Minimum Competence

What’s a Government Shutdown and Why Are We In One?A government shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass annual spending bills or a stopgap continuing resolution (CR) to keep agencies funded. No funding = no authority to operate = federal workers furloughed, services paused, and chaos for agencies and contractors.The House has passed a CR that would fund the government through November 21, but the Senate has rejected it three times. That CR keeps spending at current levels and buys Congress more time to negotiate a full budget. Think of it as saying, “We’ll work out the details later, but in the meantime, keep the lights on.”So why the rejection? The sticking points are:* Democrats want the bill to include an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, which are about to expire.* They also want to block the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from continuing to cut previously appropriated funds—something they see as a power grab.* Senator Rand Paul is the only Republican joining Democrats in opposing the House CR, but most Senate Democrats have voted it down.What Has to Happen to End the Shutdown?There are four main steps to reopening the government:* Negotiate a compromise CR. Either Republicans agree to ACA and OMB language, or Democrats back off.* Secure bicameral agreement. If the Senate changes the bill, it has to go back to the House.* Presidential approval. Trump has hinted he won’t sign anything that includes ACA subsidies or limits on the OMB.* Implementation. Once signed, agencies resume normal operations and furloughed workers return.Two likely paths out of the shutdown:* Republicans stand firm → Democrats allow a CR vote without ACA or OMB demands, hoping to negotiate later.* A compromise CR is passed → includes ACA subsidies and OMB limits → enough Senate Democrats back it → risk of Trump veto remains.Why Is This So Complicated?The shutdown highlights a procedural gap between the House and Senate:* In the House, Republicans have a majority and can pass CRs with zero Democratic votes.* In the Senate, most bills need 60 votes to end debate (invoke cloture) and move to a final vote. Republicans don’t have the numbers.Republicans could try to change Senate rules—eliminate the filibuster for budget bills and go with a simple majority—but that would be a massive institutional shift with long-term consequences.Until a resolution is reached, the government remains partially closed and the policy fight over ACA funding and executive power continues.What Happens If Republicans Do Make the Change?If Senate Republicans decide to invoke the so-called “nuclear option”—changing the chamber’s rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for spending bills—the legislative and political landscape could shift immediately and dramatically.Immediate consequences:Republicans could pass the House-approved continuing resolution with no Democratic support, reopening the government on their terms. That means no extension of ACA subsidies, no restrictions on the Office of Management and Budget, and no need to negotiate across the aisle.Medium-term effects:The rule change would permanently alter how Congress handles appropriations. Any party with a Senate majority and House control could pass funding bills unilaterally, sidestepping the need for bipartisan coalitions. This could speed up the process—but also deepen partisan divides in budget negotiations.Long-term implications:Effectively, it would mean the end of the filibuster for all spending legislation. Shutdowns might become less frequent, since fewer votes are needed to keep the government open—but funding priorities could swing wildly every time control of Congress changes hands. One Congress could expand programs and hike spending; the next could cut deeply, all with a simple majority.In short, while the nuclear option would solve the immediate standoff, it would reshape the Senate’s role in fiscal policymaking—and shift power further toward the majority party.Why Can’t Republicans Just Pass a Budget Bill?If you’ve been hearing people say, “Just pass it as a budget bill—no filibuster needed,” here’s why that’s not happening.The Senate does have a special process called budget reconciliation, which allows certain bills to pass with just 51 votes—no filibuster, no 60-vote threshold. But there are some important catches:* It can only be used once per fiscal year.Technically, reconciliation instructions can cover three areas—spending, revenue, and the debt limit—but Congress usually combines them into a single package. That bill has already been used this year (for the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), so the reconciliation tool is off the table until the next fiscal year.* The content of the bill is strictly limited.Under the Byrd Rule, reconciliation bills must directly relate to taxing or spending. Any provision that doesn’t have a direct budgetary effect, or that increases the deficit beyond a 10-year window, gets stripped out—or the whole bill risks being disqualified.That’s why the current CR probably couldn’t go through reconciliation even if that option remained available this fiscal year. It likely includes provisions that violate the Byrd Rule—and certainly would if the OMB limitation Democrats want was included. Those elements either aren’t strictly budgetary or would impact the long-term deficit.So even though Republicans hold a Senate majority, they can’t simply slap a “budget” label on this bill and pass it with 51 votes. That procedural door is closed for now.If they want to bypass the filibuster, their only real option would be to change Senate rules—a dramatic move that would eliminate the 60-vote requirement for spending bills altogether. Otherwise, they’ll need to cut a deal that clears the 60-vote threshold—or accept a prolonged shutdown.That is the current state of the shutdown – we’ll see you back here on Monday for our usual daily news shows. 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: O.J. “Not Guilty”On October 3, 1995, a Los Angeles jury returned one of the most controversial and widely watched criminal verdicts in American history: O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. The trial, which lasted more than eight months, captivated the nation with its blend of celebrity, race, police misconduct, and media spectacle. The prosecution presented DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene, while the defense, led by Johnnie Cochran, argued that Simpson was framed by a racist LAPD, particularly Detective Mark Fuhrman.Cochran’s now-famous line — “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” — referred to a moment when Simpson tried on gloves allegedly worn during the murders, and they appeared not to fit. The defense used that moment to cast further doubt on the prosecution’s case. The jury deliberated for less than four hours before acquitting Simpson, prompting strong reactions across racial and social lines.The case exposed deep divisions in American society, particularly around race and policing. It also helped usher in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and reality-style courtroom coverage, with networks like CNN and Court TV devoting extensive airtime to the trial. The not-guilty verdict did not end Simpson’s legal troubles: in 1997, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages.Apple confirmed it has removed the ICEBlock app and similar tools from its App Store following pressure from the Trump administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi. ICEBlock allowed users to report and track the locations of ICE officers through crowdsourced data. Bondi stated the app endangered law enforcement officers and crossed a line by facilitating potential violence.The Department of Justice supported the move, citing safety concerns. This action followed an exposé by right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who outed the creator of a similar app, Red Dot, and accused the platforms of enabling violence against ICE agents. Loomer also claimed that a recent deadly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility involved the use of such tracking apps.Apple defended its decision, stating it aims to keep the App Store a “safe and trusted” space, and that ICEBlock violated policies by potentially enabling harm to law enforcement. The app’s developer, Joshua Aaron, criticized the removal, comparing it to how apps like Apple Maps crowdsource speed trap locations. He argued that his app was protected by the First Amendment and that Apple’s action was a concession to authoritarian demands.Tech Giant Apple Bows to MAGA Demands and Removes ICE Tracking AppsOpenAI filed a motion in federal court to dismiss a trade secret lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, accuses OpenAI of deliberately poaching xAI employees to gain access to confidential information about Grok, xAI’s chatbot, which the company claims surpasses ChatGPT in performance.OpenAI rejected the allegations, calling them baseless and part of Musk’s “ongoing harassment” campaign against the company. In its filing, OpenAI argued that employees are free to leave xAI and work wherever they choose, and that it is within its rights to hire them. The company suggested xAI’s legal actions are designed to cover up its internal struggles and inability to retain talent.This case is one of several legal battles unfolding between Musk and OpenAI. Musk has also filed a separate suit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. In turn, OpenAI has countersued Musk for harassment. Meanwhile, xAI has sued Apple, claiming it colluded with OpenAI to suppress competition—an accusation both companies deny and are also seeking to dismiss.OpenAI’s legal response characterized xAI’s complaint as a distraction from its own failings and a tactic to slow down competitors in the heated race for dominance in the AI industry.OpenAI asks court to dismiss trade-secret lawsuit from Musk’s xAI | ReutersU.S. District Judge Michael Simon recused himself from a case challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy Oregon’s National Guard to Portland. The Trump administration had raised concerns over public comments made by Simon’s wife, Representative Suzanne Bonamici, criticizing the deployment as a “gross abuse of power.” To avoid any appearance of bias, Judge Simon opted to step aside, stating the case should remain focused on its core constitutional and legal questions.The lawsuit, filed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, seeks to block Trump’s use of state National Guard troops, arguing it is illegal and driven by political motives. The complaint alleges Trump is exaggerating protest threats to justify federal overreach and seize control of state forces. The case has been reassigned to Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee.Bonamici, whose district includes much of Portland, made her critical remarks during a press conference with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. The Department of Justice cited her comments in its request for Simon’s recusal, arguing they could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.A hearing is scheduled for Friday on Oregon’s request for a temporary restraining order. Similar legal challenges are underway in California and Washington, D.C., where federal troop deployments have also faced pushback. A California judge previously ruled Trump’s actions unlawful, but that decision is currently on hold pending appeal. The D.C. case remains unresolved.Judge recuses himself from Oregon National Guard case | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.This week, we close with Franz Liszt’s transcription (S. 464) of the first movement—Allegro con brio—from Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21. Originally premiered in 1800, this symphony marked Beethoven’s formal debut in the genre, and even in its first movement, we hear the young composer testing the boundaries of the Classical form inherited from Haydn and Mozart. The opening chords start in the “wrong” key—a bold harmonic gesture that signaled Beethoven’s intent to shake things up, even as he worked within a familiar structure.Liszt, the great 19th-century virtuoso and composer, took on the monumental task of transcribing all nine of Beethoven’s symphonies for solo piano. The transcription of the First Symphony, catalogued as S. 464, is part of that sweeping project. These arrangements were not simply meant to showcase Liszt’s pianistic brilliance (though they certainly do); they were a way to bring Beethoven’s orchestral works into the drawing rooms and salons of Europe—before widespread orchestral performance or recording technology.In Liszt’s hands, the Allegro con brio becomes a brilliant piano showpiece, retaining the symphony’s rhythmic drive, thematic clarity, and structural ingenuity. He translates orchestral texture into ten fingers with remarkable fidelity, using tremolos, arpeggios, and dramatic dynamic shifts to recreate the energy of strings, winds, and brass. The transcription is virtuosic but never flashy for its own sake—it’s an homage from one revolutionary to another.Beethoven’s First Symphony bridges the Classical and Romantic eras, and Liszt’s solo piano version builds a new bridge, connecting orchestral grandeur to the intimacy of a single performer. It’s a reminder of both composers’ commitment to pushing musical expression forward. As you listen, you may forget it’s just one person at a piano—Liszt makes the entire orchestra sing.We leave you this week not only with Beethoven’s bold opening statement to the symphonic world, but with Liszt’s brilliant act of translation—a distillation of power, wit, and elegance, all under a single keyboard.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21 – 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: Earl Warren AppointedOn October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.Under Warren’s leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court’s moral authority.His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA’s federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | ReutersApple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI’s suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple’s integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk’s Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.Apple’s lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk’s legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI’s shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk’s suit over competition claims | ReutersLawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London’s High Court, suggest that confidential details about William’s 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants’ favor on that issue.Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry 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: First Governmental Recognition of Same-sex RelationshipsOn October 1, 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex relationships through its Registered Partnership Act. The law allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that granted nearly all of the same legal protections and responsibilities as marriage, except for adoption rights and access to religious marriage ceremonies. The Danish parliament had passed the legislation earlier that year with a strong majority, marking a historic shift in global LGBTQ+ rights.The law was the result of more than a decade of activism by Danish LGBTQ+ rights organizations, particularly the group LBL (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske), which had been advocating for legal recognition since the 1970s. Public support in Denmark was relatively high by the late 1980s, aided by a culture of social liberalism and the country’s strong welfare state. When the law took effect, eleven male couples and one female couple registered their partnerships at Copenhagen City Hall in a widely publicized ceremony.International reaction was mixed. Many human rights organizations hailed the Danish move as groundbreaking, while conservative and religious groups elsewhere condemned it. Still, Denmark’s action inspired a gradual but undeniable trend. Over the next few decades, many other countries—including Norway, Sweden, and eventually the United States—adopted laws recognizing same-sex unions or full marriage equality.The Registered Partnership Act remained in place until Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, at which point existing partnerships could be converted into marriages. The 1989 law is now widely regarded as the legal foundation for modern same-sex union legislation worldwide, proving that structural legal change can begin in small, progressive nations and ripple outward.A high-stakes redistricting hearing began October 1, 2025, in El Paso, Texas, where a panel of three federal judges will decide whether the state’s new congressional map—redrawn mid-decade—can be used in the 2026 midterms. At issue is whether the map was motivated by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering or permissible political considerations. Texas defends the redraw as a purely partisan move to benefit Republicans, which, while potentially unethical, may be legally protected under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), a Supreme Court ruling that bars federal courts from reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.The plaintiffs, a coalition of minority and voting rights groups, argue that the map violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination, citing a July letter from the DOJ which had warned that the 2021 map was unlawfully racially gerrymandered. Texas initially used that letter to justify the special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, but has since pivoted to a political defense, potentially undercutting its earlier rationale. The court has set a fast-paced schedule, allowing no opening statements and warning that it will not tolerate delays.Seven lawmakers are expected to testify, and the panel includes judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump. This same trio heard a race-based challenge to the 2021 map earlier in the year, which became moot after the legislature preemptively redrew the map. Experts say proving racial motivation will be difficult but critical, as plaintiffs cannot legally challenge maps solely for being politically gerrymandered.Texas’ Political Aims on Trial as Redistricting Hearing BeginsThe U.S. government officially shut down on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass a funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. The standoff has quickly become a political battle, with President Donald Trump blaming Democrats for pushing a $1.5 trillion agenda and Democrats accusing Trump of sabotaging negotiations and gutting federal programs. Trump’s administration is reportedly planning mass terminations of federal workers, going beyond typical furloughs, as part of its long-standing effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.This shutdown flips the usual script: Republicans now seek a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open, while Democrats are demanding healthcare-related provisions and curbs on Trump’s spending discretion. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are focusing on extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, but unity within the party remains fragile. Trump has escalated tensions by sharing inflammatory, AI-generated content targeting Democratic leaders, prompting backlash and accusations of racism.Polling suggests that blame is spread, with a third of voters holding both parties responsible. Markets are already reacting to the uncertainty, and concerns are rising about delayed economic data. Some Republicans, including Trump allies, warn that the shutdown could politically backfire on the president, as it did during his 2018 border wall standoff.Trump, Democrats Grapple for Edge as Government Shutdown BeginsA federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah is not lawfully serving as Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney, dealing another blow to the Trump administration’s approach to appointing interim federal prosecutors. Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Chattah’s appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Specifically, the Attorney General’s method of designating her as a “first assistant” to qualify her for the acting role was not consistent with congressional intent under the statute.This decision echoes a similar August ruling in New Jersey, where Alina Habba was also found ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney under the same legal reasoning. Courts have rejected the idea that the Attorney General can bypass standard succession rules to install political allies into key prosecutorial roles.Though Chattah’s appointment was struck down, Judge Campbell denied motions to dismiss cases she oversaw, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorneys maintain independent authority and that defendants failed to show any prejudice to their cases. Additional legal challenges are still pending, including in the Central District of California against Bill Essayli, another controversial Trump acting appointment.Nevada Acting US Attorney Chattah Disqualified by US Judge (1)A California jury has found Uber not liable in the first U.S. trial over claims that one of its drivers sexually assaulted a passenger. The plaintiff, known as Jessica C., alleged that in 2016, her Uber driver pulled off the road and assaulted her during a ride. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in implementing safety measures, it concluded that the company’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault.This civil trial, held in San Francisco Superior Court, was the first bellwether case out of over 500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California state court. Another 2,500 related cases are proceeding in federal court. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help guide broader litigation strategy or inform settlements in mass tort cases.The plaintiff’s lawyers sought up to $1.2 million in compensatory damages per year of her life but did not request a specific amount in punitive damages. They argued Uber failed to take obvious safety steps, like assigning female riders to female drivers or requiring dash cams, despite knowing about widespread assault risks.Uber denied liability for the criminal acts of its drivers and pointed to improvements in its safety protocols, such as enhanced background checks, safety reports, and in-app security tools. Nonetheless, Uber remains under scrutiny. A recent congressional inquiry and ongoing criticism highlight lingering concerns about the company’s handling of rider safety.Uber found not liable in first US trial over driver sexual assault claims | 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: Woodrow Wilson Supports Women’s SuffrageOn September 30, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson took the unprecedented step of addressing the U.S. Senate directly to urge passage of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. The House of Representatives had already approved the amendment earlier that year, but the measure had stalled in the Senate. Wilson’s speech came during the final months of World War I, a context he used strategically—arguing that women had proven their patriotism and value to the nation through their labor, sacrifice, and civic contributions during wartime.Framing suffrage as a war measure and an issue of national unity, Wilson stated that denying women the vote was an injustice that undermined American democratic ideals. He contended that the world was watching and that the U.S. could not claim to fight for democracy abroad while denying it to half its citizens at home. The speech was notable both for its timing and for the fact that it came from a president who had previously been lukewarm on the issue.Wilson’s appeal was a calculated political move, reflecting both the growing power of the women’s suffrage movement and the need to maintain national morale. Though his speech failed to immediately sway enough senators—the amendment would not pass the Senate until June 1919—it marked a pivotal shift in executive support. Wilson’s endorsement helped legitimize the movement and apply pressure on reluctant lawmakers.The Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited the denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex, was finally ratified in August 1920. Wilson’s 1918 address thus stands as a key moment in the long legal and political battle for women’s suffrage in the United States, symbolizing the growing alignment of public sentiment, executive advocacy, and legislative momentum that would eventually culminate in constitutional change.In an exclusive from Reuters, federal drug prosecutions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in decades, as the Trump administration shifts law enforcement priorities toward immigration enforcement. A Reuters analysis of nearly 2 million federal court records reveals that prosecutions for drug offenses are down 10% from the same period in 2024, with money laundering charges—often linked to high-level traffickers—dropping by 24%. These declines mark the slowest rate of federal drug enforcement activity since at least the late 1990s.The shift stems from President Trump’s directive shortly after taking office to reallocate thousands of federal agents toward immigration-related efforts, including assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in daily raids. This redirection of resources has disrupted traditional drug enforcement operations, with agents reporting that long-term investigations have stalled and critical cases are going “stagnant.” Even fentanyl-related investigations have been sidelined due to agents being pulled into immigration duties.Despite promises of a tough-on-drugs approach—including calls for the death penalty for some dealers—the administration’s actions have hollowed out the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and rerouted DEA and ATF agents to support deportation operations. These agents, often unfamiliar with immigration law, are now tasked with support roles such as transportation and crowd control during raids, sometimes simply for the sake of producing social media-friendly imagery.Meanwhile, prosecutions tied to drug importation and conspiracies have declined 6% and 15%, respectively, and gun charges associated with drug crimes have also fallen. Officials warn that the impact of this reprioritization could deepen over time, as investigations delayed today will not yield prosecutions for months or years. Nearly half of all federal criminal charges this year involve immigration violations, and over 700 federal prosecutors have been reassigned to immigration matters.While the White House defends the shift as a successful effort to reduce the flow of drugs by targeting violent criminals and cartels, law enforcement officials describe a chaotic, politically driven enforcement regime that sacrifices complex criminal investigations for visible, short-term wins. The resulting system raises concerns not only about public safety but about the long-term effectiveness of federal law enforcement priorities.Exclusive: Federal drug prosecutions fall to lowest level in decades as Trump shifts focus to deportations | ReutersThe Pentagon has deployed 200 Oregon National Guard troops under federal authority after President Donald Trump announced plans to send military forces into Portland, Oregon. The move, aimed at protecting federal immigration facilities from what Trump called “domestic terrorists,” immediately triggered a legal challenge from the state. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a federal lawsuit against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing that the federal deployment infringes on the state’s sovereign authority over its own law enforcement and National Guard.The lawsuit describes Trump’s justification as exaggerated and unsupported, noting that protests against ICE in Portland have remained relatively small and peaceful since June. It also highlights a sharp decline in violent crime in the city—homicides are reportedly down 51% compared to the same time last year—raising further questions about the necessity of military intervention.The deployment order took even top Pentagon officials by surprise, with several describing it as a “bolt from the blue.” Defense Secretary Hegseth’s memo authorizing the deployment was later attached as evidence in Oregon’s lawsuit. Portland officials, including Mayor Keith Wilson, were not informed of the plan in advance and reportedly learned about it via social media.Trump’s rhetoric about using “full force” remains ambiguous, with no clarification on whether that includes authorization of lethal force or under what conditions it could be used. Historically, U.S. troops deployed domestically are only permitted to use force in self-defense. The sudden move has heightened tensions, particularly following a recent shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas that left one detainee dead and two others injured. Critics argue the administration’s increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement risks politicizing the military and provoking unnecessary conflict in U.S. cities.Pentagon calls up 200 National Guard troops after Trump Portland announcement | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I explore a recent tariff investigation. The investigation into computer peripheral manufacturer Anker Innovations’ alleged tariff evasion highlights how modern tariff enforcement has evolved into a sprawling, bureaucratic effort that diverts taxpayer resources toward compliance rather than bolstering domestic industry. Rather than serving as effective tools of economic nationalism, tariffs often end up creating work for customs officials, trade lawyers, and compliance consultants. Each adjustment to tariff classifications triggers complex administrative networks that contradict the ideal of limited government.This system’s irony deepens when considering that agencies like the IRS are underfunded, even as policymakers lean more on tariffs—a less efficient and more easily manipulated revenue source. The result is a compliance-heavy environment that benefits well-resourced firms while leaving smaller importers at a disadvantage. Investigating potential violations can be costly and time-consuming, encouraging selective enforcement and fostering a procedural limbo where discretion and inefficiency thrive.The current approach, which places tariff power largely in the executive branch, introduces volatility and undermines predictability in trade policy. Companies may invest heavily in litigation over classification issues, only to see the rules change mid-process. This undermines confidence in the system and raises the risk of corruption and favoritism. I argue that returning tariff authority to Congress and reinvigorating corporate tax enforcement would make the system more equitable and effective. 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 André ConvictedOn September 29, 1780, Major John André of the British Army was convicted by a Continental Army court martial for his role in a conspiracy with American General Benedict Arnold. André had been captured behind American lines near Tarrytown, New York, carrying incriminating documents that detailed Arnold’s treasonous plan to surrender the key American fort at West Point to the British. Disguised in civilian clothes and using a false passport, André was found to be operating as a spy rather than a conventional enemy officer.General George Washington ordered the formation of a board of senior officers, including Generals Nathanael Greene and Marquis de Lafayette, to determine André’s fate. The court martial found him guilty of acting under false pretenses and ruled that he should be hanged as a spy rather than shot as a soldier—a distinction of enormous symbolic and legal consequence. Despite André’s honorable conduct and appeals for a more dignified execution, Washington upheld the sentence.André’s execution, carried out on October 2, 1780, marked a turning point in the American Revolution’s approach to wartime law, espionage, and loyalty. It also crystallized the betrayal of Benedict Arnold, whose escape to British lines allowed him to avoid prosecution. The case highlighted how military justice operated during wartime, often blending evidentiary hearings with moral and strategic considerations. The outcome emphasized the seriousness with which the Continental Army treated the laws of war, especially in cases of clandestine operations and treason.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to withhold roughly $4 billion in foreign aid despite Congress having already appropriated the funds. The aid was intended for programs including United Nations peacekeeping and global democracy-promotion efforts. The ruling came after a lower court, led by Judge Amir Ali, had ordered the administration to release the funds, siding with aid groups that filed the lawsuit. In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court questioned whether those groups had legal standing and warned that enforcing the lower court’s ruling could infringe on the president’s authority over foreign policy.The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan criticizing the majority for undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers. She argued that once Congress passes appropriations laws, the executive branch is legally required to carry them out unless Congress acts to change them. The Trump administration defended its actions as aligned with its “America First” foreign policy, claiming the spending conflicted with current U.S. interests. To withhold the funds, it used a “pocket rescission” strategy—an obscure method to delay spending long enough for the funds to expire.This decision reflects a broader trend of the Supreme Court supporting Trump-era policies, especially those halted by lower courts. Critics warn the ruling could set a precedent that weakens congressional control over federal spending. Legal scholars note that Trump’s withholding of appropriated funds through this method is without historical precedent and could have significant humanitarian consequences globally.US Supreme Court lets Trump withhold $4 billion in foreign aid | ReutersThe Texas Supreme Court issued a preliminary opinion suggesting that the American Bar Association (ABA) should no longer control which Texas law schools qualify to send graduates to the state bar exam. Under proposed rule changes, that authority would shift to the Texas Supreme Court itself. The court would use what it calls “simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” such as bar passage rates, rather than relying on the ABA’s existing standards.While the justices don’t expect immediate changes to the current list of approved schools, the proposal marks a significant shift in how legal education could be regulated in Texas. Public comments will be accepted through December 1, with the rules potentially taking effect on January 1, 2026. The move comes amid broader conservative criticism of the ABA, particularly its diversity and inclusion standards, which have drawn opposition from the Trump administration and other Republican-led states like Florida and Ohio.Texas Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock criticized the ABA for lacking ideological neutrality, saying it no longer represents the views of all lawyers. In response, eight out of ten Texas law school deans warned that severing ties with the ABA could damage national reputations and reduce access to quality legal services in the state.ABA Accreditation Should End in Texas, Justices Say TentativelyPresident Trump has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, directly challenging longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. His proposal would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. This represents a sharp departure from over a century of constitutional understanding, which has granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ status.Trump’s legal team argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to children of those fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction—namely, citizens or lawful permanent residents—not to the children of temporary visa holders or undocumented immigrants. The administration is appealing a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the executive order as an unconstitutional reinterpretation of settled law.This appeal marks the first time the Supreme Court is being asked to rule directly on the legality of such a restriction. In past cases, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court upheld citizenship for those born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents. Trump’s team is also asking the Court to consider a related case brought by individual plaintiffs, even though it hasn’t reached the appellate level, in hopes of securing a broad ruling.Trump Asks Supreme Court to Curb Birthright Citizenship (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: John Jay CommissionedOn September 26, 1789, John Jay was commissioned as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the establishment of the American judiciary. Nominated by President George Washington and swiftly confirmed by the Senate, Jay took the helm of the newly formed Supreme Court just one day after the Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law. His appointment signaled the beginning of the federal judiciary as a coequal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution.Jay was already a prominent figure in American political life, having served as President of the Continental Congress, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation. As Chief Justice, he led a court that initially had little authority or docket, with its first session delayed until February 1790 due to logistical difficulties and lack of cases.Despite the Court’s limited power at the time, Jay helped lay the groundwork for its future role. In Chisholm v. Georgia(1793), Jay authored an opinion asserting federal judicial authority over state governments, a controversial stance that ultimately led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. His tenure also saw diplomatic service; while still Chief Justice, he negotiated the Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794 to resolve lingering post-Revolutionary War disputes.Jay resigned in 1795 after being elected Governor of New York and declined a later offer from President John Adams to return to the bench. His brief but influential time as Chief Justice helped define the legitimacy and independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey, escalating what critics describe as President Donald Trump’s campaign of retribution against political adversaries. Comey faces two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony in which he denied authorizing anonymous leaks related to an FBI investigation. The indictment claims he actually did authorize such disclosures. However, the charges are notably sparse, lacking detailed supporting facts or corroborating evidence typically included in indictments of this gravity.The case has drawn intense scrutiny within the Justice Department. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly advised against filing charges due to insufficient evidence, and the district’s top prosecutor resigned last week after expressing concern about political interference. Tensions escalated when U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—formerly Trump’s defense attorney—personally presented the case to the grand jury, an unusual move suggesting top-level involvement. Notably, the grand jury declined to indict Comey on a third proposed charge, highlighting doubts about the prosecution’s strength.Legal experts and former officials, including Obama-era ethics advisor Norm Eisen, have condemned the indictment as politically motivated. Comey maintains his innocence and says he welcomes a trial. Members of his family, including his son-in-law and daughter, have faced professional consequences, which Comey’s supporters view as further evidence of political targeting. The charges represent a sharp departure from norms intended to shield law enforcement from partisan use.Former FBI chief Comey charged as Trump ramps up campaign against critics | ReutersA federal judge in California has preliminarily approved a $1.5 billion class action settlement between authors and the AI company Anthropic, marking a major development in the legal battles over generative AI’s use of copyrighted materials. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the agreement as fair during a Thursday hearing, though final approval is still pending. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson brought the lawsuit, accusing Anthropic of training its AI assistant Claude using millions of pirated books without permission.This settlement is the first in a growing wave of lawsuits targeting companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft for allegedly infringing on creators’ rights through large-scale data scraping to train AI models. Although Alsup had previously ruled that some of Anthropic’s training practices fell under fair use, he determined the company crossed the line by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a centralized database not strictly tied to AI training.The judge had initially hesitated to approve the deal and demanded further clarification from both sides, but now appears inclined to allow it to proceed to the notification stage for affected authors. If finalized, the agreement could signal a broader shift toward holding AI developers financially accountable for unauthorized content use. Publishing industry leaders have praised the development as a step toward curbing what they see as systemic, unchecked copyright violations in AI development. Anthropic, meanwhile, emphasized its commitment to safe and responsible AI.US judge preliminarily approves $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement | ReutersKathryn Nester, a seasoned Utah criminal defense attorney and former top federal public defender, has been appointed to represent Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Utah Valley University event on September 10. The state is seeking the death penalty against Robinson, who faces a charge of aggravated murder.Nester has a history of representing clients in high-profile and controversial cases. She previously defended Lyle Jeffs, a fugitive leader of a polygamous sect convicted of food stamp fraud, and John Earnest, the gunman in the 2019 Poway synagogue shooting, before stepping down due to a conflict of interest. She also defended a Utah doctor accused of destroying COVID-19 vaccines—a case later dropped—and is currently representing Kouri Richins, a children’s author now charged with poisoning her husband.Her firm, Nester Lewis, has strong ties to Utah’s federal public defense system. Her partner, Wendy Lewis, once represented Brian David Mitchell, the man convicted in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Robinson’s case is expected to cost Utah County at least $750,000 for the defense alone, with over $1.3 million budgeted for the total prosecution and defense efforts.Robinson’s next court appearance is scheduled for Monday. Nester has declined public comment on the case.Attorney representing Charlie Kirk’s accused killer is former top public defender | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by George Gershwin.Born on September 26, 1898, George Gershwin occupies a unique place in American music history—standing at the intersection of classical composition, jazz improvisation, and Broadway flair. Raised in Brooklyn to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, Gershwin began his musical life on the piano and quickly showed an uncanny ability to absorb and reshape the sounds of his time. Though he composed everything from operas to show tunes, it was Rhapsody in Blue, written in 1924 when he was just 25, that cemented his legacy.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman for a concert intended to bridge classical and popular music, Rhapsody in Blue was composed in a rush—famously sketched out on train rides and completed with the help of orchestrator Ferde Grofé. The piece opens with its iconic clarinet glissando, a spontaneous flourish during rehearsal that Gershwin decided to keep, and unfolds into a sweeping blend of jazz rhythms, bluesy melodies, and symphonic ambition. It captured something distinctly American—urban, restless, full of promise.Rhapsody in Blue premiered at Aeolian Hall in New York on February 12, 1924, with Gershwin himself at the piano. The audience included titans like Sergei Rachmaninoff and Jascha Heifetz, and the piece earned immediate acclaim. Though critics at the time debated whether it was truly “serious” music, it has since become a cornerstone of 20th-century composition and a symbol of American cultural identity.For Gershwin, Rhapsody in Blue was not a departure from classical form but a statement that American music—jazz, blues, Tin Pan Alley—deserved a place in the concert hall. More than a century later, it remains as fresh and vibrant as the city that inspired it.Without further ado, George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, 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: Sandra Day O’Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation’s highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O’Connor’s appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O’Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public’s view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O’Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O’Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O’Connor’s presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman’s voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O’Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB’s website, end the agency’s oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump’s lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | 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: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation’s first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department’s “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin’s involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin’s actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization’ Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration’s statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | 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: Little Rock NineOn September 23, 1957, nine African American students, later known as the Little Rock Nine, were barred from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, despite a federal court order mandating desegregation. This confrontation became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement and a key test of federal authority to enforce the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the National Guard earlier that month to prevent the students from entering the school, citing concerns about public safety. On September 23, the students attempted to enter the school through a side door. Although they briefly succeeded, a growing and increasingly violent white mob outside forced officials to remove the students for their safety. The local police were unable to contain the mob, highlighting the state's failure to comply with federal law.The national spotlight turned sharply toward Little Rock, prompting President Dwight D. Eisenhower to intervene. The next day, September 24, he federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the students' right to attend the school, which they did under armed guard on September 25.This event marked the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were used in the South to enforce civil rights. It underscored the constitutional principle of federal supremacy and the power of the federal government to uphold civil rights against state resistance.President Trump is set to sign an executive order this week confirming that a proposed deal to restructure TikTok’s U.S. operations will satisfy the 2024 law requiring divestment from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. Under the arrangement, ByteDance would retain less than 20% ownership, while American investors—including Trump-aligned figures like Lachlan Murdoch, Larry Ellison, and Michael Dell—would take control of the U.S. business. The restructuring would install a U.S.-based board with national security credentials, aiming to quell longstanding fears that TikTok user data could be accessed by the Chinese government.The executive order also pauses enforcement of the divestment mandate for 120 days, buying time to finalize the deal and secure regulatory sign-offs. While the U.S. government will not take a board seat or a “golden share,” it remains unclear whether the final agreement will involve any direct financial benefit to the federal government. Still, Trump’s fingerprints are all over the transaction, from its nationalistic framing to the prominent role of political allies in the investor pool. He’s even credited TikTok with helping him connect to young voters—a not-so-subtle nod to the platform’s political utility heading into 2026.This deal marks rare progress in U.S.-China economic talks, which have been largely stalled amid broader trade tensions. But it also reflects a larger trend: Trump’s willingness to insert the federal government directly into private sector negotiations, whether by greenlighting chip exports to China or taking equity in major tech firms. Critics argue such moves undermine free-market principles and risk long-term damage to U.S. competitiveness. Supporters, however, see it as strategic economic defense.In short, Trump’s TikTok solution is part national security play, part corporate reshuffling, and part political theater. Whether it holds up legally—or operationally—may matter less than the narrative: the U.S. regaining control of a culturally dominant platform while sidelining Beijing.Lachlan Murdoch, Michael Dell, Ellison involved in TikTok deal, Trump says | ReutersTrump will sign order declaring TikTok deal meets 2024 law requirements | ReutersK&L Gates is closing its Beijing office, becoming the latest U.S. law firm to retreat from China amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and a sluggish legal market. The Pittsburgh-based firm will consolidate its Beijing operations into its Shanghai office following a leadership review of global strategy and real estate. The move comes under new global managing partner Stacy Ackermann, who took the helm in July.Though K&L Gates will maintain a presence in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia, its exit from Beijing reflects a broader trend. Over the past two years, major U.S. firms like Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb, and Winston & Strawn have also shuttered offices in China due to declining deal flow and increased scrutiny of foreign businesses. While some firms continue to operate in Chinese cities, the heyday of aggressive U.S. legal expansion into China—peaking about a decade ago—appears to be over. The firm's departure underscores the mounting challenges of navigating China’s legal environment in an era of strategic decoupling.K&L Gates closes Beijing office as US law firms continue China market retreat | ReutersZillow is facing a new proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of deceiving homebuyers by steering them toward its own network of affiliated agents rather than the actual listing agents. Filed in Seattle, the suit claims Zillow’s platform misleads users into contacting agents who financially benefit the company—sometimes giving Zillow as much as 40% of their commissions—without disclosing this arrangement to buyers or sellers.The plaintiff, an Oregon resident, argues that these tactics violate both Washington state consumer protection laws and federal real estate laws by inflating commissions and limiting consumer choice. The suit alleges Zillow’s practices result in higher home prices and a lack of transparency about who truly represents the buyer’s interests. The legal team behind the suit characterizes Zillow’s business model as one that exploits consumers’ need for housing to boost profits.Zillow has pushed back, calling the lawsuit a misrepresentation of its operations and defending its model as pro-consumer. This case adds to a growing list of legal challenges for the real estate giant, which is already battling other lawsuits over competition and marketing practices, including one from brokerage Compass and another from Homes.com owner CoStar.New lawsuit accuses Zillow of deceiving home buyers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that as states try to modernize sales tax rules for the digital economy, they should stop framing digital offerings as either “goods” or “services” and start taxing them based on function. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) is circulating a proposal to define “automated digital products” as those sold with minimal human intervention. While well-intentioned, this definition is fuzzy and risks creating more confusion than clarity. For example, how do we categorize a chatbot that occasionally escalates to a live agent, or AI tools that require ongoing human training? These gray areas aren’t new—states have spent years litigating whether software is tangible, intangible, or a service, and this could be a repeat of that same cycle.Instead of defining digital products by how much human effort goes into delivering them, we should define them by what they do. A Netflix subscription is entertainment. QuickBooks is a productivity tool. Therapy on Zoom is health care. Consumers already experience digital services this way, and tax codes should align accordingly. Function-based categories would mirror existing tax practices, like how business deductions or ticket sales are handled, and would be far easier to scale to emerging technologies.It’s true that a functional model still faces edge cases—ChatGPT, for instance, could be research, productivity, or entertainment depending on use. But these are better problems to have than trying to parse human involvement in the delivery pipeline. If states want to tax digital products sensibly, they need a system that reflects how people actually use these tools, not how they’re coded or deployed. 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: Eight Executed for Witchcraft in MassachusettsOn September 22, 1692, eight individuals—six women and two men—were executed for witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, marking the final hangings of the infamous Salem Witch Trials. Among the condemned were Martha Corey, Mary Easty, Alice Parker, Mary Parker, Ann Pudeator, Wilmot Redd, Margaret Scott, and Samuel Wardwell. This date is significant as it represents the culmination of a months-long hysteria that began in early 1692, spurred by accusations from young girls and sanctioned by a special court convened to root out witchcraft. The trials relied heavily on "spectral evidence"—testimony that the accused's spirit had appeared to the accusers—which would later be discredited. The executions were carried out at Proctor’s Ledge, near Gallows Hill.The public mood began to shift by the fall of 1692. Prominent ministers and members of the community, including Increase Mather, began speaking out against the trials, criticizing the reliance on uncorroborated testimony and the erosion of due process. Following the September 22 executions, no further hangings took place, and the special court was dissolved in October. In early 1693, Governor William Phips pardoned many of the remaining accused.The Salem Witch Trials are now viewed as a stark example of mass hysteria and judicial failure. Legal safeguards we take for granted today, such as the right to confront one’s accuser and standards for admissible evidence, were notably absent. Over time, the Massachusetts government issued apologies, and the trials have become a lasting symbol of injustice.President Trump announced the appointment of his former attorney, Lindsey Halligan, as the new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The move comes amid growing pressure from Trump on Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political opponents more aggressively. In social media posts, Trump demanded action against figures such as former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing frustration over delays and lack of indictments. Halligan, who previously represented Trump in legal battles following the Mar-a-Lago classified documents search, replaces Erik Siebert, who resigned following Trump’s public criticism.Trump praised Bondi’s overall performance but hinted at dissatisfaction with the pace of investigations. While he continues to support her publicly, his remarks suggest growing impatience. Bondi has also faced internal criticism over her handling of high-profile issues, including the Jeffrey Epstein files. Halligan's appointment surprised some in the Justice Department, as another official, Mary "Maggie" Cleary, reportedly believed she had been selected for the post.Trump administration sources say Siebert had resisted pushing charges against James and Comey due to weak evidence, which may have led to his ouster. The Eastern District office is currently involved in politically sensitive investigations tied to Trump’s previous legal conflicts and campaign inquiries.Trump Picks New Virgina Prosecutor After Scolding Bondi InactionTrump picks former attorney to be top prosecutor, as he pressures Bondi to investigate foes | ReutersGoogle is facing a major antitrust trial in Virginia, where the U.S. Department of Justice and several states are pushing to force the company to sell its ad exchange platform, AdX. The government argues that Google has unlawfully monopolized the web advertising market, particularly by tying AdX to its publisher ad server, which publishers use to manage digital ad inventory. Judge Leonie Brinkema previously ruled that Google holds monopoly power in this area and will now decide what remedies to impose following the trial.The DOJ wants Google to not only divest AdX but also open-source the auction system that determines which ads get placed when users load a webpage. Google has countered that such proposals are impractical and could destabilize the digital advertising ecosystem. The company had earlier considered selling AdX in EU negotiations but is now proposing policy changes to allow more competition on its platforms.The trial has significant implications for the broader tech industry, as part of a larger bipartisan effort to regulate major tech firms including Meta, Amazon, and Apple. Testimony is expected from media industry executives, including former officials from News Corp and DailyMail.com, who have accused Google of prioritizing its own interests in ad placements. If current remedies fail to improve competition within four years, the DOJ wants Google to also sell its publisher ad server.Google seeks to avoid ad tech breakup as antitrust trial begins | ReutersLawyers for Luigi Mangione, the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, are asking a federal judge to block the death penalty in his case. In a court filing, they argued that Mangione’s due process rights were violated, pointing to a highly publicized and "dehumanizing" perp walk in which he was shown in shackles being escorted from a helicopter. They claim this media spectacle, along with public comments from officials—including U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—created a prejudicial environment from the outset of the case.Mangione has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder and interstate stalking. Thompson was fatally shot on December 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel during an investment conference. While the killing was widely condemned, public sentiment has been mixed, with some sympathizing with Mangione's frustration over rising healthcare costs. The case has also fueled broader concerns about politically motivated violence following other recent high-profile incidents.Prosecutors have until October 31 to argue in favor of pursuing the death penalty, which would be decided by a jury if Mangione is convicted. His next federal court appearance is December 5. In parallel, Mangione is facing nine state charges, though two terrorism-related counts were recently dismissed. While New York abolished the death penalty in 2004 for state crimes, it remains a legal option in federal prosecutions.Luigi Mangione's lawyers urge judge to block death penalty over insurance CEO's murder | ReutersA U.S. federal court will soon decide whether Danish energy firm Ørsted and its partner Skyborn Renewables can resume construction on the Revolution Wind offshore project, which was halted by the Trump administration in August. Located 15 miles off Rhode Island’s coast, the project is designed to power 350,000 homes across Rhode Island and Connecticut. Ørsted, claiming losses of $2 million per day during the stoppage, argues the administration did not follow proper procedures in issuing the stop-work order and is seeking a preliminary injunction from Judge Royce Lamberth.The Interior Department initially cited vague national security concerns through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management but later claimed Ørsted failed to comply with permit conditions. These included coordination with the U.S. Navy and NOAA to address military and scientific survey impacts. Ørsted disputes these claims, stating it has met the requirements and that the government's objections were raised only after litigation began.The Biden administration approved the project in 2023, but President Trump has moved to roll back offshore wind developments, calling them costly and unsightly. The outcome of the court's decision could impact both the future of the Revolution Wind project and the broader U.S. offshore wind sector.US court weighs Trump halt on Rhode Island offshore wind project | 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: Lord Haw-Haw SentencedOn September 19, 1945, William Joyce—infamously known as “Lord Haw-Haw”—was sentenced to death by a British court for high treason. Joyce had gained notoriety during World War II for broadcasting Nazi propaganda over German radio to British audiences, aiming to demoralize Allied troops and civilians. Born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in the UK and Ireland, Joyce later became a naturalized German citizen and an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler. His broadcasts, delivered in a nasal, sneering voice, opened with the phrase “Germany calling,” and earned him the derisive nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" from British listeners.After the war, Joyce was captured by British forces in Germany and brought back to the UK to stand trial. Despite his German citizenship, the court ruled that he had committed treason because he had held a British passport when he began working for the Nazis. His legal defense argued that he owed no allegiance to Britain at the time of the broadcasts, but the court held that possession of the passport created a duty of allegiance. The case raised significant questions about the limits of national loyalty and the reach of British treason laws.On January 6, 1946, Joyce was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison, becoming one of the last people to be executed for treason in the UK. The trial and execution were controversial, with some legal scholars and public commentators questioning the soundness of the court’s interpretation of allegiance. Nevertheless, the sentence was seen by many at the time as a necessary response to one of the most prominent domestic collaborators of the war.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), long considered a cost-effective and critical pillar of U.S. workplace safety, has been effectively dismantled under the Trump administration’s 2025 restructuring efforts. The agency, a division of the CDC responsible for certifying N95 masks, studying firefighter deaths, and leading occupational health research, saw roughly 90% of its 1,000 staff receive layoff notices on April 1. This move paralyzed core programs, from black lung screenings to PPE certifications, halting NIOSH's role as both a public safeguard and a quiet corporate consultant. The sudden cuts sparked chaos: lab animals were euthanized, crucial research was frozen, and businesses warned of safety gaps and market instability.Many affected workers have since resigned or are stuck on administrative leave, while others remain in limbo as lawsuits challenge the legality of the terminations. Despite statements from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming essential functions remain intact, internal confusion and partial walk-backs—like budget proposals still seeking to slash 80% of NIOSH funding—suggest deeper dismantling intentions. Business leaders, labor unions, and safety advocates have united in rare bipartisan pushback, warning of long-term risks to both worker health and industrial standards.The agency's downfall is part of a broader campaign to weaken the federal workforce, spearheaded by Project 2025 architects and executed with sweeping firings, anti-DEI mandates, and deep budget cuts across agencies. Former government scientists describe the collapse of safety infrastructure as a slow, invisible crisis—where the full damage may not emerge for years. With morale shattered and talent fleeing, the future of U.S. workplace safety research is in jeopardy.Trump Team Derailed Corporate America’s Most Valuable ConsultantTwo major elements of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda—his global tariffs and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, raising pivotal questions about the scope of presidential power. The court has agreed to hear a challenge to Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, a law traditionally used to sanction hostile foreign actors, not manage trade. Arguments are set for November 5. Separately, Trump is seeking to fire Cook, claiming misconduct; however, critics argue this is a pretext for targeting her policy views and that doing so violates the 1913 law establishing the Fed's independence.Legal scholars warn that siding with Trump in either case could dramatically expand executive authority. Trump has already tested legal boundaries across immigration, diversity, and civil service policy. While lower courts have often blocked his initiatives, the Supreme Court—now with a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees—has frequently sided with him. The Cook case raises unprecedented constitutional questions, as no president has ever removed a Fed governor.Meanwhile, Trump's tariff actions have destabilized global trade relations and spurred economic uncertainty, though his allies argue they are central to his economic strategy. A decision favoring Trump in both cases could weaken institutional checks on executive power and erode the principle of independent monetary policy.Key parts of Trump's economic agenda now in Supreme Court's hands | ReutersIn Washington, D.C., immigrant neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant, Petworth, and Columbia Heights are pushing back against a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests under President Donald Trump’s intensified immigration enforcement campaign. Local residents have begun organizing in real-time—using chat groups and in-person protests—to disrupt ICE detentions, including a recent case where bystanders successfully pressured officers to release a Guatemalan man. These actions reflect growing distrust and fear within largely Latino communities, where residents report increased racial profiling and aggressive policing.The Trump administration’s recent declaration of a “crime emergency” in D.C., coupled with the federalization of local police and a heightened ICE presence, has heightened tensions, especially in areas with deep immigrant roots. Community members and advocacy groups say people are being targeted based on appearance or location, not criminal history. Businesses that once bustled with immigrant patrons are seeing sharp declines in foot traffic, as many residents now avoid public spaces out of fear.Federal officials defend the enforcement as targeting serious offenders, but critics point out that many arrests involve individuals without criminal records. A Supreme Court ruling this month has further enabled ICE to continue race- or location-based arrests. Meanwhile, residents like Yessica Gonzalez and Nelvin Rodriguez say the climate of fear is unlike anything they’ve previously experienced. The increased enforcement has not only disrupted lives but also strained local economies and community trust.Washington's immigrant neighborhoods push back against ICE arrests | ReutersThe U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires, a veteran intellectual property attorney and former Goldman Sachs executive, as the new head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under President Donald Trump. Squires takes over at a critical time, as the agency grapples with global competition from China and emerging legal challenges surrounding artificial intelligence in the patent process. His appointment follows a broad push by Senate Republicans to confirm a slate of Trump nominees despite Democratic opposition.Squires brings a deep background in both corporate and legal arenas, having worked on IP and tech issues at firms like Honeywell and most recently at Dilworth Paxson, where he focused on AI, blockchain, and cybersecurity. He has also taught at the University of Pennsylvania. His predecessor, Kathi Vidal, led the USPTO during the Biden administration and returned to private practice following Trump’s 2024 election victory.The USPTO plays a vital role in the American innovation ecosystem, handling patent and trademark applications and advising the government on intellectual property policy. The agency's Patent Trial and Appeal Board frequently mediates high-stakes disputes over patent validity, especially in the tech sector. Squires steps into the role amid heightened political scrutiny, including a controversial Commerce Department order to review patents held by Harvard University as part of a broader White House campaign linked to campus antisemitism concerns.US Senate confirms Trump's pick to run US Patent and Trademark Office | ReutersThis week’s closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.This week’s closing theme comes from one of the most enigmatic works in the orchestral repertoire: Mahler’s Symphony No. 7, specifically its haunting first movement, Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo. Composed between 1904 and 1905 and premiered on September 19, 1908, this symphony marks a fascinating midpoint in Mahler’s artistic evolution—bridging the lush Romanticism of his earlier works with the more fractured, modernist terrain of his later symphonies.The first movement opens with a dark, slow introduction featuring the eerie voice of the tenor horn, an instrument rarely heard in symphonic writing. Its strange, searching call sets a tone of unease, as if the music is emerging from shadow. What follows is a restless march full of contrasts—grim fanfares, lyrical episodes, and bursts of uneasy energy—all presented with Mahler’s characteristic sense of orchestral color and irony.Unlike the more spiritual or pastoral moods of Mahler’s other symphonies, the Seventh is often described as "problematic," even "nightmarish"—a label Mahler himself rejected. He referred to the symphony as a progression “from night into day,” and this opening movement represents the beginning of that journey: turbulent, disoriented, and shot through with moments of beauty and menace.Mahler’s orchestration here is dense and highly detailed, often requiring massive forces and unconventional instruments. Yet beneath its complexity lies a deep emotional current—one that shifts

This Day in Legal History: Fugitive Slave ActOn September 18, 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law, intensifying the national divide over slavery. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the law mandated that all escaped enslaved individuals, upon capture, be returned to their enslavers and that officials and citizens of free states were legally obligated to cooperate. Federal commissioners were authorized to issue arrest warrants without a jury trial, and those accused had no right to testify in their own defense.The law also imposed heavy penalties on anyone aiding a fugitive, including fines and imprisonment, which provoked outrage among abolitionists and free Black communities. The act effectively nationalized the institution of slavery, forcing even anti-slavery states to participate in its enforcement. This led to dramatic and sometimes violent resistance, including the formation of vigilance committees and the expansion of the Underground Railroad.Free Black Americans faced new dangers under the law, as it encouraged bounty hunters and unscrupulous officials to seize and enslave them under false pretenses. Several high-profile cases, such as the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston in 1854, drew mass protests and highlighted the law's harsh impact. The Fugitive Slave Act deepened sectional tensions and hardened Northern opposition to slavery, pushing the nation closer to civil war.A Chapter 7 trustee for the bankrupt fintech startup GloriFi has filed a $1.7 billion malpractice lawsuit against law firm Winston & Strawn and its Houston managing partner, Michael Blankenship. The suit alleges the firm prioritized the interests of GloriFi’s founder, Texas oil investor Toby Neugebauer, over the company’s, ultimately contributing to its collapse. GloriFi—formally known as With Purpose Inc.—marketed itself as an “anti-woke” financial institution aimed at conservative consumers. The complaint claims Winston & Strawn enabled Neugebauer to engage in self-dealing, manipulate board control, and undermine corporate governance, deterring major investors and derailing a proposed SPAC merger that once valued the company at $1.7 billion.The trustee accuses the firm of negligence, fiduciary breaches, and aiding fraudulent transfers, alleging its conduct drove investor confidence down and played a key role in the company’s failure. Winston & Strawn denies wrongdoing and promises to contest the "meritless claims." The legal action follows a court-approved settlement earlier this year that allowed GloriFi’s trustee to pursue claims via a separate entity tied to one of the investors. This is one of multiple legal efforts by the trustee, who previously sued Chapman & Cutler LLP over similar allegations related to Neugebauer’s control of the company. High-profile backers of GloriFi included Peter Thiel, Ken Griffin, Vivek Ramaswamy, and an aide to former Vice President Mike Pence.Winston & Strawn Sued in ‘Anti-Woke’ Bank Startup Bankruptcy (1)A U.S. immigration judge ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American activist and Columbia University student, to either Algeria or Syria. The ruling is based on allegations that Khalil intentionally misrepresented facts on his green card application. Khalil’s legal team disputes the decision and plans to appeal, citing a separate federal court order that currently prevents his detention or deportation while his civil rights case proceeds.Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was previously held for over 100 days by immigration authorities and missed the birth of his child while in custody. He was released in June after a federal judge criticized his prolonged detention over a civil immigration issue as unconstitutional. Khalil claims the government's efforts to remove him are retaliatory, tied to his outspoken pro-Palestinian activism and free speech. He argues that the charges against him are fabricated and politically motivated.The case has drawn criticism from civil rights organizations concerned about the erosion of due process and free speech rights, especially in the context of recent federal pressure on universities to curtail pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia University, where Khalil studies, was a focal point of such demonstrations in the previous year.US immigration judge orders Khalil deportation, his lawyers say separate ruling protects him for now | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Amazon violated consumer protection laws by collecting billing information for its Prime subscription service before clearly disclosing the full terms, giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a partial win in its case against the company. The FTC alleges Amazon used deceptive practices to enroll tens of millions of users in Prime without proper consent and made cancellations deliberately difficult. The judge found that these actions potentially violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), and that Amazon cannot argue ROSCA doesn’t apply to Prime signups.U.S. District Judge John Chun also held that two Amazon executives could be held personally liable if violations are proven at trial. The FTC’s consumer protection chief, Chris Mufarrige, said the ruling confirms Amazon misled consumers. Amazon maintains that neither the company nor the executives acted improperly, and claims it has always prioritized customer experience. The outcome of the upcoming trial could significantly affect how subscription services manage disclosures and cancellations going forward.Amazon violated online shopper protection law, judge rules ahead of Prime signup trial | ReutersA federal appeals court has blocked, for now, the Trump administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The proposed reorganization, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., included cutting 10,000 jobs, shutting half of HHS’s regional offices, and consolidating key functions across agencies like the CDC and FDA. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction, siding with 19 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that argued the plan would cause immediate harm.The appellate panel, composed entirely of Biden-appointed judges, found the administration failed to demonstrate why the injunction should be lifted while the case is under appeal. The court cited extensive evidence from state officials showing how the restructuring already disrupted public health services, including disease tracking and early childhood programs like Head Start. In July, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled the administration lacked the authority to unilaterally restructure agencies created by Congress and ordered a halt to the planned cuts at four major agencies.The administration argued the suit was speculative and claimed employee firings should be handled through internal federal channels. However, the court rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that the states have a direct and tangible interest due to their reliance on federal services. The case remains ongoing, with significant implications for executive authority over federal agencies.Trump administration cannot proceed with overhaul of US health agencies, court rules | ReutersMorgan & Morgan, a major U.S. personal injury law firm, has filed a lawsuit against Disney in federal court in Orlando, seeking a ruling that it can use a parody-style ad referencing Steamboat Willie without infringing Disney’s intellectual property rights. Although Disney’s copyright on the 1928 short film—which introduced Mickey and Minnie Mouse—expired last year, the company still holds related trademarks. The lawsuit comes after Disney declined to confirm whether it would object to the ad when contacted by the firm.The disputed ad, styled in the animation style of Steamboat Willie, shows Minnie Mouse calling Morgan & Morgan after Mickey crashes a boat into her car. The ad contains a disclaimer distancing it from Disney. Citing Disney’s aggressive enforcement history—such as a recent trademark suit over Steamboat Willie jewelry—the firm is asking the court to preemptively declare that its ad does not violate Disney’s IP and to block any potential lawsuit from the company.Morgan & Morgan argues that the uncertainty created by Disney’s refusal to clarify its position prompted the need for legal action. The firm is known for its extensive advertising efforts, having spent over $218 million on legal services ads in the previous year.Disney sued by law firm Morgan & Morgan over 'Steamboat Willie' ad | 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: Treaty of Fort PittOn September 17, 1778, the Treaty of Fort Pitt—also known as the Treaty of Fort Pitt or the Delaware Treaty—was signed between the newly independent United States and the Lenape (Delaware) Nation. It was the first formal treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe, signaling an alliance during the Revolutionary War against British forces. The treaty, negotiated at Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), promised military collaboration, mutual defense, and provisions for supplies and protection for the Lenape people. In a striking and largely symbolic provision, the treaty even entertained the idea of creating a 14th state within the Union to be governed by Native Americans.Though the treaty framed the Lenape as equal partners, its promises were quickly eroded by reality. The United States failed to deliver many of the resources it pledged, and the idea of a Native-governed state was abandoned almost as soon as it was proposed. Lenape leaders had agreed to the treaty in part out of necessity, caught between colonial and British expansion and hoping to safeguard their people’s survival. Instead, they faced encroachment, displacement, and repeated betrayals.Within a few years, American militias and settlers would violate the treaty’s terms, seizing land and disregarding Lenape sovereignty. The alliance never materialized in the way it was envisioned. The treaty, once a beacon of potential cooperation, became an early example of the fragility of Native-American treaties with the United States. It set a precedent for broken agreements that would recur throughout American expansion.A Senate report released by Democrats on September 17, 2025, criticized KPMG LLP for failing to act on warning signs at Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank prior to their 2023 collapses. The auditors issued clean reports just weeks before the banks failed due to rising interest rates and liquidity issues, yet they allegedly ignored key red flags such as massive asset devaluations, governance concerns, and internal risk assessments. Lawmakers said KPMG adopted an overly narrow view of its responsibilities and maintained close, long-term relationships with the banks, raising questions about its objectivity. The report highlighted a revolving door between KPMG and the banks, with executives and audit staff frequently moving between roles. KPMG defended its audits, saying it followed U.S. standards and criticized the report as out of step with other investigations, which have not blamed auditors for the failures.Senator Richard Blumenthal called for substantial reform to the audit industry, citing “willful blindness” by KPMG and a failure to protect the public. Though the Senate subcommittee's report is unlikely to spur immediate regulatory changes—especially given the political instability at the PCAOB—it proposed new oversight tools, including mandatory auditor rotation and a whistleblower office. The report also recommended making audit enforcement investigations public sooner, arguing that long delays leave investors unaware of potential problems. KPMG, meanwhile, noted it had improved its audit practices and achieved its best regulatory inspection in 15 years.KPMG Dismissed Red Flags at Regional Banks, Senate Review FindsA New York state judge dismissed two terrorism-related charges against Luigi Mangione, who remains accused of second-degree murder in the killing of health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mangione acted with the intent to intimidate health workers or influence government policy—criteria necessary for charges under the state's terrorism statute. While the judge acknowledged the seriousness of the crime, he clarified that not all non-traditional crimes qualify as terrorism.Mangione, 27, still faces nine other charges in the state case, including multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon and a charge for possessing false identification. He has also been indicted federally, where the U.S. Justice Department is seeking the death penalty. The state court’s decision does not impact the federal terrorism case, which remains active. Thompson, a former CEO at UnitedHealthcare, was shot outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel in December 2024 during a company event.The case has drawn national attention, particularly as concerns grow over politically motivated violence following the recent killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Public reaction to Mangione has been sharply divided, with some viewing him as a vigilante figure amid frustration with rising healthcare costs. Supporters even rallied outside the courthouse, holding signs and wearing themed attire. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and no trial dates have been scheduled.Luigi Mangione wins dismissal of terrorism counts in US insurance executive's killing | ReutersSeveral major U.S. law firms that reached agreements with President Donald Trump earlier this year are now representing clients in lawsuits against his administration, despite concerns that the deals would deter such actions. At least four of the nine firms that made arrangements with the White House—Latham & Watkins, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Skadden Arps, and Milbank—have since taken on cases involving challenges to Trump-era policies on immigration, transgender rights, tariffs, and environmental regulations.The firms’ deals with the Trump administration, reached in March and April, came in response to executive orders targeting firms seen as opposing the president’s agenda or promoting diversity policies he opposed. As part of the agreements, the firms pledged nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work for causes aligned with the administration. Critics feared the arrangements would chill dissent and limit the firms' independence, but court records show several firms continued to litigate against the government.Legal experts suggest these firms are balancing risk with professional obligations, especially in high-profile cases involving long-standing clients or influential attorneys. For example, Latham represents Danish energy company Orsted in a lawsuit over a halted wind project, and Willkie is defending Virginia school districts in a transgender rights dispute. Milbank is involved in litigation over Trump’s tariff powers and sanctuary city policies, led by prominent attorneys Neal Katyal and Gurbir Grewal. Skadden has partnered with a nonprofit to represent an immigrant woman denied a special visa.Four firms successfully challenged the legality of Trump’s executive orders in court, with rulings finding they violated First Amendment protections. The administration has appealed. Meanwhile, Reuters has reported that other top firms have reduced pro bono and diversity initiatives, cautious of possible political retaliation.Some law firms that cut deals with Trump take cases opposing his administration | ReutersTesla has reached a confidential settlement with the family of Jovani Maldonado, a teenager killed in a 2019 crash involving a Tesla Model 3 operating on Autopilot. The case, which was set to go to trial next month in Alameda County, adds to a string of fatal crash lawsuits the company has quietly resolved to avoid jury trials. The Maldonados alleged that Tesla's driver-assistance system failed to detect slowing traffic and that the car struck their Ford Explorer at 70 mph, ejecting and killing 15-year-old Jovani. According to the lawsuit, the Tesla driver had no hands on the wheel at the time of impact, and the family claimed Tesla misled the public about the safety and capabilities of its Autopilot technology.Although Tesla argued the technology worked as designed and blamed the driver, it continues to settle similar cases even after Elon Musk publicly stated in 2019 that he opposed settling “unjust” lawsuits. The company has also recently settled other high-profile fatal crash suits, including ones involving distracted drivers and cases with alcohol-related elements.These legal battles come as Tesla faces mounting scrutiny over Autopilot and its marketing practices. The California DMV is pursuing an administrative complaint accusing Tesla of exaggerating its software's capabilities, with a ruling still pending. Tesla has three more fatal Autopilot crash trials scheduled in the next six months, including one in Houston involving injured police officers.Tesla Settles Another Fatal Crash Suit Ahead of Jury Trial (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration’s ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk’s company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk’s rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk’s company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.Consumers are expected to receive a minimum of $2, with additional compensation based on their Play Store spending from August 2016 to September 2023. Google also agreed to ease restrictions on app developers, allowing them to inform users about alternative payment methods and enabling easier direct app downloads from the web. The fee request amounts to approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, and the firms say they invested nearly 100,000 hours over more than three years.While Judge Donato previously raised concerns about the scope of the deal, no U.S. state has objected to the fee request so far. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and users will still have the opportunity to raise objections before final approval.Lawyers behind $700 million Google settlement ask for $85 million fee award | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Norway’s recent national election, which effectively became a referendum on one of the last remaining wealth taxes in Europe. Despite having a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and no immediate fiscal need for a wealth tax, Norwegians narrowly backed the Labour Party, signaling that voters still care about fairness in taxation—even when the government doesn’t need the money. In a global landscape where wealth taxes have mostly disappeared, this was a small but potent victory for the principle of equity.I argued that this matters beyond Norway. Wealth taxes used to be common across Europe, but most were abandoned due to fears of capital flight and elite lobbying. That Norway held the line—even amid billionaire threats and a populist surge—suggests that wealth taxes can survive politically when fairness becomes a central electoral value. It also underscores that symbolic wins can shape broader policy debates by proving what’s administratively and politically possible.In the U.S., we lack Norway’s fiscal cushion, yet we’ve persistently avoided taxing wealth. Policymakers often justify this inaction with fears about capital mobility, but I question whether we’re really more vulnerable to capital flight than Norway is. The deeper issue is political will. Americans have long treated wealth taxation as politically toxic and bureaucratically unworkable, but that may be more a product of narrative than necessity.Norway's voters showed that fairness can be enough to win—even narrowly. But I emphasize that such policies require ongoing public defense; they don’t sustain themselves. If we continue dodging the issue in the U.S., we’ll be doing so not from a place of strength, but from a place of illusion. If Norway can defend taxing wealth despite not needing to, we have no excuse not to even try.Norway Wealth Tax Victory Shows Visible Fairness Still Matters 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