Minimum Competence

Andrew and Gina Leahey
  • 0.0 (0)
  • DAILY NEWS
  • UPDATED DAILY

Minimum Competence is your daily companion for legal news, designed to bring you up to speed on the day’s major legal stories during your commute home. Each episode is short, clear, and informative—just enough to make you minimally competent on the key developments in law, policy, and regulation. Whether you’re a lawyer, law student, journalist, or just legal-curious, you’ll get a smart summary without the fluff. A full transcript of each episode is available via the companion newsletter at www.minimumcomp.com. www.minimumcomp.com

  1. 19 HR AGO

    Legal News for Weds 3/4 - Epstein Testimony Request for Gates, DOJ Reversal in EO Law Firm Litigation, Abbott's Premature Infant Formula Trial and CA's SALT Workaround

    This Day in Legal History: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural On March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation’s constitutional framework. In one of the address’s most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation’s long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong. Lincoln’s remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln’s speech emphasized that the war’s conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States. The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black. The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors. The committee’s inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government’s handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019. Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied. Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein’s former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein’s network and the government’s response to his crimes. Goldman’s Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UK The Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders. The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms’ security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates. Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power. The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny. BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360 In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump’s battle with law firms A trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications. The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow’s milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts. Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself. Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed. The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC. Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | Reuters In this week’s column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven. The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California’s approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap. In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn’t benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those

    10 min

  2. 1 DAY AGO

    Legal News for Tues 3/3 - SCOTUS Weighing Gun Bans on Marijuana Users, SEC Proxy Rule, Rejected Appeal Over AI-Created Art

    This Day in Legal History: Tenth Circuit Act On March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1863, quietly reshaping the structure of the United States Supreme Court in the middle of the Civil War. The Act increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten. This expansion created an additional seat that President Abraham Lincoln could fill at a critical moment in the nation’s history. Lincoln soon appointed Justice Stephen J. Field to occupy the new position. The timing of the law was not accidental. The country was deeply divided, and major constitutional questions about executive power, wartime authority, and civil liberties were moving through the courts. By enlarging the Court, Congress ensured that Lincoln would have greater influence over the judiciary’s direction. Although altering the size of the Court was constitutional, it carried clear political implications. The Constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices. Instead, Congress has authority to determine the Court’s size through legislation. This structural flexibility has allowed lawmakers to adjust the Court in response to political and practical concerns. The Judiciary Act of 1863 stands as one example of how institutional design can intersect with national crisis. The legal element worth highlighting is Congress’s constitutional power to set the size of the Supreme Court. Article III establishes the Court but leaves its structure largely to Congress. This separation of powers detail is significant because it shows that the judiciary’s composition is not self-defining. I chose this element because it explains how a simple statute, passed during wartime, could alter the balance of influence within the highest court in the country without amending the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The case arose after federal prosecutors charged Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana use, with unlawful gun possession under the Gun Control Act. A lower court dismissed the charge, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, concluding there was no historical basis for disarming a sober person who was not under the influence at the time of possession. The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, appealed to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that the restriction is comparable to 19th-century laws that allowed authorities to disarm habitual drunkards. Hemani, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that regular marijuana users are not historically analogous to those groups and that the statute is too vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as an “unlawful user.” The dispute comes as the Court continues to apply the history-focused test it announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case also echoes the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden under the same statute, though he was later pardoned. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Court has recently taken an expansive view of gun rights and is weighing multiple challenges to firearm regulations. US Supreme Court scrutinizes gun ownership ban for illegal drug users | Reuters A recent policy shift by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has given public companies greater control over which shareholder proposals appear on annual meeting ballots. In November, the agency stopped its long-standing practice of having staff formally review and approve companies’ decisions to exclude certain proposals. Instead, corporate executives now have more discretion to determine what goes into proxy statements. Investor advocates say the change has created confusion and weakened shareholder rights, especially in disputes involving environmental, social, and governance issues. The new approach has already led to lawsuits against companies including PepsiCo, AT&T, and Axon Enterprise. In several instances, companies initially declined to include shareholder proposals but reversed course after being sued. For example, PepsiCo agreed to allow a vote on an animal-welfare proposal shortly after litigation was filed. AT&T similarly settled a lawsuit brought by New York City pension funds by permitting a vote on workforce diversity disclosures. Other disputes remain pending, including a case against Axon over a proposal related to political contributions. Activists argue that without clearer guidance from regulators, shareholders must turn to the courts to protect their ability to file resolutions. Despite concerns that the rule change would dramatically increase exclusions, early data suggests companies have blocked proposals at roughly the same rate as in prior years. Trump’s SEC gave companies more power over investors. Lawsuits pushed them back | Reuters The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, leaving intact a lower court ruling that works created solely by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection. The decision lets stand a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that only human authors can register copyrighted works. Thaler sought protection for a two-dimensional image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was generated by his AI system known as the Creativity Machine. He argued that the Copyright Act does not explicitly require human authorship and that the agency improperly read that limitation into the statute. The D.C. Circuit rejected that claim, reasoning that multiple provisions of the law assume an author is a human being, particularly sections dealing with lifespan and inheritance rights. Thaler also contended that, as the system’s owner and programmer, he should qualify for copyright under work-for-hire principles or property law concepts. The government responded that a valid work-for-hire arrangement requires a written agreement and cannot apply to a nonhuman creator. This dispute echoes Thaler’s earlier, unsuccessful effort to secure patent rights for an AI-generated invention, which the Supreme Court also declined to review in 2023. Justices Reject Appeal Over Copyright For AI-Created Art - Law360 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

    6 min

  3. 2 DAYS AGO

    Legal News for Mon 3/2 - Anthropic Banned by DoD, OpenAI $110b Funding Round, CA Social Media Media Issues and SCOTUSBlog Goldstein Fraud Conviction Details

    This Day in Legal History: Jones Act On March 2, 1920, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act. Enacted in the aftermath of World War I, the statute reflected a national effort to strengthen the United States’ merchant marine fleet. Lawmakers believed that a robust domestic shipping industry was essential to both economic growth and national defense. The Act required that goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on vessels that are built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by Americans. Senator Wesley L. Jones sponsored the measure, arguing that reliance on foreign ships posed strategic risks. The law reshaped American maritime commerce for decades. By limiting coastwise trade to qualifying vessels, Congress sought to ensure a steady demand for American shipyards and maritime labor. Supporters have long maintained that the Act protects domestic jobs and guarantees a ready fleet in times of war or national emergency. Critics, however, argue that the restrictions reduce competition and raise shipping costs. Those higher costs are often felt most sharply in non-contiguous states and territories such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii, which depend heavily on maritime transport. Over time, the Jones Act has generated extensive litigation and recurring legislative proposals for reform or repeal. Courts have been called upon to interpret its scope, exemptions, and application to modern shipping practices. More than a century after its passage, the statute remains a focal point in debates over free trade, federal power, and national security. President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using artificial intelligence products from Anthropic after the company declined to support certain military applications. The dispute arose when Anthropic said it would not provide its technology for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems. Trump accused the company of trying to impose its own political views on the Department of Defense and claimed its stance threatened national security. Shortly after the president’s directive, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that military contractors and partners could no longer conduct business with Anthropic. The Defense Department said it would phase out the company’s technology within six months while transitioning to another provider. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had stated that while AI can support lawful foreign intelligence efforts, mass surveillance of Americans raises serious civil liberties concerns. He also argued that fully autonomous weapons lack the reliability and oversight needed to ensure responsible use. According to Anthropic, the Defense Department required contractors to agree to “any lawful use” of AI systems, including applications the company views as risky. The government also threatened to label Anthropic a national security “supply chain risk,” a designation the company says is usually reserved for foreign adversaries. Anthropic maintains that such a move would be legally questionable and has pledged to challenge it in court. The company further argues that any formal designation would likely apply only to government contract work, not to all commercial activity. Trump Tells Federal Agencies To Drop ‘Woke’ Anthropic Tech - Law360 Trump admin blacklists Anthropic; AI firm refuses Pentagon demands OpenAI has completed a massive $110 billion funding round that values the company at $730 billion. The investment was led by Amazon with a $50 billion contribution, while Nvidia and SoftBank each committed $30 billion. The deal was advised by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz on behalf of OpenAI. As part of the transaction, OpenAI also entered into a strategic cloud partnership with Amazon and secured access to Nvidia’s next-generation graphics processing units to expand its AI capabilities. The company said additional investors may join the round as it continues. OpenAI highlighted that more than 9 million paying business customers use ChatGPT, alongside roughly 900 million weekly active users. The funding reflects the accelerating competition among major technology companies to build AI infrastructure, including cloud systems, chips, and data centers. Amazon has already announced plans to invest about $200 billion in AI-related capital spending next year. Across the tech sector, companies such as Meta Platforms and Alphabet Inc. are also committing hundreds of billions of dollars to AI development. OpenAI described the moment as an infrastructure race, emphasizing that scaling capacity quickly will determine leadership in the industry. Wachtell Lipton Steers OpenAI On $110B Amazon-Led Funding - Law360 A Los Angeles trial judge warned members of the press that she may impose a gag order in the high-profile social media bellwether case involving claims that major platforms harmed a young user’s mental health. Carolyn B. Kuhl said a news report appeared to reference juror conversations overheard in a courthouse hallway, which she viewed as a violation of her directive to keep distance from jurors. She emphasized that preserving the integrity of the proceedings is critical and stated she would hold a hearing on a gag order if necessary. The case, pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first bellwether trial among more than 1,000 consolidated lawsuits. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., alleges that platforms such as Meta Platforms Inc.’s Instagram and Google LLC’s YouTube used addictive design features that contributed to her mental health struggles. The judge has repeatedly instructed jurors not to discuss the case or consume media coverage, and she has taken steps to physically separate them from reporters and the public. She also restricted any physical descriptions of the plaintiff because her claims relate to harm suffered as a minor. Tensions over courtroom conduct have surfaced before. The judge previously warned attendees about unauthorized recordings and removed a plaintiffs’ attorney from a leadership role for filming inside the courthouse. Meanwhile, the trial has included testimony from the plaintiff and expert witnesses who argue that social media addiction is real and harmful. The defendants maintain that other factors, including family dynamics, contributed to her condition. With additional trials planned, the outcome of this bellwether proceeding could influence settlement discussions and expose the companies to significant financial liability. Social Media Trial Judge Threatens Media With Gag Order - Law360 Improper juror access in social media case, judge warns media A juror in the recent trial of Thomas Goldstein said the defendant’s own testimony was a turning point in the case that led to his conviction on multiple tax and mortgage fraud charges. The juror described Goldstein’s time on the stand as polished but theatrical, suggesting it felt more like a performance than a candid explanation. Goldstein had argued that errors in his tax filings stemmed from bookkeeping mistakes and reliance on outside accountants, and he claimed he overstated certain gambling winnings. Prosecutors, however, alleged that he intentionally failed to report millions in income, improperly deducted personal expenses, and misrepresented debts on mortgage applications. The jury convicted him on 12 of 16 counts, including tax evasion and mortgage fraud, while acquitting him on several charges tied to later tax years. He has been ordered to remain under home confinement pending sentencing. According to the juror, the government’s extensive documentary evidence — including bank records, emails, and text messages — ultimately carried significant weight. Testimony about Goldstein’s spending habits and lifestyle was also presented, though the juror said personal matters such as alleged affairs were not decisive. The defense emphasized accounting errors and challenged the venue for certain mortgage counts. Still, the juror said responsibility rested with Goldstein because he signed the tax returns. Prosecutors have praised the verdict, while the defense has not publicly commented. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Goldstein Testimony ‘Solidified’ Case, Juror Says - Law360 District of Maryland | Prominent Lawyer Thomas Goldstein Convicted of Tax Evasion and Mortgage Fraud | United States Department of Justice 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

    7 min

  4. 5 DAYS AGO

    Legal News for Fri 2/27 - Bill Clinton to Testify Regarding Epstein, Trump WH Ballroom Ruling, Kalshi Legal Battles and Netflix Bows Out in Warner Bros Deal

    This Day in Legal History: Reichstag Fire Decree On February 27, 1933, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze in Berlin, an event that would alter the course of constitutional government in Germany. The fire broke out just weeks after Adolf Hitler had been appointed Chancellor. Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested at the scene, and Nazi officials quickly blamed a broader communist conspiracy. The next day, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree at Hitler’s urging. The decree suspended key civil liberties guaranteed under the Weimar Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and protections against unlawful searches and detention. It also allowed the central government to override state authorities. In practical terms, the measure authorized indefinite detention without trial. Police power expanded dramatically, and political opponents were arrested in large numbers. Although framed as a temporary emergency response, the decree had no meaningful expiration. It became the legal foundation for dismantling democratic institutions in Germany. Courts largely failed to check the expanding authority of the executive branch. The event demonstrates how emergency powers, once normalized, can erode constitutional safeguards from within. The Reichstag Fire and its legal aftermath remain a lasting example of how constitutional systems can collapse through formally lawful measures rather than open revolution. Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to give private testimony to the House Oversight Committee regarding his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. The closed-door session follows testimony from Hillary Clinton, who said she does not recall meeting Epstein and denied having information about his crimes. Bill Clinton previously flew on Epstein’s plane multiple times after leaving office, and recently released Justice Department documents include photos of him with unidentified women. He has denied any misconduct and has expressed regret over his past association. Committee Chairman James Comer stated that neither Clinton is accused of wrongdoing but said they must address questions about Epstein’s possible connections to their charitable foundation. The Clintons agreed to testify near their home in New York after lawmakers threatened contempt proceedings. Some Democrats supported compelling their testimony, while others criticized the inquiry as politically motivated. Democrats argue that Republicans are using the investigation to shield Donald Trump from scrutiny. They have called for Trump to be subpoenaed, noting that his name appears frequently in Epstein-related records and that he had social ties with Epstein before Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Democrats also claim the Justice Department is withholding records involving allegations against Trump. The department has said it is reviewing the materials and has emphasized that released files contain unverified claims. Authorities have not charged Trump with any crimes related to Epstein. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges, and his death was ruled a suicide. Bill Clinton to give private testimony to Congress about Epstein | Reuters A federal judge has allowed construction of President Donald Trump’s planned $400 million White House ballroom to continue, at least for now. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied a request from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to temporarily halt the project while its lawsuit moves forward. The group had sought a preliminary injunction to stop work, arguing that the administration failed to comply with federal laws, including obtaining congressional approval and conducting proper environmental review. Leon ruled that the preservationists had not met the legal standard required for such an emergency order. However, he indicated they may revise their complaint to better challenge the president’s claimed statutory authority to proceed without Congress. The lawsuit contends that demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning construction violated federal restrictions on altering federal property in Washington, D.C. It also argues that the National Park Service should have completed a more detailed environmental impact statement before work began. The Trump administration maintains that the renovation fits within longstanding presidential authority over White House changes and serves public functions. Trump praised the ruling publicly and said the ballroom would symbolize national strength. The National Trust expressed disappointment but said it plans to amend its legal claims. The East Wing, originally built in 1902 and expanded in 1942, was demolished in October. The ballroom is part of broader renovations Trump has made since returning to office in 2025. Although construction is underway, no firm completion date has been announced. Trump’s White House ballroom can move ahead for now, judge rules | Reuters Prediction-market company Kalshi has hired prominent Supreme Court advocate Neal Katyal to represent it in a series of disputes with state regulators. Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, appeared this week in a lawsuit Kalshi filed against Utah officials and is also handling similar cases in several other states. The company argues that its event-based trading contracts fall under the authority of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state gambling regulators. States contend that platforms like Kalshi are effectively operating unlicensed sports-betting businesses. Other prediction-market operators, including Polymarket and Coinbase, are also fighting regulatory battles and have assembled experienced legal teams. The industry has grown rapidly, with tens of billions of dollars in trading volume last year, increasing scrutiny from state authorities. Kalshi bets on Neal Katyal in prediction market cases | Reuters Netflix has withdrawn its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery after WBD’s board determined that a competing offer from Paramount Skydance was superior. Netflix’s co-CEOs said their proposed merger would have delivered value and likely cleared regulatory review, but matching Paramount’s higher price no longer made financial sense. They described the deal as desirable at the right valuation, but not essential at any cost. Paramount’s leadership welcomed WBD’s decision, saying its proposal offers greater value and a clearer path to closing. To finalize the Paramount deal, a short match period must expire, Netflix’s existing merger agreement must be terminated, and a definitive agreement between Paramount and WBD must be signed. Paramount recently raised its offer to $31 per share in cash, along with a quarterly ticking fee if the deal is not completed by a specified date. The proposal also includes a $7 billion regulatory termination fee if the transaction fails because of regulatory issues, as well as reimbursement of the $2.8 billion breakup fee WBD would owe Netflix upon ending their agreement. With Netflix stepping aside, Paramount is now positioned to complete the acquisition. Netflix Drops WBD Bid, Paving Way For Paramount Deal - Law360 This week’s closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin. This week’s closing theme takes us to Chopin and his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, a work that helped launch his international career. Although numbered second, it was actually the first of his two piano concertos to be written, composed in 1829 when he was just twenty. The concerto reflects Chopin’s deep roots in the Polish Romantic tradition, while also revealing the poetic lyricism that would define his later solo piano works. Its sweeping first movement balances youthful brilliance with emotional intensity. The second movement, marked Larghetto, is intimate and expressive, often described as a musical love letter. The finale brings rhythmic energy and subtle references to Polish dance forms. The piece gained wider recognition when Chopin performed it during his Paris debut on February 27, 1832. That appearance introduced him to the influential musical circles of Paris and marked a turning point in his career. The concerto showcased not only his technical skill, but also his distinctive touch and refined musical voice. While later critics sometimes focused on the orchestration, the piano writing remains among the most elegant of the Romantic era. The work captures a young composer standing at the threshold of fame, blending vulnerability with confidence. As our closing theme this week, it reflects both artistic ambition and a historic February 27 connection that helped shape Chopin’s legacy. Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

    18 min

  5. 6 DAYS AGO

    Legal News for Thurs 2/26 - DOJ Sues Over Antisemitism at UCLA, States Push for Review of Netflix Warner Acquisition, Spain Probes Apple and Amazon

    This Day in Legal History: Grand Teton National Park On February 26, 1929, Congress officially established Grand Teton National Park, preserving one of the most striking mountain landscapes in the American West. While today the park is known for its natural beauty and wildlife, its creation was rooted in significant legal and political conflict. The legislation reflected a growing national commitment to conservation during the early twentieth century. At the same time, it sparked fierce opposition from local ranchers and residents who feared federal control over land they had long used for grazing and settlement. Many critics argued that expanding federal ownership infringed upon traditional property rights and state authority. The controversy centered on Congress’s constitutional power to regulate and manage federal lands under the Property Clause. Supporters of the park maintained that the federal government had clear authority to preserve land for public use and environmental protection. Opponents viewed the move as an overreach that disrupted local economies and private land expectations. The debate highlighted tensions between national conservation goals and regional economic interests. It also illustrated how public land policy can serve as a testing ground for broader constitutional principles. Ultimately, the establishment of the park signaled an expanding federal role in environmental stewardship. It marked a shift toward long-term preservation over short-term private development. The legal battles surrounding the park foreshadowed future disputes over land use, resource management, and federal regulatory power. February 26, 1929, thus stands as a reminder that conservation law has often advanced through conflict as much as consensus. The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the University of California system, alleging that Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA were subjected to an antisemitic hostile work environment. The complaint, brought by the Justice Department in Los Angeles, claims UCLA failed to respond adequately to discrimination complaints following the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Federal officials argue that the university ignored or even enabled antisemitic conduct during a period marked by intense campus protests over the war in Gaza. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring UCLA to investigate the allegations, improve anti-discrimination training, and pay unspecified damages to two professors who say they experienced antisemitism. This legal action is part of a broader effort by President Trump to challenge universities over pro-Palestinian protests, diversity programs, and other policies. The administration previously attempted to freeze significant federal funding for UCLA, though a judge ordered that funding restored. UCLA has responded by pointing to institutional reforms, including restructuring its civil rights office and launching initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism. Large demonstrations took place on campus in 2024, with protesters calling for divestment from companies linked to Israel and an end to U.S. support for the war in Gaza. Some demonstrators, including Jewish groups, have argued that criticism of Israeli policy is being wrongly labeled as antisemitism. The University of California system receives more than $17 billion annually in federal funding, heightening the stakes of the dispute. The administration has reached financial settlements in similar investigations involving other universities, prompting concerns among academic experts about the impact on academic freedom. Notably, the administration has not pursued comparable investigations into allegations of Islamophobia or anti-Palestinian discrimination. Trump administration alleges antisemitic work environment at UCLA | Reuters Attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to closely examine Netflix’s proposed $82.7 billion acquisition of studio and streaming assets from Warner Bros. The state officials argue that the deal could harm competition and weaken the United States’ leadership in the film industry. In a letter to federal regulators, they urged careful scrutiny of how the merger might affect streaming subscribers and the theatrical movie market. Warner Bros. has accepted Netflix’s offer, but its board is also weighing a competing proposal from Paramount Skydance, which has suggested that Netflix’s bid may face greater antitrust challenges. The state attorneys general contend that combining the companies’ assets could lead to excessive market concentration. They warn that reduced competition might result in higher prices, diminished service quality, and fewer innovative offerings for consumers. The officials emphasize that the entertainment industry is a significant part of the American economy and cultural influence, making regulatory oversight especially important. Their request signals potential legal and political resistance to the transaction as federal antitrust authorities evaluate the proposed merger. 11 US States urge DOJ to thoroughly probe Netflix-Warner Bros. deal | Reuters Spain’s competition regulator has determined that Apple and Amazon failed to promptly remove anti-competitive clauses from their distribution agreements, despite being ordered to do so. The watchdog, known as the CNMC, had fined the companies 194 million euros in 2023 and instructed them to immediately eliminate contract terms that limited the number of Apple resellers on Amazon’s Spanish platform. Regulators said those provisions unfairly restricted competition and affected how rival products were promoted on the site. According to the CNMC, the companies did not fully comply with the cease-and-desist order until May 2025, well after the directive was issued. This delay could expose them to additional penalties. The regulator had also alleged that the agreements reduced advertising space for competing brands and blocked marketing efforts targeting Apple customers with alternative products. Both companies dispute the findings. Apple stated that it respects the regulator but disagrees with the ruling and maintains it has followed official instructions, emphasizing efforts to protect customers from counterfeit goods. Amazon likewise rejected the regulator’s conclusions and said it plans to appeal, arguing that its business model depends on supporting third-party sellers, many of whom are small and medium-sized businesses. The original 2023 fine remains suspended while the case is under review by Spain’s High Court. Apple and Amazon took too long to remove anti-competitive clauses, Spanish watchdog says | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

    6 min

  6. 25 FEB

    Legal News for Weds 2/25 - SEC Enforcement Manual Revamp, Paramount Bid for WMD, Judge Blocks Search of WaPo Reporter Device, Updates on Social Media Suit in CA

    This Day in Legal History: Hiram Rhodes Revels On February 25, 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels was sworn in as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. His election came during the turbulent Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War, a period defined by constitutional change and political uncertainty. Revels represented Mississippi, a former Confederate state that had only recently been readmitted to the Union. In a moment heavy with symbolism, he filled the Senate seat once held by Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. The contrast between the two men reflected the profound transformation taking place in American law and government. Revels’ swearing-in came after the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection, and protected voting rights regardless of race. His presence in the Senate gave tangible meaning to those constitutional promises. Yet his path to office was not without challenge. Some senators argued that he did not meet the Constitution’s nine-year citizenship requirement, claiming that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford had denied Black Americans citizenship before the Civil War. Supporters countered that the 14th Amendment had settled the question of citizenship, making Revels eligible to serve. The Senate ultimately voted to seat him, affirming the legal force of the Reconstruction Amendments. Revels served only a brief term, but his impact was lasting. His election marked a rare window in American history when federal power was actively used to expand civil and political rights in the South. Although Reconstruction would eventually give way to decades of segregation and disenfranchisement, February 25, 1870 stands as a reminder of a constitutional moment when the nation attempted to redefine equality under the law. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released its first major update to its enforcement manual in eight years, outlining a new vision focused on fairness and transparency. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the revisions as overdue and said the agency will now review the manual annually. The updated 115-page guide provides clearer direction on how enforcement investigations will proceed and what options are available to individuals and companies under scrutiny. One key change involves the Wells process, which notifies potential defendants that SEC staff intend to recommend enforcement action. Under the revised policy, recipients of a Wells notice will have four weeks to submit a written response. After filing that response, they may request a meeting with senior leadership in the Division of Enforcement to argue against pursuing charges or to present their perspective on the case. Atkins has previously indicated that reforming the Wells process is a priority, emphasizing the need for accurate and carefully considered enforcement actions. Enforcement Division Director Meg Ryan also noted that a persuasive Wells response can influence whether commissioners ultimately approve a case. The manual further reinstates the ability of settling parties to request waivers from automatic industry bars that can follow enforcement actions. In addition, it introduces clearer guidance on how cooperation may reduce penalties and explains how the SEC may coordinate with criminal authorities. Overall, the agency says the revisions aim to clarify how it enforces federal securities laws and strengthen public confidence in the process. SEC Lays Out New Enforcement Vision In Revised Guidelines - Law360 Paramount Skydance has submitted a revised proposal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, as a bidding battle with Netflix continues. The new offer follows the expiration of a seven-day waiver period under WBD’s existing merger agreement with Netflix. For Paramount’s deal to move forward, WBD’s board must first determine that the revised bid qualifies as a “Company Superior Proposal” under the Netflix agreement. After that, a four-business-day match period would need to pass, the Netflix agreement would have to be terminated, and a new definitive agreement would need to be signed with Paramount. While the board reviews the updated proposal, Paramount said it will keep its tender offer in place and continue urging shareholders to reject what it calls the less favorable Netflix transaction. The rivalry between the bidders has spilled into public statements, with Paramount criticizing the structure of the Netflix deal as potentially reducing shareholder value. Netflix has pushed back, accusing Paramount of mischaracterizing regulatory issues and focusing on appearances rather than results. WBD confirmed it received the revised bid but reiterated that its current merger agreement with Netflix remains active and that the board still recommends the Netflix deal. Specific terms of Paramount’s updated offer were not disclosed, though it recently added financial safeguards, regulatory commitments, and an offer to cover the breakup fee if WBD exits the Netflix agreement. Netflix’s agreement to acquire WBD’s studio and streaming operations is valued at about $82.7 billion, while Paramount’s competing proposal to purchase the entire company is valued at roughly $108.4 billion. Paramount Revises WBD Offer As Netflix Bid War Goes On - Law360 ​​A federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from freely searching devices seized from a Washington Post reporter during a national security leak investigation. The FBI searched reporter Hannah Natanson’s home in January and took electronic devices as part of a probe into the alleged disclosure of government secrets. Natanson, who has reported on President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismiss large numbers of federal employees, has not been charged with any crime. U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled that the government may not conduct an unrestricted review of the seized materials. Instead, he said the court will oversee the examination of the devices to ensure that journalistic protections are respected while still allowing investigators to seek relevant evidence. Porter rejected the Justice Department’s request to let prosecutors carry out a broad, unsupervised search. Justice Department attorneys had argued that reviewing the materials was essential to a criminal investigation involving national security concerns. They proposed using a separate FBI “filter team” to screen the data and remove irrelevant content before investigators accessed it. The judge’s order reflects an effort to balance press freedom with the government’s authority to pursue evidence in sensitive cases. US judge blocks search of Washington Post reporter’s devices | Reuters A California woman is set to testify in Los Angeles that her early use of Instagram and YouTube harmed her mental health, in a closely watched trial against Meta and Google. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., says she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, and later struggled with depression and body dysmorphia. Her attorneys argue the companies deliberately designed their platforms to attract and retain young users despite being aware of potential psychological risks. The case is part of a broader international push to address the impact of social media on children, with some countries already imposing restrictions. Earlier phases of the trial focused on what the companies knew about the effects of their platforms on young users and how they targeted that demographic. Now the proceedings are turning to Kaley’s personal experiences and whether the platforms substantially contributed to her mental health challenges. To succeed, her legal team must prove that the design or operation of the platforms was a significant factor in causing or worsening her condition. Meta has pointed to her history of family instability and alleged abuse as alternative explanations for her struggles. Her lawyer, however, referenced internal company research suggesting that teens facing difficult circumstances were more likely to use Instagram compulsively. The lawsuit also challenges features such as autoplay videos, endless scrolling, “like” buttons, and beauty filters, which the plaintiff claims encouraged prolonged use and distorted self-image. YouTube’s defense argues that she did not fully use available safety tools and presented data indicating her recent average viewing time was relatively limited. Woman suing Meta, YouTube over social media addiction takes the stand at trial | 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

    8 min

  7. 24 FEB

    Legal News for Tues 2/24 - Aileen Cannon Won't Release Trump Docs, Two Appeals CJs Step Down, Land Port Tax Plan as Tariff Replacement

    This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. Madison On February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court. Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court’s authority. Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time. The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court’s institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court’s power to strike down unconstitutional laws. A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor’s report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles. The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed. After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith’s appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material. The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting Trump’s tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations. US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | Reuters The chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1. Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump’s second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary’s ideological direction. Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump’s business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges. Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available. Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | Reuters In my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration’s proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code. I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects. I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland. Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. 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

    7 min
  8. Legal News for Mon 2/23 - SCOTUS Helms-Burton and Cuba, IEEPA Tariffs, JPMorgan's Closing of Trump's Accounts and Tesla Held to $243m Verdict

    23 FEB

    Legal News for Mon 2/23 - SCOTUS Helms-Burton and Cuba, IEEPA Tariffs, JPMorgan's Closing of Trump's Accounts and Tesla Held to $243m Verdict

    This Day in Legal History: Order 9066 On this day in legal history, enforcement of Executive Order 9066 began in earnest following its signing by Franklin D. Roosevelt earlier in February 1942. The order authorized the military to designate exclusion zones and remove individuals deemed security risks from certain areas of the country. In practice, it led to the forced relocation and incarceration of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, most of whom were U.S. citizens. Families were removed from their homes, businesses were lost, and entire communities were dismantled. The government justified the policy as a matter of national security during World War II. Critics argued it was rooted in racial prejudice rather than military necessity. The constitutionality of the policy reached the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen, had refused to comply with the exclusion order and was convicted. In a 6–3 decision, the Court upheld his conviction, accepting the government’s claim that the exclusion was justified by wartime necessity. The majority deferred heavily to the executive branch, emphasizing the perceived threat on the West Coast. In dissent, several justices warned that the decision validated racial discrimination under the guise of military urgency. Decades later, the ruling came to be widely regarded as a grave error. In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, formally apologizing and providing reparations to surviving internees. In 2018, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that Korematsu was wrongly decided, rejecting its reasoning even though it was not formally overturned in the technical sense. The episode remains a cautionary example of how constitutional protections can erode in times of crisis. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear two cases concerning the scope of the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 law that allows American companies to sue over property confiscated by Cuba after the 1959 revolution. One case involves ExxonMobil’s effort to recover more than $1 billion for oil and gas assets seized by Cuba in 1960. Exxon sued a Cuban state-owned company in 2019, alleging it continues to profit from the confiscated property. A lower court ruled that the Cuban entities could claim foreign sovereign immunity, which generally protects foreign governments from being sued in U.S. courts. Exxon has asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision. The second case involves four cruise operators—Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Line, and MSC Cruises—accused of unlawfully benefiting from docks in Havana that were originally built and operated by a U.S. company before being seized by Cuba. The docks were used between 2016 and 2019, after travel restrictions were eased under President Obama. A trial judge initially ruled against the cruise lines and awarded more than $100 million in damages, but an appeals court later dismissed the case, finding that the original concession had expired before the cruise lines used the property. The Supreme Court’s decisions could clarify how broadly Congress intended the Helms-Burton Act to apply and whether claimants face significant legal barriers when seeking compensation. US Supreme Court to hear Exxon bid for compensation from Cuba | Reuters U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that it will stop collecting tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) beginning just after midnight on Tuesday. The decision comes several days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those tariffs were unlawful. The agency said it would deactivate the tariff codes tied to President Donald Trump’s IEEPA-related orders but did not explain why collections continued for days after the ruling. It also did not address whether importers who paid the duties would receive refunds. The suspension of the IEEPA tariffs coincides with the implementation of a new 15% global tariff introduced under a different statutory authority. Customs clarified that the halt applies only to the IEEPA-based tariffs and does not affect other trade measures, including those enacted under Section 232 for national security reasons or Section 301 for unfair trade practices. Economists have estimated that the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs generated more than $175 billion in revenue and were bringing in over $500 million per day. As a result, the ruling potentially exposes the government to significant refund claims from importers. US to stop collecting tariffs deemed illegal by Supreme Court on Tuesday | Reuters JPMorgan Chase informed President Donald Trump and his hospitality company in February 2021 that it was closing their bank accounts, according to newly released documents tied to Trump’s $5 billion lawsuit against the bank and its CEO, Jamie Dimon. The letters were sent about a month after the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. At the time, several businesses and organizations distanced themselves from Trump, including law firms and the PGA of America. In its February 19, 2021 letters, JPMorgan did not provide a detailed explanation for ending the relationship. The bank stated generally that it may determine a client’s interests are no longer served by continuing with J.P. Morgan Private Bank. JPMorgan has previously argued that Trump’s lawsuit lacks merit. Trump’s legal team, however, claims the letters amount to an admission that the bank intentionally “de-banked” him and his businesses, allegedly causing major financial harm. Trump contends that JPMorgan violated its own policies and unfairly targeted him for political reasons. The newly disclosed letters were submitted as part of the bank’s effort to transfer the case from federal court in Miami to New York, where JPMorgan argues the dispute is more closely connected. JPMorgan says it closed Trump’s bank accounts a month after Jan. 6 attack | Reuters A federal judge in Florida declined to overturn a $243 million jury verdict against Tesla stemming from a fatal 2019 crash involving the company’s Autopilot system. The court found that the evidence presented at trial sufficiently supported the jury’s conclusion that Autopilot played a role in the collision, which killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon in Key Largo. The jury determined that both the driver and Tesla shared responsibility for the crash. Jurors originally awarded $59 million to Benavides’ parents and $70 million to her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was injured in the incident. After accounting for comparative fault, the compensatory damages were reduced to about $42.6 million, with the driver found 67% responsible and Tesla 33% responsible. The jury also imposed $200 million in punitive damages against the company. Tesla asked the court to set aside the verdict or grant a new trial, arguing that the damages were excessive and that its conduct did not meet Florida’s legal threshold for punitive damages. The company also contended that state law limits punitive damages to three times the compensatory award. The judge rejected these arguments, stating that Tesla was largely repeating points already considered and dismissed during trial. At trial, plaintiffs argued that Autopilot was defective because it could be activated on roads it was not designed for and did not adequately ensure driver attention. They also claimed Tesla overstated the system’s capabilities. The driver admitted he had looked away from the road moments before the crash. Tesla Can’t Escape $243M Autopilot Crash Verdict - Law360 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

    7 min
See All (777)

About

Minimum Competence is your daily companion for legal news, designed to bring you up to speed on the day’s major legal stories during your commute home. Each episode is short, clear, and informative—just enough to make you minimally competent on the key developments in law, policy, and regulation. Whether you’re a lawyer, law student, journalist, or just legal-curious, you’ll get a smart summary without the fluff. A full transcript of each episode is available via the companion newsletter at www.minimumcomp.com. www.minimumcomp.com

Information

  • Creator
    Andrew and Gina Leahey
  • Years Active
    2023 - 2026
  • Episodes
    777
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Andrew Leahey
  • Show Website
    Minimum Competence

You Might Also Like