Minimum Competence Andrew and Gina Leahey

This Day in Legal History: Discriminatory Districting
On June 10, 1946, the US Supreme Court rendered a pivotal decision in Colegrove v. Green, which upheld the validity of uneven congressional districting plans. The case involved a challenge to Illinois' districting plan that disproportionately concentrated voters into large districts in the central part of the state, failing to balance districts according to population. The plaintiffs argued that this uneven distribution diluted their voting power, violating the principle of equal representation.
However, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, ruled against the plaintiffs. The Court held that issues of districting were "political questions" not subject to judicial review, thereby placing the responsibility for fair districting on state legislatures and Congress. Justice Frankfurter famously stated that courts should not "enter the political thicket," emphasizing the separation of powers and judicial restraint.
This ruling had significant implications for the future of electoral fairness, as it effectively removed federal judicial oversight from the districting process. Nevertheless, the decision in Colegrove was short-lived. Less than two decades later, the Supreme Court reversed its stance in the landmark case of Baker v. Carr (1962). In Baker, the Court established judicial standards for addressing political questions, paving the way for greater judicial intervention in ensuring equitable districting practices.
The evolution from Colegrove v. Green to Baker v. Carr marked a transformative shift in the judicial approach to electoral districting, underscoring the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the judiciary's role in safeguarding democratic principles. The concept of the political question doctrine, pivotal in these cases, defines the limits of judicial intervention in matters deemed more appropriately addressed by other branches of government.
Cities across the U.S. are grappling with an October deadline to inventory their lead drinking water pipes, a precursor to the EPA's proposed mandate for full replacement within ten years. Charleston, S.C., for example, faces a daunting task with its 6,100 lead pipes, estimating a cost of $100 million for complete removal. The city's water system, like many others, is concerned about the financial burden on utilities and customers.
To comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), water systems would need to replace 10% of their lead pipes annually from 2027 to 2037, a significant increase from the current requirement of 3% per year. This expedited timeline aims to reduce the risk of lead poisoning from drinking water, a priority for the Biden administration. Despite the 1986 ban on lead service lines, approximately 9.2 million remain in the U.S., primarily in states like Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
The initial step is to identify all lead service lines by October 16, using historical records, excavation, and computer modeling. Cities like Chicago, Cleveland, and New York have significant numbers of lead pipes, while Philadelphia and Baltimore report many service lines of unknown material. Some smaller systems, particularly in Ohio, struggle with the manpower and funding to meet this deadline.
While cities such as Denver and Milwaukee are ahead in their inventories, many others argue that full replacement within a decade is unrealistic without additional federal funding. The Philadelphia Water Department and Baltimore's Bureau of Water and Wastewater have requested more flexible timelines or replacement criteria based on lead levels in water.
Charleston, alongside other cities, urges the EPA to reconsider the stringent mandates, highlighting the substantial cost and resource challenges. The debate continues as the EPA reviews feedback and prepares to finalize the LCRI regulations.
Cities Face ‘Impossible’ Deadlin

This Day in Legal History: Gandhi’s First Act of Civil Disobedience
On June 7, 1893, Mohandas Gandhi committed his first act of civil disobedience in South Africa, an event that would shape his future activism and the global struggle for civil rights. Gandhi, holding a first-class ticket, was ordered to move to the third-class section of a train because he was Indian. Refusing to comply, he was forcibly removed from the train at Pietermaritzburg. This incident ignited Gandhi's resolve to combat racial discrimination and injustice.
In response to this humiliation, Gandhi began organizing the Indian community in South Africa, leading to the founding of the Natal Indian Congress in 1894. This organization aimed to unite Indians and fight against discriminatory laws. Gandhi's efforts in South Africa laid the groundwork for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, known as Satyagraha.
After gaining experience and recognition in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915. There, he became a pivotal leader in the struggle for independence from British colonial rule. Through nonviolent protests, boycotts, and civil disobedience, Gandhi mobilized millions of Indians and brought international attention to their cause.
Gandhi's first act of defiance on that South African train was more than just a personal stand; it was the beginning of a movement that would inspire civil rights leaders worldwide, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. This day marks a significant moment in legal history, highlighting the power of peaceful protest and the enduring fight for equality and justice.
The US Supreme Court's recent decision has significant implications for estate planning, particularly for family businesses. The ruling mandated that the value of Crown C Supply Co., a family-owned business, must include the life insurance payout received after co-owner Michael Connelly's death. This decision was a setback for Thomas Connelly, the estate executor, who argued against including the payout in the company's valuation.
The unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasizes that businesses using life insurance proceeds for shareholder buyouts must account for these proceeds in their valuations or explore alternative strategies. These alternatives include cross-purchase agreements, where individual shareholders, rather than the company, hold the life insurance policies, or placing the policies in a trust.
This ruling could particularly affect small business owners who might not afford extensive legal advice, potentially pushing their estates above the exemption threshold and incurring higher taxes. Estate planners now need to reassess buy-sell agreements and consider more tax-efficient arrangements. Despite the clarified tax risks, not all businesses will shift from the contested buy-sell agreements, as factors beyond tax implications often influence business decisions. The case, Connelly v. United States, highlights the need for thorough estate planning to navigate tax liabilities effectively.
High Court Estate Tax Ruling Forces Succession Planning Revamps
Netflix shareholders voted down a proposal to increase transparency on the company's use of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting. The proposal, presented by the AFL-CIO Equity Index Funds, requested a report detailing Netflix's AI policies and ethical guidelines. Concerns highlighted included potential hiring discrimination, mass layoffs, and facility closures, arguing that ethical AI guidelines could prevent labor issues and lawsuits. 
This follows last summer’s Hollywood strikes, partly driven by fears that AI could undermine writers and actors. Similar AI-related proposals have been presented to other tech companies like Meta and Microsoft but have not passed. In February, a proposal at Apple received notable support, with 37.5% of investors in favor.
Netflix, in its proxy statement, described AI as a tool to enhance creativity and efficiency,

This Day in Legal History: SEC Established
On this day in legal history, June 6, 1934, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established, marking a pivotal moment in the regulation of financial markets. The SEC was created in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, aiming to restore investor confidence and safeguard their interests. Tasked with enforcing securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the SEC's mission was to ensure transparency, prevent fraud, and protect investors from unfair practices. 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Joseph P. Kennedy, a businessman and former stock market speculator, as the first Chairman of the SEC. Kennedy's experience and insider knowledge of Wall Street made him a controversial but effective choice for the role. Under his leadership, the SEC began implementing key reforms, including the requirement for companies to provide accurate and comprehensive financial statements, the regulation of stock exchanges, and the enforcement of laws against insider trading. These measures were crucial in stabilizing the financial markets and rebuilding public trust. The establishment of the SEC represented a significant shift towards greater federal oversight and accountability in the financial sector.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have agreed to divide responsibility over the artificial intelligence (AI) industry, allowing the FTC to investigate Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI. The DOJ will probe Nvidia for potential antitrust violations and oversee Alphabet Inc.'s Google. This arrangement follows over six months of negotiations between the agencies.
The FTC has already initiated a probe into Microsoft's $650 million deal with Inflection AI, scrutinizing whether the company properly notified antitrust authorities. Both the DOJ and FTC declined to comment, and representatives from Microsoft, Inflection, OpenAI, Google, and Nvidia did not respond to requests for comments.
The DOJ and FTC jointly enforce U.S. antitrust laws and decide internally which agency will handle specific investigations. This process, known as clearance, has previously led to disputes, especially in high-profile cases like those involving Google. 
The process of "clearance" between the DOJ and FTC, which involves determining which agency will investigate specific mergers and anticompetitive conduct, is crucial in managing jurisdictional overlaps and ensuring efficient enforcement of antitrust laws.
In related developments, the European Union reviewed Microsoft's investment in OpenAI but opted not to pursue a formal investigation. Meanwhile, the UK's competition watchdog is examining the partnership but determined that Microsoft's deal with French AI company Mistral AI does not warrant an investigation.
Microsoft, Nvidia to Face US Antitrust Probes Over Moves in AI
US regulators to open antitrust inquiries of Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia | Reuters
Dan Jacobs, chef-owner of two Milwaukee restaurants, adopted a service charge model during the pandemic to increase employee pay, which led to a $70,000 tax bill. This situation highlights a broader issue where the U.S. tax code favors traditional tipping systems with tax credits, disadvantaging restaurants that use service charges. Service fees, which can range from a few percent to over 20% of the bill, are intended to raise wages for back-of-house workers and reduce tipping disparities.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer has introduced legislation to equalize the tax treatment of service charges and tips, arguing that the tax code should not penalize restaurants adapting to industry changes. The proposed bill would allow restaurants using service charges to claim a tax credit similar to the tip tax credit, provided the service charge goes directly to employees. Critics argue that service charges reduce workers' take-home pay and believe tips give employees more con

This Day in Legal History: Denmark Becomes a Constitutional Monarchy
On June 5, 1849, Denmark transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with the signing of its first constitution. This pivotal moment marked the end of absolute royal rule and the beginning of a new era of governance based on democratic principles. The Danish constitution of 1849 safeguarded civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. It also curtailed the king's powers, ensuring that he could no longer rule by decree. 
A significant feature of the new constitution was the establishment of a bicameral legislature known as the Rigstag, composed of the Folketing and the Landsting. The Folketing served as the lower house, representing a broader spectrum of the populace, while the Landsting functioned as the upper house. This legislative framework aimed to balance representation and ensure a more equitable system of governance.
The constitution laid the groundwork for Denmark's modern democratic system, promoting the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. Each year on June 5, Denmark commemorates this historic event with Constitution Day, a national holiday celebrating the values and freedoms enshrined in the 1849 constitution. This day serves as a reminder of Denmark's commitment to democracy and civil rights, reflecting the enduring legacy of the country's constitutional foundations.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused Meta Platforms Inc. of withholding critical information during its initial reviews of the company's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. These transactions were originally approved after varying levels of scrutiny by the FTC, but the agency now claims that Meta did not disclose key pre-acquisition documents. The FTC, which is currently seeking to break up Meta on antitrust grounds, alleges that this undisclosed information would have impacted its original decisions.
Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is attempting to dismiss the case, arguing that its substantial investments in the acquired apps have benefited consumers. A Meta spokesperson countered the FTC’s claims by stating that Meta faces significant competition and that the company’s investments have enhanced Instagram and WhatsApp.
This isn't the first time Meta has faced allegations of non-disclosure; in 2017, European regulators fined the company for providing misleading information about the WhatsApp deal. Additionally, the FTC's recent filing accuses Meta of degrading user experience on its platforms by increasing ad loads and under-resourcing Instagram. The case, overseen by US District Judge James Boasberg, has yet to see a trial date set.
Meta Withheld Information on Instagram, WhatsApp Deals: FTC (1)
Former President Donald Trump has requested the judge in his hush money case to lift a gag order following his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges stem from a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep her silent about an alleged encounter. Trump denies the affair and plans to appeal the conviction.
Before the trial began, Justice Juan Merchan restricted Trump's public statements about the case to prevent potential threats to the proceedings. Trump's defense argues that with the trial concluded, these restrictions on his First Amendment rights are no longer justified. During the trial, Trump was fined $1,000 for each of 10 violations of the gag order, which included calling Cohen a "serial liar" and criticizing the jury selection.
Trump, a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, claims the gag order is unconstitutional. His lawyer, Todd Blanche, highlighted that President Joe Biden and others have publicly commented on the case, while Cohen and Daniels have also continued to publicly criticize Trump. The judge has previously noted that public critics

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.com

This Day in Legal History: Wiretapping Constitutional
On June 4, 1928, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a significant decision in the case of Olmstead v. United States, ruling that wiretapping private telephone conversations without judicial approval was constitutional. The case involved Roy Olmstead, a suspected bootlegger during the Prohibition era, whose phone conversations had been wiretapped by federal agents without a warrant. The evidence obtained was crucial in convicting him. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not extend to wiretapping because the Amendment only protected tangible property and physical intrusion.
Justice Louis Brandeis penned a notable dissent, emphasizing the right to privacy and warning of the potential for abuse and overreach in government surveillance. He argued that the Constitution should adapt to modern technological advancements, including the methods of communication. The decision highlighted a significant tension between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights, a debate that has continued to evolve with advancements in technology.
This ruling stood until 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned it in Katz v. United States, establishing that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, thus extending privacy rights to include electronic communications. The Olmstead decision remains a pivotal moment in legal history, reflecting the complexities of interpreting constitutional protections in the face of new technological realities.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.com

Administrative Update: We have an important update for Minimum Competence. Moving forward, our newsletter will be available exclusively to paid members, while the podcast will remain free for everyone.
This change will allow us to dedicate more time and resources to enhancing the quality and content of Minimum Competence. We believe this is the best route forward to ensure we continue providing valuable insights and updates. We sincerely thank everyone for their understanding and continued support.
This Day in Legal History: First Federal Child Labor Law Deemed Unconstitutional
On June 3, 1918, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hammer v. Dagenhart that the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was unconstitutional. This landmark decision marked a significant moment in the legal battle over child labor laws in the United States. The Keating-Owen Act, passed in 1916, aimed to regulate child labor by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods produced by children under certain ages and conditions. However, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the Act exceeded the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.