI and special counsel’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The other concerns the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, during which classified documents were seized, and accuses the DOJ of malicious prosecution and privacy violations.The filings mark a notable reversal, as Trump now leads the federal government that previously investigated him. A DOJ spokesperson stated that any potential conflicts in reviewing the claims would be handled according to ethics guidance from career officials.Trump says Justice Department owes him money, vows to donate any payout to charity | ReutersThe state of Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. House of Representatives over the delay in swearing in Democrat Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election to replace her late father, Representative Raul Grijalva. Although Speaker Mike Johnson has said she will be sworn in when the House reconvenes, he has not called lawmakers back to Washington, citing the ongoing government shutdown and the Senate’s failure to pass a resolution.Arizona Attorney General Kristin Mayes argues in the suit that the delay violates the Constitution by preventing a duly elected representative, who meets all legal qualifications, from assuming office. The state is asking a judge to recognize Grijalva as a House member upon taking the oath, even allowing someone other than Johnson to administer it if necessary.Speaker Johnson dismissed the lawsuit as “absurd,” insisting the House controls its own procedures and accusing Mayes of seeking publicity. With three vacancies, the current House makeup is 219 Republicans to 213 Democrats. Once sworn in, Grijalva would slightly narrow that margin to 219-214.Arizona contends the delay is politically motivated, aimed at stopping Grijalva from supporting a petition that would force a vote on a bill requiring the release of all unclassified documents related to Jeffrey Epstein from the Trump administration. Grijalva herself has accused Johnson of silencing her district to protect political allies and obstruct justice for Epstein survivors.Arizona sues US House over delay in swearing in Democrat Grijalva | ReutersApple has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a lower court ruling that restricts its ability to collect commissions on certain app purchases. The request follows a contempt finding by District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ruled in April that Apple had violated her previous 2021 order by continuing to impose indirect restrictions on alternative payment systems for app developers. That earlier order came out of a lawsuit filed by Fortnite creator Epic Games, which sought to loosen Apple’s control over in-app transactions.In the appeals hearing, Apple’s attorney argued that the district judge went too far by expanding the original injunction, and insisted that Apple deserves to be compensated for developers’ access to its ecosystem. Apple claims it followed the original court order but maintains it has a right to impose a fair commission, including on external purchases. After Apple removed prior restrictions, it introduced a new 27% fee on purchases made outside its App Store if the user clicked a link within the app—prompting Epic to argue that Apple is still undermining the court’s intent.Judge Smith of the appellate panel expressed concern about the potential financial impact of the new injunction, suggesting the stakes run into billions of dollars. Epic’s attorney countered that Apple shouldn’t get another chance to justify its commission practices after allegedly misleading the lower court. The district judge also referred Apple and an executive to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation.A decision from the appeals court is expected in the coming months, and the case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court if further appealed.Apple asks US appeals court to lift app store restrictions in Epic Games case | ReutersSEC Chairman Paul Atkins is advancing a fast-track strategy to implement deregulatory changes without going through the full rulemaking process, which often takes a year or more and is vulnerable to legal challenges. Appointed under President Trump, Atkins is using policy statements, guidance memos, and interpretations of existing law to relax corporate disclosure rules, restrict shareholder proposals, and expand companies’ ability to divert investor fraud claims into mandatory arbitration.For instance, the SEC recently issued guidance allowing companies to include arbitration clauses in their filings—avoiding formal rulemaking while significantly altering investor rights. Similarly, Atkins has encouraged companies to reject environmental and social shareholder proposals under Delaware law, without a formal vote by SEC commissioners. Critics, including Democratic Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, argue this approach sidesteps transparency and due process.While Atkins plans to propose new rules on shareholder resolutions and corporate disclosures by April 2026, current changes are being made through interpretations and enforcement discretion. This comes amid a government shutdown that has furloughed most of the SEC’s staff, further limiting the agency’s capacity to pursue traditional rulemaking.Atkins has also voiced support for eliminating quarterly reporting and scaling back executive compensation disclosures. However, even if rules are adopted, their durability is uncertain. Previous SEC rules—such as Biden-era climate disclosures and Gensler-era hedge fund regulations—have faced legal reversals. Experts note that rules with bipartisan support and grounded in market efficiency are more likely to survive than politically motivated ones.SEC Chief Fast Tracks Agenda, Averting Slog Through Rule Changes 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: Abrams v. United States ArguedOn October 21, 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Abrams v. United States, a seminal case in the development of First Amendment jurisprudence. The case arose during the post–World War I Red Scare, when the government aggressively prosecuted speech perceived as dangerous or subversive. The defendants were Russian immigrants who distributed leaflets in New York City denouncing U.S. military intervention in the Russian Revolution and calling for a general strike. They were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 for allegedly inciting resistance to the war effort.The Supreme Court upheld their convictions in a 7–2 decision, finding that the speech posed a “clear and present danger” to national security. However, it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent, joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, that left the most lasting impression. Holmes argued that only speech intended to produce imminent lawless action should be punished, introducing the enduring metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” as essential to democratic deliberation.Legally, the case illustrates the government’s ability to impose post-speech punishment—penalties after speech has occurred—as opposed to prior restraint, which involves preventing speech before it happens. The distinction is vital in American law: prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional, while post-speech sanctions may be permitted under narrow circumstances. In Abrams, the Court leaned toward deference to governmental wartime authority, but Holmes’ dissent marked the beginning of a shift toward greater speech protections.The decision laid the groundwork for the more speech-protective standards adopted in later cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The post-speech punishment principle debated in Abrams remains a cornerstone of First Amendment law, highlighting the tension between state interests and individual liberties in times of political conflict.When two alleged drug traffickers survived a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean, the Trump administration immediately repatriated them rather than detain them — a decision that reveals a troubling logic behind the president’s new “war” on narco‑terrorism. The administration has declared the campaign a “non‑international armed conflict,” but legal experts note that this classification offers no real authority for military detention. In other words, the United States can kill suspects under this self‑declared war framework, but it has no clear legal footing to hold survivors.Experts said the administration likely chose the least damaging option: send the survivors home and avoid a courtroom. Detaining them at Guantanamo or on U.S. soil would have triggered habeas corpus challenges, forced disclosure of evidence, and risked exposing the strikes as legally indefensible. One former State Department lawyer said any trial would have “undermined the narrative” that the attacks were lawful military operations. By refusing to hold prisoners, the administration sidesteps both judicial scrutiny and transparency.The result is a perverse incentive structure. If survivors are released but detainees are liabilities, the easiest path for officials is to ensure there are no survivors at all. The legal asymmetry—where killing is simpler than capture—encourages tactics that maximize lethality while minimizing accountability. As a result, Trump’s “drug war” risks becoming less about law enforcement and more about ensuring that no one lives long enough to challenge the legality of U.S. actions.In Trump’s drug war, prisoners may be too much of a legal headache, experts say | ReutersGlobal pharmaceutical companies are rapidly ramping up U.S. manufacturing in response to a looming Trump administration policy that would impose 100% tariffs on imported branded and patented drugs. While enforcement is delayed for companies that commit to domestic investment, the threat has already triggered a wave of fast-tracked spending, direct-to-consumer sales shifts, and pricing concessions in exchange for temporary tariff exemptions.Major players like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, and Roche have pledged tens of billions of dollars to build or expand plants across the U.S. to shield themselves from future penalties. Some, like Pfizer and AstraZeneca, secured multi-year tariff exemptions by agreeing to pricing deals and participation in the administration’s new TrumpRx.gov program. Others, like Novartis and Sanofi, are spreading investments across multiple states and sites, creating thousands of jobs as part of their strategic insulation.The tariff threat is driving a major reshaping of global supply chains and investment strategies, as companies aim to avoid the legal and financial burden of import duties by domesticating both manufacturing and distribution. While some firms say they are already well-positioned with sufficient U.S. inventory, the broader trend reflects a defensive industry-wide shift to preemptively comply with the administration’s protectionist push.Global drugmakers rush to boost US presence as tariff threat looms | ReutersTrevor Milton, the disgraced founder of electric-truck startup Nikola, is somehow back as a CEO—this time leading SyberJet Aircraft, a private jet manufacturer, according to reporting by Techdirt. Milton was convicted of fraud for deceiving investors about Nikola’s technology, most famously releasing a misleading video of a prototype truck that was actually rolling downhill, not self-propelled. He was sentenced to four years in prison but never served a day, thanks to a pardon from Donald Trump earlier this year—reportedly after donating millions to Trump-aligned causes and hiring the brother of current Attorney General Pam Bondi as his attorney.Now, just months after that pardon, Milton has been tapped to lead development of a new high-speed jet for SyberJet, with promised performance metrics that already sound suspiciously ambitious. The company, privately backed, won’t need to answer to public shareholders—but it will still need investor trust to raise money for a jet not slated for delivery until 2032. TechDirt points out how the company’s promotional material leans into rewriting Milton’s history, calling him “renowned” rather than acknowledging the full scope of his fraudulent past.The piece underscores a broader theme of “failing upward,” highlighting how white-collar offenders, especially white men with political connections, often land on their feet despite serious criminal convictions–and has some interesting implications for the future career of George Santos. Milton’s quick rebound from federal fraud conviction to C-suite leadership is less an exception than a reminder of how accountability gaps persist in American corporate culture.Convicted Fraudster Trevor Milton Rides His Trump Pardon To Another CEO Job, Somehow | TechdirtIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I dive in to the governor’s race in my home state. The 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial race has become a tax-policy showdown between Jack Ciattarelli and Mikie Sherrill—both of whom are framing affordability as their central mission, but doing so with deeply flawed approaches. Ciattarelli is offering aggressive tax cuts and structural overhauls that are, frankly, reckless in a state with a delicate and complicated fiscal ecosystem. His plan to flatten income tax brackets and slash corporate rates isn’t just optimistic—it’s ahistorical. We’ve seen this movie before in Kansas, where sweeping tax cuts led to revenue collapse, credit downgrades, and bipartisan regret. Ciattarelli is essentially proposing a rerun, but with no clearer escape plan if it fails.Sherrill, by contrast, is pragmatic to the point of inertia. Her emphasis on municipal service sharing and administrative tweaks is fine as far as it goes—but it doesn’t go very far. Her promise to freeze utility rates via emergency powers, for instance, isn’t just legally questionable, it also misdiagnoses the issue: state governments don’t control wholesale energy prices. It’s a symbolic gesture dressed up as policy.Neither candidate seems willing to address the structural drivers of New Jersey’s notoriously high property taxes, preferring instead to nibble around the edges or promise caps that could backfire. That’s a missed opportunity. As I argue in the column, New Jersey doesn’t need sweeping cuts or more bureaucratic tinkering—it needs targeted relief for the people who actually feel the pinch. Expanding the state Earned Income Tax Credit and implementing a robust child tax credit would offer immediate, evidence-backed help to those struggling most with affordability. These aren’t radical ideas; they’re already working in other states.Ciattarelli’s plan is built on trickle-down economics and wishful math. Sherrill’s is built on competent management, but lacks ambition. The voters deserve more than either of those options.Tax Platforms in NJ Governor's Race Leave Out the Best Ideas 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: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon’s decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon’s actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon’s impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon’s resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump’s second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly’s ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it’s uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly’s approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly’s Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements 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: Al Capone ConvictedOn October 17, 1931, notorious gangster Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in federal court, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. Capone, who had risen to national infamy during Prohibition as the head of a sprawling Chicago crime syndicate, had long evaded prosecution for his violent and illegal enterprises. Despite widespread public knowledge of his role in bootlegging, extortion, and murder, prosecutors struggled to tie him directly to any of those crimes. Instead, federal investigators, led by Treasury Department agent Frank J. Wilson, focused on Capone’s lavish lifestyle and failure to file income tax returns.The government’s case rested on a novel legal theory at the time: that even illegally obtained income was subject to federal taxation. This approach was upheld by the Supreme Court in prior decisions and proved decisive in Capone’s prosecution. During trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of Capone’s expenditures and testimony from witnesses who detailed his earnings, none of which had been declared to the IRS. The jury found him guilty on five counts of tax evasion.Capone was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, fined $50,000, and charged nearly $30,000 in court costs and back taxes. He was denied bail and began serving time in the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta before being transferred to Alcatraz in 1934. His conviction not only marked the downfall of one of America’s most feared mob bosses but also cemented the IRS’s role in fighting organized crime. The case showcased the growing power of the federal government in regulating and prosecuting financial crimes.Former National Security Adviser John Bolton was indicted on charges of sharing classified government information, including top-secret material, with two relatives identified by sources as his wife and daughter. The indictment alleges Bolton transmitted over a thousand pages of sensitive information—gleaned from high-level meetings and intelligence briefings—between 2018 and 2025, with discussions indicating the material might be used in a book project. He referred to his relatives as his “editors” and communicated with a publisher about potential rights. Bolton has denied wrongdoing, stating he looks forward to defending himself and accusing Trump of abuse of power. His attorney maintains no classified information was unlawfully shared or stored.The case is part of a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has pursued indictments against multiple critics, including James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump has actively pushed for such prosecutions, and concerns have been raised about the politicization of the Justice Department. Still, officials note Bolton’s case began in 2022 and involves more substantial evidence. Bolton’s personal email was reportedly hacked by an actor tied to the Iranian government, which further complicated the case, though he allegedly failed to report the storage of classified material. If convicted, Bolton faces up to 10 years per count under the Espionage Act.John Bolton, former Trump adviser, charged with sharing classified information | ReutersThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s imposition of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The lawsuit, brought in Washington, D.C., argues that the fee—announced by Trump in a September proclamation—exceeds the president’s legal authority and threatens to destabilize the visa system established by Congress. This marks the Chamber’s first legal action against the Trump administration since his second term began in January.The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign workers, particularly in fields like technology and engineering. Companies typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 per H-1B petition, with most applications costing under $3,600. The newly announced fee would significantly raise costs for employers, potentially forcing them to reduce their reliance on foreign talent or abandon the program altogether.Trump justified the fee by citing national and economic security concerns, claiming the H-1B program facilitates the replacement of American workers. The Chamber disputes that, arguing the fee is not an immigration restriction because employers—not foreign nationals—pay it. The policy is also facing another legal challenge in California from unions, religious groups, and employers. Business leaders warn that the fee will exacerbate labor shortages and harm U.S. competitiveness.Major US business group sues over Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee | ReutersNew Jersey filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Sig Sauer, seeking to halt sales of its P320 handgun within the state over allegations that the weapon can fire without the trigger being pulled. Filed in Sussex County state court, the lawsuit claims the company marketed the pistol as safe while knowing of a design flaw that allows for unintentional discharges. The complaint cites several such incidents, including the fatal shooting of a detective lieutenant in April 2023 as he was preparing to clean his P320.The state is seeking a mandatory recall of all P320s sold in New Jersey and a court order to ban further sales of the model. The lawsuit invokes product liability, consumer fraud, and public nuisance laws, marking the first time a government entity has sued over this issue, according to Attorney General Matthew Platkin. At a press conference, Platkin accused Sig Sauer of promoting the handgun’s safety while omitting information about its known risks.Sig Sauer has denied the P320 can fire on its own, blaming incidents on user error. Still, the company has faced numerous lawsuits from civilians and law enforcement officers nationwide and has paid out millions in damages. New Jersey’s suit claims the P320’s design allows it to be fully cocked with a chambered round and that minor movement can activate the internal striker, causing it to discharge unexpectedly—especially dangerous for law enforcement officers who carry the firearm holstered and ready.New Jersey sues Sig Sauer, alleging handguns fire on their own | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.Frédéric Chopin, the Polish composer and virtuoso pianist, died on October 17, 1849, at the age of 39 in Paris. Though his life was brief, his influence on Romantic music—and piano literature in particular—has been profound and enduring. Chopin composed almost exclusively for solo piano, blending technical innovation with a deeply expressive, often introspective voice. Among his most beloved works is the Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2, composed when he was just 20.This piece exemplifies Chopin’s signature style: lyrical, ornamented melodies floating over a gently rocking accompaniment. It unfolds in a graceful ternary form, inviting both performer and listener into a world of delicate melancholy and understated virtuosity. The Nocturne’s opening theme returns with increasingly elaborate embellishment, showcasing Chopin’s genius for subtle variation and emotional nuance. Though brief, the piece captures a vast interior world—what Robert Schumann once described as “cannons buried in flowers.”Chopin’s nocturnes elevated the genre from salon entertainment to high art, and the Nocturne in E-flat major remains a favorite among pianists and audiences alike. Its enduring popularity testifies to Chopin’s ability to transform a simple melody into something timeless. That he died on this day in 1849 makes this day an especially fitting moment to revisit his music, which continues to resonate with quiet power over 175 years later.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin’s Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2 – 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: Nuremberg ExecutionsOn October 16, 1946, ten prominent Nazi war criminals were executed by hanging in the aftermath of the landmark Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key figures of the Third Reich for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. The executions marked the culmination of months of legal proceedings conducted by an international military tribunal composed of judges from the Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Among those hanged was Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler’s former Foreign Minister, convicted for his role in orchestrating Nazi foreign policy and enabling the Holocaust.The trials had concluded in late September 1946, with 12 of the 22 main defendants receiving death sentences. However, Hermann Göring, one of the most high-profile defendants and head of the Luftwaffe, committed suicide by cyanide just hours before his scheduled execution. The hangings took place inside the gymnasium of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the tribunal had convened, and were carried out in the early morning hours.The executions were overseen by U.S. Army personnel, and steps were taken to document them for historical record. The event was viewed by many as a pivotal moment in the establishment of international criminal law, affirming that individuals—even heads of state and high-ranking officials—could be held personally accountable for war atrocities. These proceedings laid the groundwork for future tribunals, including those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Some criticized the process as “victor’s justice,” pointing to perceived inconsistencies in sentencing and legal procedures. Nevertheless, the trials represented a significant shift from the post-World War I approach, which had failed to adequately prosecute war crimes. The executions on October 16 symbolized not only the end of an era of unchecked totalitarian violence but also the beginning of a new international legal order based on accountability and the rule of law.A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s latest wave of federal layoffs, calling the move likely “illegal and in excess of authority.” In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston halted terminations that began last week, siding with a coalition of federal worker unions. Illston criticized the administration’s approach as “ready, fire, aim” and warned that the human cost of such abrupt cuts is unacceptable.The layoffs—over 4,100 in total—targeted several federal agencies, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury seeing the bulk of cuts. Judge Illston’s order requires the administration to report all completed and planned layoffs by Friday and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on October 28. She also rejected the Department of Justice’s attempt to steer the case toward procedural issues, stating that the legal merits were too concerning to ignore.President Trump has framed the cuts as politically motivated, stating they were aimed at eliminating programs he called “egregious socialist, semi-communist.” He added that Republican-backed programs would be spared. The administration recently lifted a long-standing hiring freeze but is now requiring agencies to submit staffing plans for approval.Union plaintiffs argue that the layoffs violate the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing the administration’s use of the government shutdown as an arbitrary justification. This case, AFGE v. OMB, marks another legal confrontation over workforce reductions, following an earlier freeze issued by Judge Illston that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.Trump’s Shutdown-Linked Layoffs Paused by California Judge (4)The 2026 U.S. law school admissions cycle is off to an intense start, with applications up 33% compared to this time last year, according to new data from the Law School Admission Council. This surge follows last year’s admissions boom and signals another highly competitive year for aspiring law students. Admissions consultant Mike Spivey noted he’s never seen such a sharp early increase in over two decades of reviewing application data, predicting a likely total rise of around 20% once the cycle concludes.Several factors are driving the spike, including a tough job market for recent college graduates—whose unemployment rate now surpasses that of the broader labor force—and growing political instability. Law School Admission Council President Sudha Setty also cited concerns about the impact of AI and broader economic uncertainty as motivators for many applicants. Additionally, more people are taking the LSAT this year, up nearly 22% over 2025 levels.A recent Kaplan survey found 56% of law school admissions officers pointed to politics as a major factor behind last year’s surge, with 90% expecting this cycle to be just as competitive, if not more so. Some applicants are likely reapplying after being rejected last year, or returning after delaying applications due to last year’s high volume. While law schools will benefit from a deeper pool of candidates, Spivey warned the sharp increase means tougher odds for acceptance across the board.US law school applicants increase 33%, boosting competition | ReutersPresident Donald Trump’s decision to fund military pay during the ongoing government shutdown is only a short-term solution, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. On Wednesday, Johnson confirmed that 1.3 million active-duty service members, along with tens of thousands of National Guard and reservists, were paid using $6.5 billion in unused military research and development funds. However, he warned that unless Democrats act to reopen the government, troops are unlikely to receive their next paycheck on October 31.The White House has not explained its legal rationale for this funding maneuver, and it hasn’t requested the required congressional approvals to shift funds between accounts. Federal law caps such transfers at $8 billion annually and only allows them if the funds are used for their legally designated purposes. Without further funding authority, it’s unclear how the administration could cover future military pay. While many lawmakers support a standalone bill to guarantee troop pay, Republican leaders—including Johnson and Senate Majority Whip John Thune—are resisting that option. They argue that doing so would reduce pressure to end the shutdown overall.Some Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say the move has reduced urgency in Congress while leaving other federal workers unpaid. The political optics are further complicated by Trump’s claim that only Democrat-backed programs are being cut, as he seeks to frame the issue as partisan. Internally, GOP leaders worry that passing targeted funding bills could open the door to broader demands for agency-by-agency funding relief, weakening their leverage in shutdown negotiations.By way of brief background, the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which bars federal officials from spending money before or beyond congressional appropriations. Trump reportedly ordered the Department of Defense to divert funds from the RDT&E account—meant for weapons research—to cover military payroll. That account is not legally authorized for such use, and the funds may have also exceeded their availability period.This raises two major legal issues. First, under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9, cl. 7), only Congress may authorize government spending. The president cannot repurpose funds without specific legislative approval. Second, the ADA prohibits both misappropriation of purpose (spending money on unauthorized functions) and misappropriation of timing (using expired funds). If proven willful, such violations can carry criminal penalties, though prosecutions are rare.Beyond the legal breach, this act could set a dangerous precedent. If courts decline to intervene, it could signal that future presidents—regardless of party—can redirect federal funds without congressional consent. This would erode legislative power and potentially turn the presidency into a de facto appropriations authority, undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers.Special thanks to Bobby Kogan, the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for the Center for American Progress, for his instructive Bluesky post explaining the deficiency issue in a way much clearer and more succinctly than I otherwise would have been able to.Trump’s troop pay move is a ‘temporary fix,’ Johnson says - Live Updates - POLITICOPost by @did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm — BlueskyA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at how Norway is showing the rest of the world how to end EV subsidies without wrecking the market. The country announced in its latest budget that it will phase out its long-standing value-added tax (VAT) exemption for electric vehicles—partially in 2026, and fully by 2027. This might seem like a policy retreat, but the timing is deliberate: EVs now make up 95–98% of new car sales in Norway. The market has matured, and the subsidy is no longer essential.I argue that this is what smart policy looks like—temporary support that steps aside when it’s no longer needed. The U.S., by contrast, killed its federal EV tax credit abruptly and politically, without phasing it out or adapting it for current market conditions. In doing so, it treated the credit as a political symbol rather than a market tool. Norway, on the other hand, used the exemption strategically, aligning it with broader policy goals and allowing it to sunset once those goals were met.The piece highlights how the U.S. often fears both removing and maintaining subsidies, caught in a cycle where incentives become political footballs. Norway’s approach offers a model for how to responsibly end subsidies: gradually, rationally, and only once the market no longer needs them. This isn’t anti-E

This Day in Legal History: Clayton Antitrust Act PassedOn October 15, 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at strengthening U.S. antitrust law and curbing anti-competitive business practices. The Act was designed to build upon the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which had proven inadequate in addressing certain forms of corporate behavior that undermined market fairness. Unlike the Sherman Act, which broadly prohibited monopolistic conduct, the Clayton Act identified specific practices as illegal when they substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly.The law targeted interlocking directorates—situations where the same individuals served on the boards of competing companies—recognizing such arrangements as fertile ground for collusion. It also outlawed price discrimination that lessened competition, exclusive dealing contracts that restricted a buyer’s ability to purchase from competitors, and mergers or acquisitions that threatened market competition. Another critical provision banned tying agreements, where the sale of one product was conditioned on the purchase of another, potentially unrelated, product.The Clayton Act was notable for providing more detailed guidance to businesses and regulators, reducing ambiguity that had plagued the enforcement of the Sherman Act. It also allowed for both government and private parties to seek injunctive relief and recover damages, increasing the avenues for challenging anti-competitive behavior. Importantly, labor unions and agricultural organizations were exempted from the Act’s provisions, a significant shift from previous antitrust enforcement that had often targeted labor as a “combination in restraint of trade.”This legislative move reflected the progressive era’s push to check corporate power and protect consumers and smaller businesses from monopolistic abuses. The Federal Trade Commission Act, passed just weeks earlier, worked in tandem with the Clayton Act to provide an institutional mechanism—the FTC—for enforcement. Together, these laws marked a turning point in the federal government’s role in regulating the economy and ensuring competitive markets.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging Louisiana’s congressional map, a dispute that could undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a key provision prohibiting electoral practices that dilute minority voting power, even without direct evidence of racist intent. The controversy centers on Louisiana’s post-2020 redistricting, initially producing a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising about a third of the state’s population. A federal judge sided with Black voters who challenged the map, prompting lawmakers to draw a new version adding a second Black-majority district.That revision sparked a separate lawsuit from white voters who claimed the new map unfairly diminished their voting influence. A three-judge panel agreed, ruling the map relied too heavily on race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state, which had previously defended the redrawn map, has now reversed course and is urging the justices to bar race-conscious districting entirely.This marks the second time the Court will hear arguments in the case this year, after sidestepping a decision in June. With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court could issue a ruling that weakens Section 2, building on a 2013 decision that nullified another major part of the Voting Rights Act. However, a 2023 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh side with liberals in upholding Section 2 in an Alabama case. The outcome could impact congressional control, with Democrats warning that as many as 19 districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is curtailed.By way of brief background, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Originally passed in 1965 and strengthened by Congress in 1982, the provision allows voters to challenge laws that either deny the right to vote outright (“vote deprivation”) or weaken the effectiveness of their vote (“vote dilution”), even if no discriminatory intent can be proven. Courts reviewing Section 2 claims consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether minority voters have an equal opportunity to participate in elections and elect candidates of their choice. In redistricting cases, plaintiffs must show that minority voters are numerous and politically unified enough to elect a representative, and that white voters typically vote as a bloc to defeat them. The Supreme Court has clarified over time that states aren’t required to maximize minority districts, but race-based line drawing must strike a balance between avoiding racial discrimination and complying with equal protection principles. As other parts of the Voting Rights Act have been weakened, Section 2 has taken on even greater importance in protecting minority voting rights.US Supreme Court to hear case that takes aim at Voting Rights Act | ReutersElon Musk’s $56 billion Tesla compensation package heads to the Delaware Supreme Court today, marking the final stage of a high-stakes corporate legal battle. A lower court struck down the record-setting pay plan in January 2024, ruling that Tesla’s board was not sufficiently independent and that shareholders lacked vital information when they approved the deal in 2018. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery found the award unfair and applied strict legal scrutiny, igniting criticism from business leaders who argue Delaware courts are increasingly hostile to entrepreneurs.In response to the ruling, some companies—including Tesla—relocated their legal incorporation from Delaware to states like Texas and Nevada, where corporate governance laws are more lenient. This exodus, dubbed “Dexit,” prompted Delaware lawmakers to revise the state’s corporate statutes in an attempt to retain business charters.Musk’s legal team contends that McCormick misapplied the law and ignored evidence that Tesla shareholders were fully informed when they approved the deal. They argue the board’s decision should have been reviewed under the more deferential “business judgment” standard. Despite the setback, Musk remains in line to receive billions under a replacement compensation plan approved in August, aimed at retaining him as Tesla shifts focus to robotics and autonomous technology.Tesla’s board also proposed a $1 trillion future compensation framework, underscoring confidence in Musk’s leadership, even as the company faces slowing EV demand and stiff competition from China. The Delaware justices will also weigh whether Tesla must pay $345 million in legal fees to the shareholder who brought the lawsuit. The Court typically takes months to issue a decision.Musk’s legal fight over $56 billion payday from Tesla enters final stage | ReutersAustralia’s High Court upheld the government’s decision to deny far-right U.S. commentator Candace Owens a visa, citing concerns that her presence could incite social discord. Owens had applied for a visa to conduct a speaking tour in late 2024, but Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke rejected the request, referencing her history of controversial remarks—including Holocaust denial and Islamophobic statements. Owens challenged the decision, arguing that it violated the implied freedom of political communication in Australia’s Constitution. The court unanimously disagreed, emphasizing that this freedom is not an absolute personal right and that the Migration Act’s restrictions served a legitimate purpose in safeguarding public order.The judges found that Owens’ record of inflammatory commentary—touching on issues such as race, religion, gender, and public health—posed a significant risk of social division. The ruling also noted that denying her visa was consistent with protecting Australia’s national interest and social cohesion. As a result, Owens was ordered to pay the government’s legal costs.Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration defied a prior court order by reintroducing nearly identical immigration-related conditions for states to receive FEMA emergency preparedness grants. Judge William Smith, based in Rhode Island, had previously struck down the original grant conditions, which required state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. After his ruling, the Department of Homeland Security issued new grant documents with the same conditions, adding a clause that they would only take effect if the ruling was overturned. Smith rejected this workaround, stating that it was not a good faith attempt at compliance but a coercive tactic to pressure states into supporting federal immigration efforts.He ordered the administration to remove the conditions by the following week, emphasizing that states should not be forced to choose between upholding their policies and losing critical disaster funding. The judge characterized the move as an unlawful effort to bully states, not a legitimate policy revision. DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling. The case is one of several legal challenges brought by Democratic-led states aimed at halting parts of Trump’s immigration agenda through the courts.Trump administration flouted court order on FEMA grant funding, US judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court’s most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court’s direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court’s embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court’s reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan’s commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I’s death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London’s High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen’s 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court’s decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn’t upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs’ lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs’ counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants’ class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn’t be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can’t pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government’s indifference to recovering real value from their property. 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: Supreme Court Denies Cert for RosenbergsOn October 13, 1952, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage by passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The couple had been sentenced to death in 1951 following a high-profile trial that captivated Cold War-era America. The Rosenbergs’ appeal was their final attempt to overturn the conviction and avoid execution. By denying certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed their death sentences to stand without offering an opinion on the merits of the case.The decision intensified public debate over the fairness of their trial, with critics arguing that anti-communist hysteria had tainted the proceedings and supporters maintaining that the punishment fit the crime. Nearly a year later, on June 17, 1953, Justice William O. Douglas granted a temporary stay of execution after a new legal argument was raised involving the application of the Atomic Energy Act. However, the full Court reconvened in an emergency session and voted to vacate Douglas’s stay the next day.The Rosenbergs were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing prison on June 19, 1953, marking the first and only time American civilians were executed for espionage during peacetime. Their case remains controversial, with questions still surrounding the extent of Ethel’s involvement and the fairness of the trial. Over time, declassified documents, including material from the Venona project, have confirmed Julius’s espionage activities but left lingering doubts about Ethel’s role and the proportionality of her sentence.California enacted a new law (A.B. 931) that prohibits in-state lawyers and law firms from sharing contingency fees with out-of-state alternative business structures (ABS)—firms that are owned by non-lawyers. The bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, directly impacts litigation funding operations and firms based in states like Arizona, which began allowing non-lawyer ownership in 2021. Originally broader in scope, the bill was narrowed to specifically ban contingent fee sharing, a common payment model in mass tort and personal injury cases.The move is expected to disrupt partnerships between California lawyers and ABS firms in jurisdictions like Arizona, Utah, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Critics argue the law may harm both legal practitioners and consumers by limiting access to capital and cross-border collaboration. Amendments to the bill in August preserved certain flat fee and fixed fee arrangements, allowing some limited forms of financial collaboration to continue. KPMG, which recently launched a law firm in Arizona, declined to comment on whether the new restrictions would impact its plans to partner with attorneys nationwide.California Bans Contingent Fee Sharing With ‘Alternative’ FirmsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, upholding a lower court’s temporary block on the mobilization. The deployment plan included troops from the Texas National Guard, aimed at supporting federal agents during recent protests in the Chicago area. However, the court allowed those already present in Illinois to remain, pending further legal developments.U.S. District Judge April Perry had earlier questioned the administration’s claims that troops were necessary to protect federal personnel from violent unrest, citing a lack of clear justification. Her order blocking the deployment is set to last until at least October 23, with the possibility of extension. Similar legal challenges are unfolding elsewhere, including in Oregon, where another judge blocked troop deployments to Portland. That ruling, however, may be overturned by a different appellate court.Democratic governors in affected states have argued that the administration exaggerated threats from largely peaceful protests to justify military action. A court in Los Angeles also ruled a previous deployment illegal, though that decision is on hold pending appeal. Under U.S. law, the National Guard typically operates under state control during domestic missions, making federal involvement a contentious legal issue.Appeals court rejects Trump request to deploy National Guard in Chicago area | ReutersFederal courts in New England—particularly in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine—have emerged as strategic venues for legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s policies since his return to office in January 2025. A Reuters analysis found at least 72 lawsuits targeting Trump’s policies filed in these four states, with trial judges ruling against the administration in 46 out of 51 cases decided so far. These challenges include efforts to block the administration’s actions on deportations, federal education cuts, changes to birthright citizenship, and fast-tracked deportations to unstable third countries like South Sudan.The region’s courts fall under the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has all five of its active judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Litigants see these courts as favorable due to their composition—17 of 20 active trial judges in the region are also Democratic appointees. Judges like William Young in Boston and Allison Burroughs have issued high-profile rulings against Trump, with Young warning of threats to constitutional values and Burroughs urging courts to defend free speech. Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island has also issued significant decisions, such as blocking a sweeping federal funding freeze.While the 1st Circuit has mostly upheld lower court rulings against Trump, the Supreme Court—dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority—has stepped in multiple times to stay or reverse those decisions. Still, the administration has not appealed every ruling, allowing some key decisions to remain in place, including those affecting mail-in ballot rules and funding for arts groups and Head Start programs. Democratic attorneys general are actively choosing New England courts for their reliability, with one noting that “you kind of know what you’re getting.”New England courts become a battleground for challenges to Trump | 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: Spiro Agnew ResignsOn October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned from office after pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to a charge of federal income tax evasion. This marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting vice president resigned due to criminal charges. Agnew, who had been under investigation for bribery, extortion, and tax fraud from his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland, struck a deal with federal prosecutors to avoid jail time.Agnew’s resignation came amid the broader constitutional crisis surrounding the Nixon administration, which was already under intense scrutiny due to the unfolding Watergate scandal. While Agnew denied the bribery allegations, he admitted he failed to report $29,500 in income received in 1967. As part of the plea agreement, he was fined $10,000 and placed on three years’ probation, but avoided prison.His departure triggered the use of the 25th Amendment, specifically Section 2, which allows the president to nominate a new vice president when a vacancy occurs. President Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford, then House Minority Leader, who was confirmed by both chambers of Congress. Less than a year later, Nixon himself would resign, and Ford would ascend to the presidency—making him the only U.S. president never elected to the office of president or vice president.New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted on October 9, 2025, for allegedly providing false information on a mortgage application. A federal grand jury in Virginia charged her with bank fraud and making a false statement to a lending institution, accusing her of falsely claiming she would use a property in Norfolk, Virginia, as a secondary residence. The indictment alleges that by misrepresenting her intent, James secured a lower interest rate, saving around $19,000. She denies wrongdoing and called the charges a politically motivated attack by the Trump administration, which she has clashed with repeatedly.The case follows a recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and ongoing investigations into other Trump critics, including Senator Adam Schiff and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Critics, including James’ attorney Abbe Lowell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, claim Trump is using the Justice Department for political retaliation. The case was brought by U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a recent Trump appointee, reportedly without involvement from career prosecutors. James is expected to appear in court on October 24.The legal battle comes amid ongoing litigation between James and Trump, most notably a civil fraud case that initially led to a $454 million penalty against Trump, later overturned on appeal. James’ team plans to fight the charges vigorously, suggesting her misstatements were not intentional.Letitia James, NY attorney general and Trump foe, indicted for mortgage fraud | ReutersA federal judge in Chicago has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois, citing concerns that the move could escalate tensions rather than ease them. U.S. District Judge April Perry questioned the federal government’s justification for sending troops to manage what it described as unrest around an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois. The state had sued the Trump administration, arguing the deployment was unnecessary and politically motivated. Perry noted that federal officers’ own actions had sparked the protests and warned that additional troops would “add fuel to the fire.” Her injunction will remain in place until at least October 23.This ruling follows a similar block in Portland, Oregon, though a federal appeals court in San Francisco now seems poised to overturn that decision, possibly clearing the way for future deployments. The Trump administration has defended the use of troops, claiming it’s necessary to protect federal property, while Democratic leaders in affected states accuse the president of misrepresenting peaceful protests as violent uprisings.Governor JB Pritzker called the court’s ruling a win for the rule of law, arguing there’s no rebellion requiring a military response in Illinois. The White House, meanwhile, pledged to appeal the decision, with Trump reiterating plans to expand troop deployments to other cities, including Chicago and Memphis. Critics argue this strategy stretches the limits of presidential authority and raises legal concerns over the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.US judge blocks Trump’s deployment of National Guard in Illinois | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Jennifer Mascott, a conservative legal scholar and Trump ally, to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 50-47 vote, further shifting the court to the right. Her confirmation drew criticism from Democrats, particularly from Delaware senators, who objected to her lack of ties to the state traditionally associated with the vacant seat. Her only known Delaware connection is a beach house, prompting concerns about broken precedent and political loyalty.Mascott, who has clerked for Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, was on leave from her faculty position at Catholic University while working in the White House Counsel’s Office. Senate Republicans praised her conservative legal background and past testimony before the Judiciary Committee. In contrast, Democrats criticized her nomination as partisan, with Senator Chuck Schumer labeling her a “sycophant” to Trump.This appointment, along with the recent confirmation of Emil Bove—a former Trump DOJ official and personal attorney—gives Republican appointees a majority on the 3rd Circuit, which hears appeals from Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.Democrats also voiced frustration over the elimination of the “blue slip” tradition, which once allowed home-state senators to block appellate nominees. Republicans ended that practice during Trump’s first term, enabling confirmations like Mascott’s over local opposition. On the same day, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced another Trump nominee, Rebecca Taibleson, despite objections from her home-state senator.US Senate confirms Trump nominee Mascott to federal appeals court | ReutersA Republican-controlled Senate committee approved two of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) but delayed action on a third, leaving the agency without the quorum needed to issue decisions. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee voted 12-11 to advance James Murphy, a retired NLRB lawyer, to the board and Crystal Carey, a labor attorney, as general counsel. However, a planned vote on Scott Mayer, Boeing’s chief labor counsel, was pulled after he clashed with Senator Josh Hawley during his confirmation hearing.The NLRB has been unable to function fully since Trump’s firing of Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January and the expiration of another Republican member’s term. Wilcox is challenging her dismissal in court, and the Supreme Court has allowed her removal to stand pending resolution. Without at least three board members, the NLRB cannot issue rulings, stalling hundreds of cases — including many involving union elections.Trump’s nominees would give Republicans control of the board for the first time since 2021. Democrats expressed concern over the independence of the nominees, noting the precedent of Wilcox’s dismissal and questioning whether the new appointees could remain neutral. Both Murphy and Mayer insisted they would apply the law impartially, regardless of political pressure.Mayer faced particular scrutiny over a current strike involving Boeing workers in Missouri. Hawley criticized Boeing’s executive compensation amid labor disputes, while Mayer declined to comment on the situation, citing his pending nomination. The HELP Committee also approved other Trump nominees for roles within the Department of Labor.US Senate panel approves two Trump NLRB nominees, tables a third | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi.This week’s closing theme features a composer whose name is nearly synonymous with Italian opera — Giuseppe Verdi, born on or around October 10, 1813, in the small village of Le Roncole, then part of the Napoleonic French Empire. Best known for grand operas like La Traviata, Aida, and Rigoletto, Verdi’s music defined the emotional and political voice of 19th-century Italy. Though his legacy rests almost entirely on the opera stage, Verdi briefly stepped into the world of chamber music with a single, striking contribution: his String Quartet in E minor, composed in 1873.He wrote it during a production delay of Aida in Naples, saying modestly it was “just a trifle” — but the work is anything but. The first movement, Allegro vivace, opens with an energetic, tightly woven interplay among the instruments, showcasing Verdi’s grasp of counterpoint and formal structure, likely influenced by his admiration for German composers like Beethoven. There’s a dramatic drive that feels operatic, yet the themes unfold with the clarity and discipline of a seasoned instrumentalist.It’s the only surviving chamber piece Verdi completed, and it stands as a fascinating outlier in his body of work — more intimate, abstract, and inward-looking than his vocal dramas. The movement balances lyrical passages with bursts of rhythmic vitality, hinting that even without voices, Verdi could make instruments sing. As we mark the week of his birth, this selection offers a rare glimpse into the quieter, more introspective corners of a composer usually associated with sweeping arias and rousing choruses. 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: Martial Law Post-Great Chicago FireOn October 9, 1871, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Chicago Fire, the city’s mayor, Roswell B. Mason, declared a form of martial law by handing control of the city to U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan. Though no formal martial law order was issued, Sheridan exercised sweeping authority over Chicago, including the deployment of troops and armed patrols to maintain order, protect property, and enforce curfews. The fire had devastated the city, destroying thousands of buildings and leaving over 100,000 residents homeless. Amid fears of looting and social collapse, civic leaders turned to the military rather than civil institutions to reestablish control.This decision represents a critical episode in the uneasy balance between civil liberties and emergency powers. There was no legal precedent or formal legislative act granting the mayor authority to transfer governance to a military figure, raising significant constitutional concerns. The use of military force to police civilians, absent explicit legal authorization, blurred lines between civilian and military jurisdiction. While contemporary accounts often depict Sheridan’s leadership as effective, his presence underscored a mistrust in the city’s own law enforcement and judicial institutions.No court review or legislative inquiry ever addressed the legality of this transfer of power, setting a troubling precedent for extrajudicial emergency actions. It also reinforced the broader 19th-century trend of informal martial law declarations, especially during moments of urban unrest or disaster. Chicago’s experience in 1871 reflects how crises can be used to justify the suspension of normal legal processes, often without public accountability. This ad hoc militarization of city governance, though temporary, highlighted the fragility of civil authority in moments of panic—and how quickly constitutional norms can be cast aside.Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The indictment alleges he misled lawmakers in 2020 about authorizing an FBI employee to leak information related to an unspecified investigation—believed to concern Hillary Clinton. The case was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist with no prior prosecutorial experience, recently installed as U.S. attorney after her predecessor was removed for refusing to pursue Trump’s political adversaries.The charges are seen as politically motivated, coming after Trump publicly pressured the Justice Department to act against Comey and others. Career attorneys reportedly opposed the indictment due to a lack of evidence, and prosecutors from outside the district were brought in to proceed with the case. The move has drawn sharp criticism, including from over 1,000 former DOJ officials across party lines who labeled it an attack on the rule of law.Trump has long threatened to imprison rivals, but this is the first grand jury indictment against one of them.Ex-FBI chief Comey pleads not guilty to charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersA Florida man has been arrested for allegedly setting the Pacific Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a January blaze that killed 12 people, destroyed roughly 6,000 structures, and caused an estimated $150 billion in damage. Federal investigators from the ATF, LAPD, and LAFD concluded the fire was deliberately started near a hiking trail in a state park overlooking the Palisades. The suspect faces three federal charges and will be extradited to California. Because the fire was ruled intentional and led to multiple deaths, prosecutors could pursue life imprisonment or the federal death penalty under President Trump’s 2025 executive order directing harsher penalties for severe crimes.Man arrested as suspect in setting California’s deadly Palisades Fire, official says | ReutersPresident Trump called for the arrest of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, both Democrats, as his administration prepared to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago over their opposition. Neither official faces criminal allegations, but both have criticized Trump’s immigration policies and his use of federal troops in Democratic-led cities. Trump accused them of failing to protect ICE officers after Johnson declared Chicago an “ICE Free Zone.” Pritzker denounced Trump’s remarks as authoritarian. Meanwhile, hundreds of Texas National Guard troops have gathered outside Chicago ahead of deployment, despite state lawsuits seeking to block the move. The president has also threatened to invoke federal powers to override court orders limiting troop deployments, part of a broader pattern of using federal authority against political opponents.Trump calls for jailing Democratic leaders as troops prepare for Chicago deployment | ReutersElon Musk’s X Corp has reached a settlement with four former Twitter executives—including ex-CEO Parag Agrawal—who claimed they were owed $128 million in severance after being fired following Musk’s 2022 takeover. The settlement’s terms were not disclosed, but a federal judge delayed case deadlines to allow finalization. The executives alleged Musk falsely accused them of misconduct to avoid paying severance that included a year’s salary and stock options. The deal follows a separate $500 million settlement with laid-off Twitter employees and is one of several legal disputes stemming from Musk’s acquisition and mass restructuring of the company.Musk’s X settles ex-Twitter executives’ $128 million severance pay lawsuit | 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: Bruno Hauptmann IndictedOn October 8, 1934, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was indicted for the murder of 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., the son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The case, often referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” began in March 1932 when the child was kidnapped from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey. Despite a ransom being paid, the boy’s body was found weeks later, less than five miles from the house, sparking a national outcry and a complex investigation.The break in the case came in 1934 when marked ransom money was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter living in the Bronx. A search of his home turned up over $14,000 of the ransom cash, along with tools and wood experts claimed matched the homemade ladder used in the abduction. Though Hauptmann maintained his innocence, insisting the money belonged to a now-deceased friend, the evidence was enough for a grand jury to indict him for kidnapping and murder.His trial, which began in January 1935, was a media sensation, held in Flemington, New Jersey under intense public scrutiny. The prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, handwriting analysis, and expert testimony regarding the ladder construction. The defense challenged much of the state’s forensic claims, but Hauptmann was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in the electric chair in 1936, despite appeals and ongoing doubts about the strength of the case.The Hauptmann trial shaped public perceptions of forensic science, media influence, and due process, and contributed to the passage of the Federal Kidnapping Act, also known as the Lindbergh Law, which made kidnapping a federal crime when victims are taken across state lines.Former FBI Director James Comey is set to appear in federal court this Wednesday on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, viewed by many as politically motivated, is the first brought by the Trump-aligned Justice Department against one of Trump’s high-profile critics. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 Senate hearing by denying he authorized FBI employees to anonymously leak information about an unspecified federal investigation, which is believed to be connected to Hillary Clinton.The charges were filed after Trump installed Lindsey Halligan—a former insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan reportedly proceeded despite career prosecutors advising against it due to lack of evidence. Two outside prosecutors were assigned to handle the case, suggesting internal pushback.Comey maintains his innocence and has demanded a trial. Legal observers and over 1,000 former DOJ officials from both parties have condemned the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack on the rule of law. The indictment comes after years of Trump publicly demanding prosecutions of his political enemies, including Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton. Comey was previously fired by Trump while leading the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—an action that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Ex-FBI chief Comey to face charges brought under pressure from Trump | ReutersU.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who previously blocked a Trump administration plan for mass federal layoffs, will now preside over a new lawsuit challenging potential layoffs tied to the ongoing partial government shutdown. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) successfully argued that this new case involves the same legal issues and parties as their earlier suit, warranting Illston’s continued oversight.The unions argue that laying off federal workers during a shutdown is unlawful and not an “essential government service.” They’re seeking to block such layoffs, warning that allowing the administration to move forward without court intervention could result in conflicting legal rulings if handled by different judges. Illston’s previous ruling in May held that President Trump could not reorganize or downsize federal agencies without congressional approval, but that decision was paused by the Supreme Court in July. In response, the administration scaled back the layoffs after many workers accepted early retirement or buyouts.In the current case, the unions claim new memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully permit agencies to lay off staff during the shutdown. The Trump administration has not yet implemented the threatened firings, but has blamed Democrats for the funding lapse. The White House and DOJ have not commented on the ongoing litigation.US judge who blocked Trump’s mass firings will hear case over shutdown layoffs | ReutersIn September 2025, during a meeting at the White House, Turkish officials proposed a $100 million settlement to resolve the U.S. criminal case against state-owned Halkbank, sources told Reuters. The settlement offer reportedly included a key condition: Halkbank would not have to admit guilt. The bank is facing serious charges in the U.S., including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions by funneling billions through illicit financial channels.The case, brought in 2019, has long strained U.S.-Turkey relations, which were already damaged after Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to U.S. sanctions and its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. While the Trump-Erdogan meeting signaled warmer diplomatic ties, it’s unclear how U.S. officials responded to the settlement offer, or whether discussions have continued.On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Halkbank’s appeal, allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed. In response, the bank stated it was still pursuing a diplomatic resolution and emphasized ongoing talks aimed at reconciliation between the U.S. and Turkey. Erdogan has publicly denounced the charges and raised the issue during his recent visit with Trump.Prosecutors allege Halkbank transferred over $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds, disguised transactions through front companies, and fabricated documents to mask oil-for-gold trades as food shipments. Although the floated settlement amount is far lower than previous penalties levied against European banks for similar offenses, legal experts suggest a final deal, if reached, could involve a much larger payment.Turkey floated $100 million Halkbank settlement idea at White House last month, sources say | 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: SCOTUS Moves to First StreetOn October 7, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court officially began hearing cases in its permanent home on First Street NE in Washington, D.C. For nearly 150 years prior, the Court lacked a dedicated building, conducting business in borrowed or shared spaces—including the U.S. Capitol and even a basement chamber. The move to an independent structure marked a significant moment in the institutional evolution of the federal judiciary. Designed by architect Cass Gilbert in a neoclassical style, the building was conceived as a physical expression of judicial authority, dignity, and permanence. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously served as President, championed the idea, believing the judiciary deserved a stature equal to the executive and legislative branches.The building’s design was deliberately grand, with symbolic elements such as the phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved above the main entrance. The construction cost approximately $9 million and took four years to complete, funded entirely by Congress. Despite its marble grandeur, some justices were skeptical of the move, including Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who reportedly referred to it as “almost bombastically pretentious.” Still, the relocation marked the start of a new era for the Court—one defined by institutional independence and enhanced public visibility.The first arguments heard in the new building concerned labor and property rights, underscoring the Court’s increasing role in mediating modern economic tensions. The structure has since been the site of many landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. Over time, the Supreme Court building has become not just a seat of legal authority, but a symbol of the constitutional system itself, anchoring the judiciary firmly within the federal government’s tripartite structure.Illinois filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago. The legal action follows a similar move by a federal judge in Oregon, who temporarily halted the deployment of troops to Portland. Illinois’ complaint targets the federal government’s decision to activate up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard—against Governor J.B. Pritzker’s objections—and bring in an additional 400 troops from Texas.The state argues that the deployment is illegal and part of what it calls a broader, politically motivated campaign by Trump against Democratic-led jurisdictions. The White House has not commented on the lawsuit. This marks the latest in a series of military deployments by Trump during his second term, including the use of troops at the southern border and in anti-narcotics operations off Venezuela. National Guard units have also been sent to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and Trump has expressed willingness to send them elsewhere, even without state approval. The Illinois case raises significant constitutional questions about federal authority, state sovereignty, and the domestic use of military forces.Illinois sues to block Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago | ReutersThe union representing over 13,000 U.S. air traffic controllers has urged its members to remain on duty during the ongoing partial government shutdown, despite being required to work without pay. In a statement on Monday, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) warned that any job action or protest could be considered illegal and result in termination from federal service. The union emphasized the importance of maintaining professionalism and avoiding conduct that could damage their credibility or that of the aviation system.Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and NATCA leadership held a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport to address the shutdown’s impact on air travel. Newark, a major hub, is particularly sensitive to staffing disruptions. About 50,000 TSA employees are also working without pay.The current situation echoes the 2019 shutdown, when increased worker absences slowed air travel and pressured Congress to act. Airline industry groups are warning that flight efficiency could decline if staffing becomes unstable. The FAA is already facing a severe shortage of air traffic controllers—roughly 3,500 short of target—which has led to widespread mandatory overtime. Despite recent congressional approval of $12.5 billion for a five-year system upgrade, the shutdown threatens to further strain an already fragile workforce.Union urges air traffic controllers to remain on job despite shutdown | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Humana MarketPoint, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, a case that underscores a growing shift in how states approach corporate income tax sourcing. The court ruled that tax liability can be based not on where services were performed or contracted, but where they were ultimately “received”—even if indirectly, by a customer’s customer. In this case, Minnesota taxed income from pharmacy benefit services provided to a Wisconsin insurer because individual plan members picked up prescriptions in Minnesota.I argue this ruling highlights a troubling lack of statutory clarity. The court interpreted Minnesota’s law—which sources services to where they are “received”—as encompassing end users, not just contractual customers. That interpretation hinged on the absence of the word “directly” in the statute. As I see it, courts shouldn’t be in the business of stretching ambiguous language to support expansive tax liability, especially when legislatures haven’t clearly articulated such intent.What’s most concerning is the unpredictability this creates. If states don’t codify market-based sourcing explicitly, courts may keep filling in gaps case by case, leaving companies unable to forecast where they’re subject to tax. That’s a serious compliance issue for businesses with complex, multi-jurisdictional operations. I argue that if states want to prioritize economic presence over contractual reality, they must write it into law—with clear definitions and limits. Otherwise, taxpayers are left navigating a patchwork of post hoc interpretations that undermine the predictability essential to sound tax policy. 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