Legal News for Tues 2/3 - Trump Eyes Alien Enemies Act, Prosecutor Warns Those that Obstruct Musk, a $754m Legal Fee and Federal Funding Cuts Paused

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Unanimously Elected

On February 4, 1789, George Washington was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States by the Electoral College, setting a precedent for democratic governance under the newly ratified Constitution. His election marked the formal beginning of the executive branch, shaping the legal and political framework of the young nation. On the same date in 1801, John Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States. Marshall’s tenure, spanning 34 years, would profoundly influence American law, particularly through landmark decisions like Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. His leadership solidified the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government. Decades later, on February 4, 1945, the Yalta Conference began, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meeting to discuss Europe’s post-World War II reorganization. The conference had lasting legal implications, shaping international law, the formation of the United Nations, and the division of Germany. More recently, on this day in 1997, a civil jury found O.J. Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a stark contrast to his earlier criminal trial acquittal. This verdict highlighted the differing burdens of proof in civil versus criminal law. Each of these events reflects the evolving nature of law and governance, from the founding of the presidency to the expansion of judicial power and international legal agreements.

President Donald Trump has announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as part of his strategy to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The law, originally passed during rising tensions with France, gives the president broad authority to detain, deport, or impose restrictions on foreign nationals deemed a threat during wartime. It can be activated when the U.S. is at war or facing an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign government. Trump has directed his administration to assess whether drug cartels operating in the U.S. qualify as an invasion, which could serve as the legal basis for invoking the act.

Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used in wartime, including during the War of 1812 and both World Wars. President Woodrow Wilson imposed restrictions on foreign nationals, and President Franklin Roosevelt used the law to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court has upheld the law’s constitutionality, even allowing deportations after wartime, as seen in the 1948 case of a former Nazi, Kurt Ludecke. However, courts have been reluctant to define “invasion” broadly, previously ruling that large numbers of migrants crossing the border do not meet the founders' definition of an armed threat.

Democratic lawmakers have recently pushed to repeal the act, citing its historical use in violating civil rights. If Trump proceeds with his plan, legal challenges will likely arise over whether cartel activity constitutes an invasion and whether the law can be used outside of traditional wartime contexts.

What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 that Trump wants to use in deportations? | Reuters

A Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, Edward Martin, has warned that anyone obstructing Elon Musk’s government efficiency initiative could face criminal charges. In a letter posted on X, Martin assured Musk that his office would take legal action against anyone threatening or hindering the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk responded with a public thank-you.

The warning follows reports that career government officials tried to block DOGE employees from accessing sensitive information. At the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), two top security officials were removed after preventing DOGE representatives from entering secure areas. Similarly, a Treasury Department official reportedly resisted efforts by DOGE to access financial systems.

Martin revealed that his office had been working with DOGE but did not provide specifics. He also encouraged Musk to report any “questionable conduct” for potential legal action. The Trump administration has been expanding its control over the Justice Department, recently launching an investigation into a sheriff’s office for releasing an undocumented immigrant in defiance of federal orders. Martin, who previously dropped all Jan. 6-related cases, has been outspoken in support of Trump, a departure from the typical neutrality of U.S. attorneys.

US prosecutor warns of legal risk for anyone hindering Musk's efficiency effort | Reuters

Lawyers representing plaintiffs in a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield have asked a federal judge in Alabama to approve over $754 million in legal fees and expenses. The legal team, led by Joe Whatley and Edith Kallas, is requesting $657.1 million in fees—equal to 23.47% of the settlement fund—along with at least $97 million in expenses. They argue this percentage is consistent with a similar $2.7 billion Blue Cross settlement in 2020, which awarded lawyers a comparable fee.

The case, which has been in litigation for over a decade, accuses Blue Cross of dividing the country into exclusive territories to avoid competition, which allegedly drove up insurance costs and lowered reimbursements. Blue Cross has denied any wrongdoing. The lawyers claim they have worked 373,000 hours and spent $100 million on expert witnesses and other expenses.

A previous $2.7 billion settlement involving Blue Cross, which addressed overcharging claims, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year and resulted in $667 million in legal fees. The current settlement agreement permits lawyers to request up to 25% of the total fund for legal fees, leaving the judge to decide whether the request is reasonable.

Lawyers seek $754 million in new Blue Cross antitrust settlement | Reuters

A U.S. judge has extended a pause on the Trump administration’s plan to freeze federal loans, grants, and financial aid after advocacy groups challenged the policy in court. Judge Loren AliKhan warned that cutting off funding would be "catastrophic" for organizations serving the public interest. The extension follows an earlier short-term pause, which was set to expire Monday.

The funding freeze originated from a White House budget office memo directing agencies to halt funding in line with Trump’s executive orders on immigration, climate change, and diversity. The memo was later withdrawn, but some grant recipients reported ongoing difficulties accessing funds.

A Rhode Island judge issued a separate restraining order last week in response to a lawsuit from 22 Democratic attorneys general and Washington, D.C. Despite these rulings, a Trump administration lawyer argued that the president has the right to direct agencies under his executive authority. The legal battle over whether the funding freeze can move forward remains unresolved.

US judge extends pause on Trump's plan to freeze federal grants, loans | 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