Minimum Competence

Andrew and Gina Leahey
  • 4.7 (10)
  • DAILY NEWS
  • UPDATED DAILY

The idea is that this podcast can accompany you on your commute home and will render you minimally competent on the major legal news stories of the day. The transcript is available in the form of a newsletter at www.minimumcomp.com. www.minimumcomp.com

  1. 3H AGO

    Legal News for Fri 3/28 - Republicans Gut Overdraft Fee Caps, Trump Whines About WilmerHale, Attacks DEI Grants and a Judge Orders Yemen War Chat Logs Preserved

    This Day in Legal History:  Wong Kim Ark becomes Wong Kim Ark On March 28, 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that a child born in the United States to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese nationals who were legally residing in the U.S. but ineligible for naturalization due to prevailing immigration laws. After a visit to China in 1895, he was denied re-entry on the grounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely restricted immigration from China and barred Chinese nationals from becoming citizens. The Court rejected the government's argument that children of Chinese immigrants were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship. In a 6–2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. This decision established a major precedent for interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reinforced the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil. The ruling came during a period of intense anti-Chinese sentiment, when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and its extensions aimed to restrict Chinese immigration and civil rights. Wong Kim Ark was a significant rebuke to efforts that sought to limit the constitutional rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants, and it laid the foundation for future interpretations of birthright citizenship. The Senate’s vote to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s $5 cap on overdraft fees is a clear signal: protecting bank profits matters more to Senate Republicans than shielding consumers from predatory financial practices. With a 52-48 vote, Republicans—joined by only one Democrat—moved to dismantle a regulation designed to curb exploitative overdraft charges that routinely hit working-class Americans the hardest. This isn’t a technical policy disagreement—it’s a choice to side with an industry that routinely charges Americans up to $35 for covering small shortfalls, even when the overdrafted amount is often less than the fee itself. The CFPB’s rule was narrow, targeting only large banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets, and still allowed higher fees if justified by actual costs. It was a modest, evidence-based consumer protection measure. The financial industry’s immediate lawsuit and the GOP's use of the Congressional Review Act to kill the rule reveal the coordinated effort to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. The overdraft fee fight is just one piece of a broader Republican strategy to roll back protections the CFPB has implemented—protections meant to hold powerful financial institutions accountable. No one should mistake this vote as anything other than what it is: an effort by Senate Republicans to keep consumers on the hook, ensuring that banks and credit unions can continue bleeding them dry in the name of "choice" and "flexibility"—buzzwords that conveniently mask an enduring deference to corporate power. They’ll couch these kinds of moves in language of fairness–pretending they ensure lower-income consumers are given access to these financial instruments. A moment’s reflection, however, makes it clear that even under their best dressed reasoning they’re looking to enable banks to charge exorbitant fees to account holders in precarity.  Senate Votes to Repeal CFPB's $5 Cap on Bank Overdraft Fees (1) Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order against the prominent law firm WilmerHale, following its connections to Robert Mueller, the former special counsel who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The order directs federal agencies to cancel contracts with WilmerHale’s clients, revoke lawyers’ security clearances, and restrict access to U.S. government buildings. This is part of a broader strategy targeting law firms with ties to Mueller’s investigation, including Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block. Trump criticized Mueller’s investigation as an example of government overreach, labeling it as politically motivated. In addition to its ties to Mueller, Trump also accused WilmerHale of discriminatory practices in its diversity programs, echoing similar claims against other law firms earlier this month. The firm, which has a long-standing history of handling high-profile cases, responded by labeling the order unlawful and vowed to seek appropriate remedies. WilmerHale, a major player in litigation with over 1,100 lawyers, represents a variety of high-profile clients, including Gilead, Comcast, and Meta Platforms. The firm has also been involved in cases challenging actions taken by the Trump administration, fueling further tensions. Notably, Trump also targeted other firms for their involvement in the Russia investigation and opposition research, but some, like Paul Weiss, have managed to have orders rescinded by agreeing to specific terms, including providing legal services aligned with Trump’s agenda. Trump Hits WilmerHale With Executive Order Over Mueller Ties (2) Trump targets another law firm, citing ties to Robert Mueller | Reuters A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a Labor Department rule that would force grant recipients to abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago, halts a two-week enforcement window of a January executive order that required organizations receiving federal funds to certify they don’t operate any DEI initiatives—even those unrelated to their grants. The case was brought by Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), a nonprofit that trains women for skilled labor jobs and receives federal funding. The judge sided with CWIT’s argument that the DEI restriction violates First Amendment protections, noting that such a rule could pressure grantees into self-censorship. Kennelly also blocked the Labor Department from terminating CWIT’s funding under Trump’s directive to eliminate “equity-related grants,” though this protection applies only to CWIT and not nationwide. Kennelly’s order represents a legal pushback against Trump’s broader effort to dismantle DEI initiatives across government agencies and contractors. While a federal appeals court recently upheld a temporary ban on DEI programs in federal agencies and contracting businesses, this ruling suggests courts may scrutinize how far the administration can go in policing DEI-related activity outside direct federal oversight. The ruling underscores an emerging legal battleground over free speech, anti-discrimination law, and the limits of executive authority in regulating DEI efforts. Judge blocks Trump's Labor Department from requiring grant recipients to abandon DEI | Reuters A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to preserve Signal messages exchanged by top officials regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The messages, inadvertently shared with a journalist from The Atlantic, revealed internal discussions involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about timing and targets of attacks against the Houthi militant group. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s ruling mandates that all Signal messages sent between March 11 and March 15 be retained by the agencies involved. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a government watchdog group, which argued that the use of auto-deleting messaging apps like Signal violated federal record-keeping laws. The lawsuit doesn't focus on the national security aspects of the disclosure but rather on the legal obligation of government agencies to preserve official communications. The controversy deepened after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized Boasberg, accusing him of political bias and claiming he was attempting to obstruct Trump's agenda. Trump himself has previously called for Boasberg’s impeachment after the judge blocked a deportation policy targeting Venezuelan migrants—an action later upheld by an appeals court. The White House has not commented on the matter, but the episode has sparked scrutiny over the administration’s handling of sensitive military planning and whether efforts to bypass official communication channels undermine transparency and accountability. Judge orders Trump administration to preserve Yemen attack plan messages | Reuters This week’s closing theme is by Sergei Rachmaninoff. This week’s closing theme is one of the most beloved and instantly recognizable moments in all of classical music: Variation XVIII from Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 by Sergei Rachmaninoff, in a solo piano arrangement by Schultz. Rachmaninoff composed the Rhapsody in 1934 during his later years in exile from Russia, blending his romantic sensibilities with virtuoso brilliance. The work is a set of 24 variations on the 24th Caprice by Niccolò Paganini, itself a legendary theme known for dazzling technical demands. While most of the piece is fiery and rhythmic, the 18th variation stands apart—lyrical, sweeping, and emotionally expansive. In fact, it’s a musical inversion of Paganini’s theme, reimagined as a lush romantic melody that seems to rise straight out of the piano’s depths. Rachmaninoff himself admitted it was his favorite part of the piece, and it's easy to understand why: it’s tender, grand, and full of longing. This solo arrangement by Schultz pares down the orchestral drama but keeps all the expressive power, letting the piano sing with full-hearted warmth. The variation has since transcended its classical origins, appearing in films, commercials, and pop culture, yet it never loses its emotional pun

    13 min

  2. 1D AGO

    Legal News for Thurs 3/27 - BNPL Rule Walk Back, Trump Fails to Disqualify Judge Howell, Mass Federal Worker Reinstatement, and Italy's Social Media VAT Tax

    This Day in Legal History: President Johnson Vetoes Civil Rights Act of 1866 On March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an extraordinary move that underscored his deep hostility to racial equality and his resistance to Reconstruction efforts. The bill, which Congress had passed in the wake of the Civil War, aimed to grant full citizenship to formerly enslaved people and guarantee their basic civil rights. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who remained loyal to the Union, used his veto power to block progress for freedmen, claiming the bill infringed on states' rights and unfairly favored Black Americans over whites. His justification was steeped in racism, couching white supremacy in the language of constitutional interpretation. Johnson's veto message argued that Black Americans were not yet qualified for citizenship and that extending such rights would “operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.” He blatantly ignored the atrocities of slavery and the urgent need for federal protections, given the widespread violence and oppression freedmen faced in the South. His opposition wasn’t just a political miscalculation—it was a moral failure and a betrayal of the Union victory. Johnson actively emboldened white supremacist groups and Southern legislatures seeking to reassert control through Black Codes and racial terror. Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto—marking the first time in American history that a major piece of legislation was enacted over a presidential veto. This moment laid the groundwork for the 14th Amendment, which enshrined birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law. Johnson’s veto, however, remains a stark example of how executive power can be wielded to delay justice and reinforce structural racism. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) plans to revoke a controversial interpretive rule that applied certain credit card protections to “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) products. This move follows a lawsuit filed by the Financial Technology Association (FTA), which represents major BNPL providers like PayPal, Klarna, Block, and Zip. In a joint court filing, the CFPB and FTA asked a federal judge to pause litigation while the agency works on rolling back the rule. The rule, issued in May 2024, treated BNPL plans like credit cards under the Truth in Lending Act, requiring providers to offer billing statements, handle disputes, and process refunds. It officially took effect in July, but the CFPB allowed a grace period for compliance. The FTA argued the CFPB overstepped its authority by reclassifying pay-in-four products—short-term, no-interest loans—without formal rulemaking or understanding the distinct nature of BNPL. Despite some early industry cooperation and encouragement from the CFPB for other regulators to follow suit, fintech firms claimed the rule created regulatory confusion by misapplying standards meant for revolving credit. House Republicans tried to overturn the rule legislatively last year but failed. The case, Financial Technology Association v. CFPB, remains on hold while the CFPB prepares formal steps to rescind the rule. CFPB Plans to Revoke Buy Now, Pay Later Rule Fintechs Fought (1) A federal judge in Washington, Beryl Howell, denied the Justice Department’s attempt to disqualify her from overseeing Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case challenging a Trump executive order targeting the law firm. The DOJ accused Howell of bias, pointing to remarks she made in public settings that criticized Trump and referenced his ties to Fusion GPS. In their motion, DOJ officials claimed she showed “partiality” and “animus” toward the president, citing her characterization of Trump having a “bee in his bonnet” over past political investigations. Howell sharply rebuked the motion, calling it an “ad hominem” attack intended to undermine judicial integrity rather than engage with the legal merits. She emphasized that the parties would receive fair treatment and dismissed the disqualification effort as an attempt to preemptively discredit an unfavorable outcome. The case stems from a Trump executive order aimed at punishing law firms perceived as politically hostile, including Perkins Coie, by restricting their federal building access and terminating government contracts with their clients. Perkins Coie argued the order caused immediate and severe business harm, including the loss of a long-standing client. Trump has since issued similar orders against other firms, such as Jenner & Block. The DOJ’s attempt to remove Howell reflects a broader pattern of politicized efforts to delegitimize judicial rulings unfavorable to Trump. Meanwhile, a prior ethics complaint against Howell, filed by Rep. Elise Stefanik over earlier comments she made about the erosion of truth in public discourse, is still pending. Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Oust Her From Perkins Coie Fight (2) A federal appeals court has refused to pause a lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to reinstate over 17,000 federal workers fired during a mass purge of probationary employees across six government agencies. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had not shown that the district judge erred in finding the firings were likely unlawful. At issue is the role of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which Judge William Alsup said overstepped its authority by ordering the firings despite lacking the legal power to do so. The affected agencies include the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and Treasury. Some agencies claimed to have fired only a few hundred employees, while others—such as the Treasury and Agriculture Departments—terminated thousands. The fired employees were mostly probationary workers, often with less than two years in their roles, though some had longer federal service. The ruling doesn’t prevent agencies from terminating probationary workers entirely, but it criticizes the centralized, OPM-directed method used. The Trump administration said it is working to reinstate the workers, placing them on paid leave for now, and has asked the Supreme Court to intervene. This case parallels another decision out of Maryland, where a judge ordered 25,000 similar reinstatements across 18 agencies, though on different legal grounds. That ruling has also been allowed to stand while under appeal. Appeals court won't pause ruling that forced US to reinstate federal workers | Reuters In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, Italy is attempting to tax the illusion of “free” on the internet—and I wrote about why that’s a dangerous turn in VAT policy. In this piece, I walk through a recent move by Italian tax authorities to treat signing up for social media accounts as taxable barter transactions. The core claim is that when users hand over their personal data in exchange for access to a platform like Facebook or LinkedIn, a “supply for consideration” has occurred under EU VAT law. That would make the transaction taxable—even though no money changes hands. I argued that while user data undeniably has value, the theory stretches the purpose of VAT well beyond its policy design. VAT is supposed to be a consumption tax on goods and services, not a levy on intangible exchanges of attention or personal information. If this theory holds, Italy wouldn’t just be taxing social media—it would be opening the door to taxing nearly every online interaction where data changes hands. I also pointed out that VAT requires a tax base, and valuing user data at the point of account creation is speculative at best. The market value of data depends on aggregation and use over time, not on the individual transaction. Plus, data isn’t “consumed” in the way goods or traditional services are—it’s copied, repurposed, and monetized indefinitely. That doesn’t sit comfortably with the core logic of a consumption tax. Finally, I highlighted how this approach could ripple across the EU, creating regulatory chaos. If a cookie consent or an email sign-up becomes a taxable event, we risk converting the very architecture of the internet into a VAT trap. Italy’s frustration with digital tax avoidance is understandable—but this isn’t the right solution. ​​Italy—Where Creating A Social Media Account May Be A Taxable Event 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

  3. 2D AGO

    Legal News for Weds 3/26 - Trump Targets Jenner & Block, SCOTUS Eyes FCC USF Fund, Musk-backed PACs Spend Big in WI, Exit Gas Taxes, Enter kWh Taxes

    This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O’Connor On this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O’Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court’s composition. O’Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity. Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O’Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer’s disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O’Connor’s presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation’s highest judicial institution. President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm’s access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block’s former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it. This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner’s attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation. Trump’s broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession. Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | Reuters The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC’s funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund. The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress’s broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC’s subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution’s assignment of legislative powers to Congress. The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June. US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | Reuters A high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump’s support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state’s top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford. Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel’s campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally. Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he’s made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications. Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | Reuters A piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it’s time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn’t been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap. I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs. Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today’s drivers can choose where to fuel up. Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition. It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax 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
  4. Legal News for Tues 3/25 - SCOTUS LA Redistricting Case, Judge Slams Trump's Deportations, DOJ Targets Law Firms Mean to Trump, State Corporate Tax Sharing Agreements

    3D AGO

    Legal News for Tues 3/25 - SCOTUS LA Redistricting Case, Judge Slams Trump's Deportations, DOJ Targets Law Firms Mean to Trump, State Corporate Tax Sharing Agreements

    This Day in Legal History: Scottsboro Boys Arrested On this day in legal history, March 25, 1931, nine Black teenagers were arrested in Paint Rock, Alabama, accused of raping two white women aboard a freight train. The arrests set off one of the most infamous legal sagas of the 20th century, exposing the deep racial injustices of the Jim Crow South. The teens, later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were quickly indicted and tried in Scottsboro, Alabama. Just twelve days after their arrest, an all-white jury sentenced most of them to death in a series of rushed, chaotic trials marked by inadequate legal representation. Public outrage and national attention, particularly from Black communities and civil rights organizations, led to multiple appeals. In Powell v. Alabama (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants’ right to counsel had been violated, setting a precedent that effective legal representation is essential in capital cases. Later, in Norris v. Alabama(1935), the Court found that the systematic exclusion of Black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite these victories, the road to justice was long and uneven. Several of the Scottsboro Boys remained imprisoned for years, and none received a full measure of legal vindication during their lifetimes. Their ordeal became a powerful symbol of the racial bias embedded in the American legal system and spurred greater attention to the rights of defendants in criminal trials. The legacy of the case continues to influence debates over due process, racial discrimination, and criminal justice reform. At a U.S. appeals court hearing on March 24, 2025, Circuit Judge Patricia Millett sharply criticized the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants, suggesting they were given fewer rights than Nazis who were removed under the same legal authority during World War II. The administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a rarely used law last applied to intern Axis nationals during WWII—to justify deporting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua without immigration court rulings. The court is reviewing whether a temporary ban issued by Judge James Boasberg on such deportations should remain in place. Government attorneys argued that national security and executive authority over foreign affairs justify bypassing normal legal procedures. Family members and lawyers for deportees contest the gang allegations, saying they are based on flimsy evidence like tattoos. One deported man was a professional soccer coach whose tattoo referred to Real Madrid. Judge Millett questioned whether the deported migrants had any opportunity to dispute the gang labels before removal, calling the process rushed and opaque. The deportations, carried out on March 15, sent over 200 people to El Salvador, where they are being held in a high-security prison under a U.S.-funded deal. The ACLU claims the administration defied Boasberg’s court order by speeding up removals to preempt judicial intervention. The government has since invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further flight details. The case is now a flashpoint over presidential power, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice issuing a rare rebuke after Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment. Nazis were treated better than Venezuelans deported by Trump, judge says at hearing | Reuters On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over Louisiana’s congressional map, which increased the number of Black-majority districts from one to two. The case pits efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act against claims that the new map violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by relying too heavily on race. Louisiana officials defended the map, saying it was drawn to protect Republican incumbents rather than based on racial motives. They argued the redistricting was politically, not racially, driven—particularly to preserve the districts of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise. Civil rights groups and Black voters countered that the map was a necessary remedy after a 2022 ruling found the prior version likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. A 2024 lower court ruling blocked the updated map, saying race predominated in its design. The Supreme Court justices appeared divided, with liberal Justice Sotomayor skeptical that race had dominated the redistricting process, and conservative Chief Justice Roberts pointing to the odd shape of the second Black-majority district as potential evidence of racial gerrymandering. Justice Gorsuch challenged whether any consideration of race in map-drawing runs afoul of constitutional protections. The Court had previously allowed the new map to be used for the 2024 elections, but a final ruling is expected by June. The outcome could have broad implications for how states navigate the tension between addressing historic racial discrimination in voting and avoiding unconstitutional race-based districting. US Supreme Court wrestles with Louisiana electoral map with more Black-majority districts | Reuters The Justice Department, under President Trump’s direction, has launched an “immediate review” of law firms that have challenged his administration in court, wielding Rule 11 as a tool to pursue sanctions for allegedly frivolous litigation. The memo, issued March 21, empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to target lawyers not just for recent cases, but for conduct going back eight years—reviving a rarely enforced mechanism that requires legal filings to be non-frivolous and not made for improper purposes. While legal experts note that courts are typically cautious about imposing Rule 11 sanctions, the administration's move is seen as a political shot across the bow of the legal profession. Trump has already threatened prominent firms with revoked security clearances and canceled federal contracts, but one firm, Paul Weiss, avoided penalties by agreeing to a $40 million pro bono commitment to Trump-aligned causes and an audit of its diversity programs. That deal, far from resolving the issue, may have signaled that capitulation invites more pressure. As anyone who’s dealt with a bully could have predicted: surrender doesn’t end the harassment—it encourages it. The only way to improve your position is to raise the cost of targeting you, yet many law firm leaders (and institutions of higher education, if we’re being fair) seem to have missed that lesson the first time they encountered it. Now, those same leaders face the possibility of serious professional consequences for doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do: advocate for clients and challenge government overreach. Trump’s order also singles out individuals like Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias, whom the memo connects to the long-disputed Steele dossier, despite no formal wrongdoing. Critics warn that the DOJ’s probe could evolve into a tool to intimidate or sideline legal opposition to Trump, reshaping the legal landscape by discouraging firms from representing those who stand against the administration. Legal scholars have labeled the move a dangerous politicization of Rule 11, pointing out that it essentially makes Bondi the judge and Trump the executioner. In weaponizing a procedural rule with ambiguous standards and rare enforcement, the administration isn’t just threatening lawsuits—it’s undermining the adversarial system that keeps government power in check. DOJ Launches 'Immediate Review' of Law Firms After Trump Memo California’s new disclosure law on municipal corporate tax-sharing agreements is a welcome move toward transparency, but it’s not enough to stop the ongoing drain of public revenue. For years, corporations have exploited the split in California’s sales tax—where 1.25% goes to local jurisdictions—by striking deals with cities that offer kickbacks in exchange for routing sales through their borders. This has created a race to the bottom, with municipalities, especially smaller ones, effectively subsidizing some of the world’s richest companies in hopes of boosting their own budgets. These deals don’t create new economic activity; they just reshuffle where sales are counted and where tax dollars land. While the new law will finally shine a light on these practices starting in April, disclosure without action won’t solve the problem. Cities will still have incentives to offer generous tax rebates, and many will rush to lock in long-term deals before limits are imposed. What we need is immediate legislative action to cap how much of their tax base cities can give away. A ceiling tied to a city’s budget or economic profile would prevent reckless giveaways while preserving flexibility for true economic development. We should also require that any shared tax revenue be reinvested in local infrastructure or services, not handed over as corporate windfalls. Waiting for more data only gives cover to continue harmful deals that are already draining school, safety, and infrastructure funding. Policymakers don’t need years of reports—they need the courage to stop the bleeding now. Transparency Alone Won’t Fix California's Corporate Tax Drain 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

    9 min

  5. 4D AGO

    Legal News for Mon 3/24 - Paul Weiss Trump Deal Fallout and "Explanation," 23andMe BK Filing, Judge Rebukes Trump Lawyers and Novel Clearview AI Privacy Settlement

    This Day in Legal History: Last Quaker Executed for Religious Beliefs in US On March 24, 1661, William Leddra was executed in Boston, becoming the last Quaker in the American colonies to be put to death solely for his religious beliefs. Leddra, a devout Quaker, had previously been banished from Massachusetts under the colony's anti-Quaker laws but returned in defiance of the order. His return led to his arrest, imprisonment in harsh conditions through the winter, and eventual execution by hanging on Boston Common. His death marked the culmination of a brutal period of religious persecution in Puritan-controlled Massachusetts, where Quakers were seen as heretical threats to civil and religious order. Between 1659 and 1661, four Quakers—Marmaduke Stephenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra—were executed under laws banning Quakers from the colony. Their trials and punishments drew condemnation from other colonies and even from England. Leddra’s hanging, in particular, caught the attention of King Charles II, who soon after issued a royal order halting capital punishment for religious dissent in Massachusetts. This effectively ended the execution of Quakers in the colonies. The persecution stemmed from Puritan authorities’ intolerance of dissent and fear of Quaker evangelism, which rejected formal clergy and embraced equality, pacifism, and direct spiritual experience. Quakers continued to face fines, whippings, and imprisonment, but the death penalty was no longer enforced. Leddra’s martyrdom, like that of his fellow Friends, became a symbol of religious freedom’s cost and the struggle for tolerance in early America. His execution helped galvanize early opposition to theocratic rule and contributed to evolving colonial attitudes toward religious liberty. Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp alleged in a firmwide email that rival law firms attempted to take advantage of the firm's vulnerability following a March 14 executive order from President Donald Trump. The order directed federal agencies to sever contracts with Paul Weiss clients, prompting the firm to negotiate a deal with Trump rather than pursue litigation. Karp expressed disappointment that instead of receiving support, competitors tried to poach both clients and attorneys during the turmoil. The deal Paul Weiss struck included backing off diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and committing $40 million to pro bono work aligned with Trump administration priorities. Karp stressed that the administration is not selecting or approving the firm’s matters. He acknowledged internal backlash and intense emotions over the firm’s course of action but maintained that litigation would have likely jeopardized the firm's future, even with a legal victory. Perkins Coie, targeted by a similar March 6 order, has chosen to sue and has already lost clients as a result. On March 21, Trump issued an additional executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to sanction attorneys and firms pursuing what the administration deems frivolous or vexatious litigation against the government. Paul Weiss Chairman Accuses Rival Firms of Pursuing Clients (1) Law firm Paul Weiss defends deal with Trump as lawyers sound alarm | Reuters 23andMe Holding Co. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as it seeks to restructure and pursue a sale of the business. Despite financial challenges, the company plans to keep operating during the court-supervised process. The move is intended to help reduce costs, address legal and lease obligations, and stabilize operations. Once valued at $3.5 billion after going public in 2021, the DNA testing company has since struggled financially. Court filings list $277.4 million in assets and $214.7 million in liabilities. It secured up to $35 million in debtor-in-possession financing from JMB Capital Partners to support its operations during the bankruptcy. Co-founder Anne Wojcicki, who attempted unsuccessfully to take the company private earlier this month, has stepped down as CEO but will remain on the board. Joe Selsavage has been named interim CEO. The board's special committee chair, Mark Jensen, expressed hope that the bankruptcy process will allow 23andMe to address its challenges more effectively. 23andMe Starts Chapter 11 Process, Co-Founder Steps Down - Bloomberg At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg criticized Trump administration lawyers for being “intemperate and disrespectful” in filings related to a case blocking the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The administration used the rarely invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify removing alleged members of Tren de Aragua without immigration court orders. Boasberg issued a 14-day freeze on those deportations, questioning the administration’s interpretation of the law and whether the individuals had any real opportunity to challenge their designation as gang members. The administration filed documents accusing Boasberg of a "judicial fishing expedition," prompting his public rebuke. Boasberg emphasized the importance of professional conduct in court and asked the Justice Department to explain by Tuesday whether it had violated his order by allowing two deportation flights to land in El Salvador after his ruling. Though Trump has said he would not defy court orders, the situation has raised constitutional concerns about executive overreach. Some deportees were reportedly refused by El Salvador’s government for not fitting the criteria or being the wrong nationality or gender. Lawyers for the migrants argue the administration’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act could lead to broad and discriminatory applications. Judge in deportations case says Trump administration lawyers were 'disrespectful' | Reuters A U.S. federal judge in Chicago has approved a highly unusual class-action settlement against facial recognition firm Clearview AI that doesn’t include an immediate cash payout for affected individuals. Instead, under the agreement, class members—estimated to number between 65,000 and 125,000—may receive a 23% equity stake in the company. This could eventually translate into monetary compensation if Clearview is sold, merges, or goes public. The lawsuit accused Clearview of violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by scraping billions of facial images from the internet and using them without consent. Clearview denied any wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman called the settlement “novel” but fair, emphasizing that the equity share isn’t speculative, given the company’s estimated valuation of up to $225 million. Based on that figure, the fund could reach $51.75 million. As an alternative to equity, a court-appointed official may require Clearview to pay 17% of its post-settlement revenue in cash by 2027. The deal also drew criticism from 22 states and D.C., which argued that the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees—nearly 40% of the settlement value—were excessive. Coleman defended the fees, noting that such awards are typical in the 7th Circuit. The judge further noted that continuing the litigation would be complex, costly, and time-consuming, justifying the settlement’s structure. US judge approves 'novel' Clearview AI class action settlement | 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

    7 min

  6. MAR 21

    Legal News for Fri 3/21 - Paul Weiss Cowardice, Helicopters Taxed in NYC, Musk's Data Grab Blocked and Another Appellate Bench Vacancy

    This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery March On March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation. The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation. There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day.  Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I’m wise – I survived.” The boot replied, “You’re not wise. You’re soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.”  Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought.  In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration’s political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration. Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA’s prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion. Karp’s public gratitude for the order’s withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor. This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump’s icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it. Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2) Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump. The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks. Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another. The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue. New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax Noise A federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk’s anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud. The data in question comes from the SSA’s “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed. The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk’s authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump’s administration has defended DGE’s mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order’s breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff. Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans’ data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE’s aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury. Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | Reuters Chief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump’s second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority. Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump’s return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden’s term, Sykes’s departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench. Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin’s voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). 7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | Reuters This week’s closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach. This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder. The Pr

    13 min

  7. MAR 20

    Legal News for Thurs 3/20 - Federal Agency Workers in Limbo, Disney Investor Vote on DEI Policies, Judge Warning over Trump Deportations and Musk's Legal Battle Over Government Records

    This Day in Legal History: LBJ Federalizes Alabama National Guard On March 20, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson took a decisive step in the fight for civil rights by federalizing the Alabama National Guard to protect marchers participating in the Selma to Montgomery march. This action followed the brutal events of "Bloody Sunday" on March 7, when peaceful demonstrators advocating for Black voting rights were violently attacked by Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. A second attempt to march on March 9, known as "Turnaround Tuesday," ended without violence but still lacked sufficient protection. Johnson’s decision to federalize the National Guard came after Alabama Governor George Wallace refused to ensure the safety of demonstrators, despite mounting national pressure. With federal troops in place, the march proceeded on March 21 under the protection of U.S. Army units, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Over five days, thousands of demonstrators walked the 54-mile route to Montgomery, with their numbers growing to 25,000 by the time they reached the Alabama State Capitol on March 25. This federal intervention was a turning point in the civil rights movement, demonstrating the government's willingness to enforce constitutional rights against state resistance. The Selma marches galvanized public support for voting rights and led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. Johnson’s decision highlighted the power of federal authority to challenge systemic racism and protect fundamental freedoms. Thousands of probationary federal employees ordered reinstated by federal courts remain in limbo as the Trump administration fights lawsuits over workforce changes. Courts in Maryland and California ruled that roughly 25,000 employees must be rehired, but many are on paid leave instead of actively working. Some workers fear they may have to return their back pay if an appeals court overturns the rulings. Attorneys representing federal employees say agencies are slow to restore full duties or compensation. Ashley Ashworth, a reinstated Health and Human Services worker, said she was rehired but given no work, making her uncertain about her future. Adding to concerns, Trump’s broader federal agency reorganization plans could lead to further layoffs, with probationary employees at the highest risk. Judges have pressed the administration for details on when affected employees will return, emphasizing that indefinite paid leave is not permitted. While agencies claim they are taking steps to reinstate workers, some employees have only received vague instructions about returning to duty. With legal battles ongoing, many fear their reinstatement—and pay—may be temporary. Fired Federal Workers Stuck in Limbo After Judges Order Return Disney shareholders are set to vote on a proposal urging the company to withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which ranks businesses based on LGBTQ-friendly policies. The proposal, backed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, follows similar exits by companies like Lowe’s, Ford, and Harley-Davidson, which faced conservative pressure to scale back diversity initiatives. This effort aligns with broader conservative pushes, including those from the Trump administration, to dismantle corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Disney, which holds a perfect score on the index, has previously faced scrutiny for its opposition to Florida’s "Don’t Say Gay" law. Similar shareholder proposals in the past have received little support, typically failing to reach more than 2% backing. The proposal also references backlash against brands like Bud Light and Target over LGBTQ marketing. Disney has defended its transparency in such matters and called the proposal unnecessary. Anti-DEI Disney Investors Press Vote on Abandoning LGBTQ Index A federal judge warned the Trump administration of potential consequences if it violated his order temporarily halting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Judge James Boasberg expressed skepticism that revealing deportation details would compromise national security, especially after Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly shared flight information. Despite the order, three planes carrying deported Venezuelans landed in El Salvador, leading to questions about whether the administration defied the ruling. Boasberg requested details on the deportation flights, extending the administration’s deadline to provide information. Trump’s administration pushed back, arguing that the judge was overstepping his authority and that executive branch decisions on deportations were absolute. Meanwhile, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that appeals—not impeachment—are the proper response to judicial disagreements. Boasberg initially blocked the deportations, ruling that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act did not justify Trump’s claims that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua’s presence in the U.S. constituted an act of war. His order came after two deportation flights had already taken off. While some planes landed after the ruling, a third took off after the written order was publicly filed, raising further legal disputes. The administration defended its actions, arguing that some deportations were based on other legal grounds beyond the Alien Enemies Act. Judge warns of consequences if Trump administration violated deportation order | Reuters The Trump administration is appealing a judge’s order requiring Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide records related to their role in reshaping the federal government. The Justice Department argues that the order, which demands Musk and DGE disclose information to Democratic state officials, raises serious separation-of-powers concerns by compelling a presidential adviser and White House-affiliated entity to comply. The dispute stems from a lawsuit by 14 Democratic-led states alleging that Musk and DGE unconstitutionally exercised power by cutting federal programs, downsizing agencies, and accessing sensitive government systems. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling allows state officials to request documents and written responses but stops short of allowing depositions or direct questioning of DGE officials. Trump himself is not subject to the evidence requests. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, leading the lawsuit, argues that DGE must provide transparency regarding its actions. The case follows other legal challenges against DGE, including a Maryland ruling that found Musk’s involvement in shutting down USAID likely unconstitutional and another requiring DGE to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. The administration may escalate the fight to the Supreme Court if the appeals court does not intervene. Trump Administration Fights Order to Turn Over DOGE Records (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

    7 min

  8. MAR 19

    Legal News for Weds 3/19 - Judge Swats Down Musk's USAID Cuts, Trump's Push to Deport Student Protester, John Roberts Meekly Asks Trump to be Nicer, and Grocery Tax Elimination

    This Day in Legal History: Nevada Re-Legalizes Gambling On March 19, 1931, Nevada Governor Fred B. Balzar signed a bill legalizing gambling, a decision that would reshape the state's economy and identity. At the time, Nevada was struggling through the Great Depression, and state lawmakers saw legalized gambling as a way to generate revenue and attract tourism. The measure made Nevada the first U.S. state to formally embrace commercial gaming, setting the stage for the rise of Las Vegas as the world’s gambling capital. Initially, the law allowed for small-scale gaming operations, but over time, it evolved into a massive industry. In the 1940s and 1950s, organized crime syndicates invested heavily in Las Vegas casinos, fueling both the city’s expansion and its reputation for vice. By the 1960s, corporate interests took over, bringing legitimacy and regulation to the industry. Today, Nevada’s gaming industry generates billions in revenue and remains a cornerstone of its economy. The legalization of gambling also influenced other states, many of which later followed Nevada’s lead by authorizing casinos and lotteries to boost their own economies. However, the decision was not without controversy—critics argued it would lead to crime and social problems. Despite these concerns, the success of legalized gambling in Nevada proved that, with regulation, gaming could be a major economic driver. Governor Balzar’s decision on this day in 1931 not only changed Nevada but also helped shape the broader American gaming industry, making March 19 a landmark date in legal and economic history. A federal judge has halted Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) from further efforts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ruling that their actions likely violated the U.S. Constitution. Judge Theodore Chuang's preliminary ruling orders the restoration of USAID employees’ computer access after Musk and DGE had placed thousands on leave and blocked agency systems. The lawsuit, filed by USAID employees, argues that Musk unlawfully took control of the agency without Senate confirmation, exceeding executive authority. President Trump, who had appointed Musk as an adviser, responded by vowing to appeal, calling the ruling an example of judicial overreach. While Chuang agreed that Musk's actions were unconstitutional, he did not reverse the termination of USAID contracts, which had already crippled global humanitarian operations. In a related case, another judge ordered the administration to release $671 million in frozen payments to USAID contractors, though the government has delayed full compliance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that over 80% of USAID’s programs were being eliminated. US judge finds Musk's USAID cuts likely unconstitutional, blocks him from making more cuts | Reuters A federal judge rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student arrested by immigration authorities for his role in pro-Palestinian protests. However, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that he lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to New Jersey, where Khalil was detained when his lawyers first filed the challenge. The ruling did not address Khalil’s request for bail. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of Palestinian descent, was arrested on March 8 outside his Manhattan residence. His lawyers argue that his detention was retaliatory and violated his First Amendment rights. The Trump administration has justified his removal under a rarely used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing deportation if a noncitizen is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited Khalil’s participation in "pro-Hamas events" as justification, though Khalil denies any ties to Hamas and claims he was a mediator in the protests. Legal experts note that this law was previously ruled unconstitutional by the late Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, though that decision was later overturned on a technicality. Khalil’s case has become central to debates over immigration enforcement and free speech, particularly as Trump pushes for deporting noncitizens involved in campus protests. Judge denies Trump bid to toss Columbia student's challenge to arrest | Reuters Chief Justice John Roberts issued a mild rebuke to President Donald Trump for calling for the impeachment of a federal judge, stating that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a judicial ruling. While Roberts' statement affirms judicial independence, it does little to address the broader issue: Trump’s rhetoric is not just about disagreement with a ruling—it is part of a broader effort to delegitimize the judiciary and erode checks on executive power. Roberts has a history of making these kinds of statements, such as his 2018 remark that "we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges." But mere words are insufficient when Trump and his allies actively undermine the rule of law. The administration’s refusal to comply with Judge James Boasberg’s order halting deportations under a rarely used 18th-century law is more than a policy dispute—it is an act of defiance that inches toward a constitutional crisis. If the courts' authority is disregarded, the judiciary’s power is only as strong as its willingness to enforce its rulings. Trump's call for impeachment is not an isolated outburst. It coincides with a broader push by his allies, including Elon Musk and congressional Republicans, to frame judges as enemies of democracy. Given rising threats against judges, the Chief Justice’s response should have gone beyond a procedural reminder to file an appeal. A firm defense of judicial enforcement and the rule of law, backed by action from the courts, is needed—because if the judiciary allows itself to be treated as an advisory body rather than an independent branch of government, mere statements will not protect it. US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge | Reuters In my column this week, I talked about grocery taxes–or more accurately their potential elimination in some states. With grocery prices remaining high, some states are considering eliminating grocery sales taxes entirely to ease financial burdens on residents. However, a blanket repeal could strain already-tight state budgets, especially as federal funding for social programs faces potential cuts. Instead of eliminating the tax entirely, targeted approaches—such as income-based exemptions or allowing municipalities to retain and reinvest grocery tax revenue—offer more sustainable relief. Income-based exemptions would ensure that low-income households receive the most benefit while maintaining revenue streams for essential services. For example, Idaho already provides grocery tax credits for low-income taxpayers, and a more efficient model could exempt qualifying households from paying the tax at checkout, reducing their financial strain. This method would prevent a full repeal that could destabilize state budgets while addressing the regressive nature of grocery taxes. States struggling with budget shortfalls from past tax cuts, like Arizona and West Virginia, serve as cautionary tales. Arizona's 2021 flat tax contributed to a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing cuts to higher education, while West Virginia's aggressive post-pandemic tax cuts created funding gaps that could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Removing grocery taxes without a revenue replacement could lead to similar outcomes. Alternatively, allowing local governments to retain grocery taxes and use the revenue for food assistance, childcare subsidies, or public transportation could provide relief without compromising state services. Since different municipalities have varying fiscal needs, this approach would offer flexibility while ensuring that low-income families receive targeted aid. A well-designed policy would balance tax relief with financial responsibility, preventing unintended consequences like service cuts that ultimately harm those who need assistance the most. States Shouldn't Cut Grocery Taxes Entirely, Just Refine Them 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
See All (546)

    Ratings & Reviews

    4.7
    out of 5
    10 Ratings

    About

    The idea is that this podcast can accompany you on your commute home and will render you minimally competent on the major legal news stories of the day. The transcript is available in the form of a newsletter at www.minimumcomp.com. www.minimumcomp.com

    Information

    • Creator
      Andrew and Gina Leahey
    • Years Active
      2023 - 2025
    • Episodes
      546
    • Rating
      Clean
    • Copyright
      © Andrew Leahey
    • Show Website
      Minimum Competence

    You Might Also Like

    Content Restricted

    This episode can’t be played on the web in your country or region.

    To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

    Stay up to date with this show

    Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes, and get the latest updates.
    Select a country or region

    Africa, Middle East, and India

    Asia Pacific

    Europe

    Latin America and the Caribbean

    The United States and Canada