Minimum Competence

Andrew and Gina Leahey
  • 4,7 (9)
  • ACTUS DU JOUR
  • TOUS LES JOURS
Minimum Competence

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. -2 J

    Legal News for Fri 1/10 - Trump Sentencing in Hush Money Case Goes On, House Sanctions ICC, Giuliani Continues to Put Foot in Mouth

    This Day in Legal History: Standard Oil Rising On January 10, 1870, John D. Rockefeller and his partners incorporated the Standard Oil Company, marking a pivotal moment in American industrial and legal history. Standard Oil quickly became a dominant force in the oil industry, employing innovative practices such as vertical integration and aggressive pricing to outcompete rivals. By the late 19th century, the company controlled nearly 90% of the U.S. oil refining market, making Rockefeller the nation's first billionaire and one of the wealthiest individuals in history. However, Standard Oil's dominance also sparked concerns about monopolistic practices and the concentration of economic power. In 1911, following years of legal challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States that the company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The Court applied the "rule of reason," determining that the company's practices unreasonably restrained trade and harmed competition. As a result, Standard Oil was ordered to dissolve into 34 separate entities, including Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, many of which remain influential today. This landmark decision underscored the federal government's authority to regulate monopolies and enforce antitrust laws, shaping the legal landscape for corporate regulation in the 20th century. The case also highlighted tensions between industrial innovation and market fairness, a debate that continues to resonate in discussions of antitrust law and corporate power. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, cleared the way for Donald Trump’s sentencing in his New York hush money case, rejecting his request to delay proceedings. Trump, now president-elect, argued for immunity from prosecution, claiming the sentencing would distract from his presidential transition and harm his global standing. However, the court stated his claims could be addressed later on appeal and noted the sentencing’s impact would be minimal, as no prison time would be imposed. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the court’s three liberal justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented–which means there is a one-vote majority in the Supreme Court on the issue of Trump not being entirely above the law. Trump emphasized that the decision leaves room for appeals on broader immunity issues. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted the case, supported moving forward with sentencing due to its public interest. Justice Juan Merchan ruled that a president-elect doesn’t qualify for the same immunity as a sitting president but opted for an "unconditional discharge," sparing Trump any real penalties beyond the conviction. Trump remains focused on overturning the verdict, asserting the trial was flawed under new presidential immunity standards set by a prior Supreme Court ruling. The case could ultimately return to the Supreme Court for a final decision. Supreme Court Allows Trump Sentencing in NY Hush Money Case (2) Trump to be sentenced in hush money case, days before his inauguration | Reuters The U.S. House of Representatives voted 243-140 to pass the "Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act," sanctioning the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The act targets individuals involved in prosecuting U.S. citizens or allies, including Israel, who are not ICC members. It marks strong Republican support for Israel following their takeover of Congress.  The sanctions echo Trump-era measures against the ICC, previously imposed over investigations into U.S. actions in Afghanistan and later lifted under the Biden administration. These new sanctions extend to those aiding ICC operations and could, according to ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane, threaten the court's functionality and existence. The ICC defends its actions, citing sufficient evidence and the need to prevent ongoing crimes in Gaza. Forty-five Democrats joined Republicans in backing the bill, while no Republicans opposed it. The Senate, now Republican-controlled, is expected to prioritize the measure, allowing President-elect Trump to sign it shortly after his inauguration. The ICC has yet to comment on the vote. The legislation comes amid heightened criticism of the ICC's pursuit of war crime charges against Israeli leaders, accusations Israel denies. US House votes to sanction International Criminal Court over Israel | Reuters Rudy Giuliani, former lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump, faces a second contempt hearing in Washington on Friday over claims he violated a court agreement in a defamation case brought by Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss. The case stems from Giuliani’s false allegations that the workers helped rig the 2020 presidential election. The workers accuse Giuliani of breaching an agreement barring him from making further defamatory statements, citing comments on his podcast suggesting ballot tampering.   Earlier this week, Giuliani was held in civil contempt by a federal judge in New York for failing to comply with information requests related to the $148 million judgment Freeman and Moss won against him in 2023. Giuliani is appealing that decision. If found in contempt again, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell could impose civil fines or jail time. This adds to Giuliani’s growing legal troubles, including disbarment for spreading false election claims and criminal charges in Georgia and Arizona. Giuliani’s lawyers argue his podcast remarks did not specifically reference Freeman and Moss and were part of his legal defense on appeal. However, the May 2024 agreement prohibits any public comments implying wrongdoing by the election workers. Giuliani faces second contempt bid over false claims about 2020 election workers | Reuters This week’s closing theme is by Benjamin Godard. Benjamin Godard (1849–1895) was a French composer and violinist whose lyrical and melodic style earned him a place among the late Romantic composers of his time. Despite achieving considerable acclaim during his life, Godard's works have since faded into relative obscurity, overshadowed by contemporaries like Saint-Saëns and Fauré. His compositions, however, reflect a deeply expressive and refined musicality, blending the elegance of French Romanticism with a penchant for memorable themes. One of Godard's notable chamber works is his String Quartet No. 3, Op. 136, a piece that exemplifies his gift for balancing structural clarity with emotional depth. The third movement, "Minuetto molto moderato", is particularly striking. It reinterprets the classical minuet form with a delicately poised, almost dreamlike quality, showcasing Godard’s skill in creating nuanced and intimate musical textures. The lilting rhythm and restrained tempo evoke a sense of grace, while the interplay between the strings lends the movement a sophisticated charm. This movement serves as a perfect closing theme for the week, offering a reflective and elegant departure from the bustling rhythms of daily life. The gentle, flowing melodies allow listeners to unwind while appreciating the timeless beauty of chamber music. Godard’s Minuetto invites contemplation, serving as both a tribute to his artistic legacy and a serene conclusion to the week. Without further ado, Benjamin Godard’s String Quartet No. 3, Op. 136. 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

    11 min

  2. -3 J

    Legal News for Thurs 1/9 - DOJ Withholds Smith Trump Report, Trump Appeals to SCOTUS for Hush Money Case, Tech-Law Firm Merger and a Tax Proposal for Oil Wells

    This Day in Legal History: Birth of Nixon On January 9, 1913, Richard Milhous Nixon was born in Yorba Linda, California, a man destined to leave a complicated and indelible mark on American history. Nixon is perhaps the most paradoxical of U.S. presidents—on one hand, he created the Environmental Protection Agency, championed detente with the Soviet Union, and opened diplomatic relations with China. On the other hand, the man also gave us Watergate, wiretapping, enemies lists, and enough shady political machinations to keep conspiracy theorists busy for decades. Nixon’s "greatest hits" of questionable decisions include the secret bombing of Cambodia, illegally expanding the Vietnam War while publicly claiming to wind it down, and the sabotage of peace talks to ensure his election in 1968. Let’s not forget his role in orchestrating the War on Drugs, a policy whose consequences are still felt today, particularly in communities of color. And, of course, he made liberal use of “plausible deniability,” whether it was about spying on political opponents or using government resources for personal vendettas. While Nixon may have soothed the environment by founding the EPA, he simultaneously polluted the political landscape, cementing cynicism in American politics for a generation. If you're struggling to reconcile his good deeds with his transgressions, don’t worry—you’re not alone. Historians, politicians, and everyday Americans have been wrestling with the Nixon conundrum for decades. Was he a political genius or a paranoid megalomaniac? Probably both, in addition to being a raging narcissist and, by all accounts, a deeply unpleasant man. His favorite breakfast? Cottage cheese with ketchup – or black pepper if he was feeling spicy. On this day in legal history, we remember Richard Nixon—a … man. He would have been 112 had a blood clot not cut him down as he prepared dinner in his Park Ridge, New Jersey home in 1994.  The U.S. Justice Department announced that it will not publicly release Special Counsel Jack Smith's full report on Donald Trump’s handling of classified records, citing ongoing prosecutions against two Trump associates, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. While the report’s section addressing Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election will be made public, the documents-related portion will remain accessible only to specific members of Congress responsible for oversight. Attorney General Merrick Garland confirmed that Smith completed a two-volume report on Trump, with the Justice Department stating that limited disclosure would balance public interest with protecting the legal rights of Nauta and De Oliveira. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon temporarily blocked the release of the report upon a request by the two defendants. Previously, Trump was charged with illegally retaining classified records and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them, as well as attempting to interfere with the certification of President Joe Biden's election victory. However, the department dismissed these charges after Trump’s November election, adhering to its policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Despite these dismissals, prosecutors are seeking to revive the obstruction case against Nauta and De Oliveira, who have pleaded not guilty. The Justice Department emphasized that its actions comply with federal regulations requiring a final report from special counsel investigations. US Justice Dept will not publicly release all of special counsel report on Trump President-elect Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt his sentencing in a New York criminal case involving hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. In a filing made public on Wednesday, his lawyers argued that further proceedings in the Manhattan state court would harm the presidency and federal government operations, citing presidential immunity. The New York appeals court recently rejected Trump’s effort to delay sentencing, scheduled for Friday. His legal team has requested similar emergency relief from both the Supreme Court and New York’s highest court. The Supreme Court has asked prosecutors to respond by Thursday, suggesting a swift decision is likely. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment by his former attorney Michael Cohen to Daniels before the 2016 election. He denies any wrongdoing or the alleged sexual encounter with Daniels. His sentencing judge indicated Trump would likely face an unconditional discharge, leaving a judgment of guilt on record but imposing no jail time, fines, or probation. Trump’s lawyers contend the case violates principles of presidential immunity established by a Supreme Court ruling granting former presidents broad protection from prosecution for official acts. They argue this immunity applies during the transitional period between his election and inauguration. Manhattan prosecutors have vowed to respond to Trump’s request, marking the latest development in a historic case that made Trump the first U.S. president to be criminally convicted. Trump asks Supreme Court to halt sentencing in New York hush money case | Reuters ZwillGen, a law firm specializing in technology and privacy law, has expanded into artificial intelligence with the acquisition of Luminos.Law, a Washington, D.C.-based firm focused on AI and analytics risk. The merger adds six attorneys and data scientists to ZwillGen’s team, enabling the firm to offer services in AI bias and cybersecurity testing, which are increasingly in demand amid regulatory scrutiny. ZwillGen, founded in 2010, now employs over 45 attorneys across offices in Washington, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, with a total headcount of about 125, including subsidiaries specializing in subpoenas and gaming licensing. Its high-profile clients include Airbnb, Bose, DoorDash, NBCUniversal, and The New York Times. Luminos.Law, established five years ago, spun off a separate software company, Luminos.AI, in 2024 to offer custom AI risk management software on an enterprise platform. While Luminos.AI remains independent, Andrew Burt, co-founder of Luminos.Law, will focus on the software company while serving as a legal advisor to ZwillGen’s new AI unit. Brenda Leong, also from Luminos, will lead ZwillGen’s AI division. The deal is part of a broader trend of law firm mergers in 2025, particularly among small firms, as demand for legal expertise in emerging technologies grows. Tech, AI lawyers join forces in latest US law firm merger | Reuters In my latest piece for Forbes, I talk about taxing oil wells.  The United States is grappling with a crisis of orphaned and uncapped oil wells—sites with no accountable owner and no proper closure. These wells pose significant environmental and public health risks, leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and contaminating groundwater. Estimates suggest there are between 310,000 and 800,000 undocumented orphan wells, with over 120,000 already identified as uncapped. Addressing this problem is critical, but the cost—ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars per well—is increasingly falling on taxpayers. The root of this issue lies in systemic regulatory failures and cost-shifting practices within the oil and gas industry. Older wells are often sold to smaller operators who lack the resources to maintain or cap them. When these operators go bankrupt, liabilities are abandoned. Bonding requirements meant to ensure cleanup funds are woefully inadequate, typically covering less than 2% of the actual cost. To tackle this crisis, I propose an Environmental Liability Tax (ELT) on oil and gas extraction. Levied per barrel, this tax would ensure that cleanup costs are collected upfront, placing the financial responsibility on the companies benefiting economically from the wells. Funds from the ELT could be held in state or federal trusts dedicated to plugging orphaned wells and restoring lands. The ELT could also incentivize better practices by offering tax credits to companies proactively addressing environmental risks. By taxing extraction rather than chasing bankrupt operators, the ELT would create a sustainable, enforceable funding mechanism to address this growing environmental liability. As the U.S. approaches peak oil, the time for systemic reform is now—before the cleanup bill comes due with no one left to pay. Towards An Environmental Liability Tax For Oil And Gas Wells 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. -4 J

    Legal News for Weds 1/8 - CFPB vs. Experian, TikTok at SCOTUS, Alaska Lawsuit on Arctic Drilling and Column Tuesday on Pittsburg 'Jock Tax'

    This Day in Legal History: District of Columbia Suffrage Act On this day in legal history, January 8, 1867, the U.S. Congress overrode President Andrew Johnson's veto to enact the District of Columbia Suffrage Act. This landmark legislation granted African American men the right to vote in the nation's capital, making it the first federal law to extend voting rights to Black men. This milestone occurred three years before the ratification of the 15th Amendment, which would prohibit racial discrimination in voting nationwide.   The Act was a significant step during the Reconstruction era, as the United States grappled with integrating millions of formerly enslaved individuals into its civic life. By enfranchising Black men in Washington, D.C., Congress set an example for the expansion of voting rights elsewhere in the country. However, the process was not without contention. President Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat, opposed the bill, reflecting his broader resistance to Reconstruction policies that aimed to promote racial equality.   Congress’s decision to override Johnson's veto demonstrated its determination to lead Reconstruction efforts and address the injustices of slavery. This vote also highlighted the tensions between the legislative and executive branches over how best to rebuild the nation after the Civil War.   The District of Columbia Suffrage Act stands as a pivotal moment in the fight for civil rights, symbolizing the beginning of federal measures to ensure greater political inclusion for African Americans during a transformative period in American history. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a lawsuit against Experian Plc, alleging the credit reporting company failed to properly investigate consumer disputes and ensure the accuracy of information on credit reports. According to the CFPB, Experian did not adequately collect or relay dispute information to data furnishers, sometimes accepting illogical or unreliable responses from credit card companies and debt collectors. These practices led to inaccurate information on credit reports, which negatively impacted consumers’ credit scores, potentially resulting in higher loan interest rates, limited housing opportunities, and employment challenges.   The CFPB accused Experian of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by conducting inadequate dispute investigations. Director Rohit Chopra criticized Experian for "sham investigations" and emphasized the importance of compliance with federal laws.   Experian has denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit an example of regulatory overreach and claiming the agency did not respond to prior communications. The company highlighted its history of working with the CFPB to improve dispute processes.   The lawsuit builds on prior CFPB actions against Experian, including a $3 million fine in 2017 for misleading consumers about its credit scores. The current case alleges persistent systemic failures in Experian’s dispute handling and reporting processes. Experian Sued by CFPB for Botching Consumer Data Disputes (2) A Supreme Court case this week could determine TikTok's future in the United States, pitting national security concerns against free speech rights. President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Court to block a pending U.S. ban on the app, citing First Amendment concerns, while many Republican lawmakers and state attorneys general argue for upholding the ban. The law, passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, requires TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban by January 19, over fears of Chinese government access to American user data. TikTok and ByteDance contend the law infringes on free speech, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for banning platforms with foreign ties. Trump, in a reversal of his earlier stance, now opposes a ban and sees TikTok as politically valuable. The Justice Department defends the law, citing national security risks, while Republican attorneys general argue that TikTok's ties to China pose significant dangers. The Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for digital platform regulation and internet freedom in the U.S. and beyond. If upheld, experts warn other foreign-backed platforms, such as Telegram, could face similar scrutiny. Meanwhile, tech giants Apple and Google have been asked to prepare for TikTok’s removal from app stores, potentially rendering the app obsolete over time without updates. TikTok's fate divides Trump and fellow Republicans as Supreme Court action looms | Reuters The state of Alaska has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, alleging violations of a Congressional mandate to permit oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The lawsuit challenges the Interior Department's December 2024 decision to impose restrictive conditions on drilling leases in the refuge's coastal plain, arguing the limits make development impractical on the 400,000 acres set for auction. Alaska seeks to overturn the decision and prevent the leases from being issued with the restrictions. Governor Mike Dunleavy criticized the Biden administration’s stance, claiming it undermines U.S. energy independence by restricting access to domestic resources. Alaska argues the restrictions, combined with the administration's earlier cancellations of leases granted during Donald Trump’s presidency, significantly reduce expected revenue from ANWR development.   The Biden administration has prioritized environmental protection for the 19.6-million-acre refuge, home to species like polar bears and caribou. This legal dispute is the latest in a series of lawsuits from Alaska opposing federal efforts to limit drilling in ANWR. The battle reflects ongoing tensions between environmental priorities and energy development in the region, a long-standing political flashpoint. Alaska sues Biden administration over oil and gas leases in Arctic refuge | Reuters In my column for this week, I talk about a facility fee charged for nonresident performers and athletes in Pittsburgh. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of Pittsburgh’s so-called “jock tax,” a 3% fee imposed on income earned by nonresident athletes and entertainers at publicly funded venues. This case raises complex questions about tax uniformity under the state constitution, as opponents argue the fee unfairly targets a specific group of workers.   The city contends the fee achieves fairness by equalizing tax burdens between nonresidents and residents, who already pay a combined 3% in local taxes. Without this fee, nonresident performers would enjoy a tax advantage over residents, who contribute to funding public infrastructure and services that benefit everyone using the city’s venues.   Critics claim the tax violates uniformity principles by singling out nonresidents in certain professions, and asking them to pay 3% despite not receiving access to services ostensibly paid for by the tax like the local school system. But taxation has never operated strictly as a direct exchange for services rendered. Much like H.L.A. Hart’s “No Vehicles in the Park” thought experiment, interpreting “uniformity” in taxation requires considering intent. The fee’s purpose is to ensure nonresidents contribute their fair share for the public resources they use, aligning with broader fairness goals rather than rigid formalism.   Rejecting the fee would create an inequitable system where nonresidents effectively have their use of public resources subsidized by residents. For Pittsburgh and other cities balancing local budgets, the facility fee represents a practical, equitable solution that respects the principles of shared responsibility. Pittsburgh 'Jock Tax' Facilitates Parity and Should Be Upheld This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

    7 min

  4. -5 J

    Legal News for Tues 1/7 - Trump's Failed Bid to Delay Sentencing, US Steel Sues Over Blocked Merger with Nippon, Congress Peacefully Certifies Trump's Victory

    This Day in Legal History: US Recognizes Castro Government On January 7, 1959, the United States formally recognized the new Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. This recognition followed the revolutionary forces' ousting of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista on January 1, 1959. The U.S. move reflected an initial acceptance of the political change in Cuba, as Batista's regime had become widely criticized for corruption and authoritarianism. Castro's rise to power was initially seen by some in the U.S. as a potential opportunity for reform and modernization in Cuba. However, underlying tensions between the two nations soon began to surface. As Castro consolidated power, his government initiated sweeping land reforms and began nationalizing industries, including those with significant American investments. These actions created friction with U.S. business interests and policymakers. By 1960, relations deteriorated further when Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union, entering the Cold War as a communist ally. The U.S. responded with economic sanctions, including a trade embargo, which severely strained diplomatic ties. The growing ideological divide culminated in January 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower severed formal diplomatic relations with Cuba. Shortly thereafter, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis deepened hostilities. The recognition on January 7, 1959, marked the beginning of a complex and adversarial relationship that would define U.S.-Cuban interactions for decades. This moment remains a pivotal turning point in the history of both nations, highlighting the geopolitical struggles of the Cold War era. Former President Donald Trump lost a bid to delay his sentencing in the Manhattan hush money case, despite his legal team's arguments citing presidential immunity and his upcoming January 20 inauguration. Judge Juan Merchan, who previously scheduled sentencing for January 10, rejected the request, stating that Trump’s motion repeated past arguments and emphasizing the need for finality in criminal proceedings. The judge noted he was not inclined to impose jail time, instead considering an unconditional discharge, which would mark a conviction without additional penalties. The case involves a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an affair with Trump before the 2016 election—a claim Trump denies. Trump was found guilty in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to concealing this payment. His lawyers' appeals to dismiss the case, including citing the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity for official acts, have been rejected as the charges pertain to Trump’s personal conduct. Prosecutors argued against the delay, stressing the public interest in timely prosecution. This case marks the first time a U.S. president, sitting or former, has been convicted of a crime. Trump's legal team previously claimed that the case impedes his ability to govern, but the court maintained that upholding the jury's verdict is vital to the rule of law. Trump loses bid to delay sentencing in hush money case as he appeals | Reuters U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel have filed lawsuits against President Joe Biden's administration over its decision to block Nippon Steel's $14.9 billion bid to acquire U.S. Steel, alleging the national security review process was politically influenced. The companies claim Biden prejudged the outcome to gain political favor with the United Steelworkers (USW) union ahead of the presidential election, violating their right to a fair review. They seek a federal court's intervention to overturn the decision and enable a new, impartial review. The merger was controversial, with both Biden and former President Donald Trump opposing the deal to keep U.S. Steel American-owned. Biden's administration cited national security concerns, while the companies argue the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) failed to conduct a proper review. U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel also filed a separate lawsuit against rival Cleveland-Cliffs, its CEO, and the USW for allegedly colluding to block the deal and monopolize the domestic steel market. The lawsuits accuse CFIUS staff of barring negotiations on a security agreement and allege the review process was manipulated to align with Biden’s predetermined opposition. Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves and the USW deny the allegations, calling the lawsuits baseless. Despite Biden's decision, U.S. Steel’s stock rose, as the company remains an attractive acquisition target amidst falling profits and revenues. U.S. Steel, Nippon sue Biden administration over decision to block merger | Reuters On January 6, Congress officially certified Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential election victory without objections, marking a stark contrast to the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob stormed the Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden's victory. Kamala Harris, the outgoing vice president and Trump’s defeated Democratic opponent, presided over the ceremony, emphasizing the "sacred obligation" of the peaceful transfer of power in American democracy.  Security at the Capitol was unprecedented, with heavy fortifications, bomb squads, snipers, and reinforcements from law enforcement agencies across the country. However, the atmosphere outside was calm due to a massive snowstorm that emptied the streets of Washington, D.C. During the session, Harris received state certifications of electoral votes and announced Trump’s 312-vote victory total. Unlike the contentious 2020 certification process, no Democratic lawmakers objected. Trump decisively won both the popular vote and key swing states, defeating Harris, who had replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee after his withdrawal. The 2024 certification was designated a "national special security event," reflecting lessons learned from the violent 2021 attack. That event, which left numerous police officers injured and one dead shortly after, remains a symbol of threats to democracy. Trump, now reelected, has vowed to pardon those convicted in the 2021 Capitol attack, describing them as "patriots." Trump Declared Election Winner in Ceremony Four Years After Riot This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

    6 min

  5. -6 J

    Legal News for Mon 1/6 - SCOTUS Could Hinder Trump Admin, Biden's Offshore Drilling Ban, TikTok's Legal Fight Continues and Venu Sports' Ongoing Antitrust Battle

    This Day in Legal History: Charles I Placed on Trial On January 6, 1649, the English Parliament took a momentous step by voting to place King Charles I on trial for high treason. This decision came in the wake of the English Civil War, a prolonged conflict between Royalists, loyal to the king, and Parliamentarians seeking to limit monarchical power. Leading up to the trial, the New Model Army, under Oliver Cromwell, orchestrated "Pride’s Purge," expelling Members of Parliament likely to oppose the trial. The remaining assembly, known as the Rump Parliament, convened and authorized the creation of the High Court of Justice, an unprecedented legal body tasked with trying a sitting monarch. The trial marked a dramatic shift in the balance of power, challenging the divine right of kings—a cornerstone of monarchical rule. Charles I was accused of subverting the laws of England and waging war against his own people, charges that he denied, arguing that no court held legitimate authority to judge a king. Despite his defense, the court convicted Charles on January 27, 1649, sentencing him to death. His execution on January 30 sent shockwaves throughout Europe, signaling the emergence of parliamentary sovereignty and temporarily abolishing the monarchy in favor of the Commonwealth under Cromwell. This legal milestone not only altered the trajectory of English governance but also set a precedent for holding leaders accountable to the rule of law.  The Supreme Court is expected to play a critical role in assessing the legality of anticipated Trump administration policies, particularly in immigration and administrative law. Immigration policies, such as ending birthright citizenship and mass deportations, are likely to be challenged in court, with outcomes depending on their framing, especially if tied to national security concerns, which the Court tends to view more favorably than economic justifications. The Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited agency power by ending Chevron deference, may have far-reaching implications for both the Biden and Trump administrations. While reducing agencies' regulatory authority aligns with Trump’s deregulatory goals, it also empowers blue states and civil rights groups to challenge his policies under stricter judicial scrutiny. Challenges to agency head tenure protections and interpretations of outdated laws could also come before the Court. Trump’s potential push to dismantle longstanding precedents like Humphrey’s Executor v. United States could make federal agencies more directly accountable to the presidency, further politicizing their functions. Critics note that these shifts in judicial doctrine cut both ways, curbing regulatory power broadly regardless of the administration in power. This duality underscores a tension between conservative goals of limiting administrative overreach and the desire to expedite executive policy-making. Trump Likely to Test Supreme Court on Agency Powers, Immigration President Joe Biden has permanently barred offshore oil and gas drilling across over 625 million acres of US coastal waters, including the East and West Coasts, parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and sections of the Northern Bering Sea. Citing environmental risks and minimal energy gains, Biden stated the move balances conservation and energy security, ensuring that protecting coastlines and maintaining low energy prices are not mutually exclusive. The decision does not affect existing offshore leases or ongoing drilling in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and the central and western Gulf of Mexico, which account for a significant portion of US energy production. Biden’s action builds on temporary protections enacted by former President Trump for Florida’s Gulf Coast and southeastern waters but makes them indefinite. While praised by environmental advocates and coastal communities, the oil industry criticized the move, arguing that it restricts domestic energy potential and undermines national security. Some politicians from both parties have supported these protections, emphasizing the risks demonstrated by disasters like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. Although Biden’s decision relies on a federal law provision that may be difficult to reverse, legal challenges could arise if a future administration attempts to undo the protections. The debate underscores tensions between environmental stewardship and energy independence. Biden Bars Offshore Oil Drilling in US Atlantic and Pacific Biden to ban offshore oil, gas drilling in vast areas ahead of Trump term | Reuters The U.S. Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to deny President-elect Donald Trump’s request to delay a law requiring TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell its U.S. assets by January 19 or face a nationwide ban. Trump argued for more time after his inauguration to seek a political resolution, while the DOJ countered that ByteDance has not demonstrated it is likely to succeed on the merits of its case. The government emphasized the national security risks of TikTok’s data collection on 170 million American users, framing it as a tool for potential espionage. TikTok, however, has requested the Court block the law on First Amendment grounds, claiming it is being unfairly targeted for its content rather than its data practices, especially given Congress's lack of action against other Chinese-owned apps like Shein and Temu. If the law takes effect, new downloads of TikTok will be prohibited, and existing services will degrade over time as companies are barred from providing support. The Biden administration could extend the compliance deadline by 90 days if ByteDance shows significant progress toward divestment. This marks a shift in Trump’s stance from 2020, when he sought to ban TikTok over similar concerns. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on January 10. Justice Dept. urges Supreme Court to reject Trump request to delay TikTok ban law | Reuters Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros Discovery are appealing a court ruling that blocked the launch of their joint streaming service, Venu Sports, arguing it unfairly restricts competition and consumer choice. The district court previously halted Venu's debut after rival FuboTV sued, claiming the service violated antitrust laws by bundling sports content in a way that would harm competition and raise prices. The district court sided with Fubo, finding that the bundling practices could foreclose other sports-focused services and granted an injunction against Venu’s launch. The media companies argue that the ruling denies consumers a lower-cost streaming option aimed at price-sensitive sports fans and protects Fubo from competition. They assert that Venu would increase consumer choice and lower prices. However, the Justice Department and several states have supported the injunction, stating that Venu's creation would consolidate market power among the companies—who control over half of U.S. sports rights—and hinder the emergence of competing sports-only platforms like Fubo. At the heart of the dispute is whether the bundling practices by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros unfairly disadvantage distributors by tying access to desirable sports content with less popular programming. The appeals court will now decide if the injunction stands. Disney, Fox and Warner Bros to ask court to lift ban on launch of Venu Sports service | 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. 3 JANV.

    Legal News for Fri 1/3 - Biden Tries to Make Offshore Drilling Bans Permanent, Tesla Shareholders Appeal Musk Pay Deal, '25 SCOTUS Labor Cases and Thomas Ethics Inquiry DOA

    This Day in Legal History: Cicero is Born On January 3, 106 BC, Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of ancient Rome's most influential lawyers, orators, and statesmen, was born in Arpinum, a small town southeast of Rome. Cicero's life and work laid the foundations for modern legal and political thought, intertwining law, philosophy, and rhetoric. As a novus homo (the first in his family to achieve senatorial rank), Cicero rose through the Roman cursus honorum, eventually serving as consul in 63 BC. His tenure is most remembered for his decisive action in quelling the Catiline Conspiracy, a plot to overthrow the Republic. Cicero’s legal career was marked by his exceptional eloquence and emphasis on justice. His speeches, such as those in defense of Sextus Roscius and against Verres, revealed his dedication to exposing corruption and advocating for fairness. Beyond his courtroom success, Cicero’s philosophical treatises, including De Legibus (On the Laws), explored the nature of justice and the rule of law. His writings profoundly influenced thinkers of the Enlightenment and modern legal systems. In one of his letters, Cicero wrote to his friend – one of his most famous quotes:“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even if it enables you to rule the world.” This succinct insight captures his belief in the universality of law as a moral and societal cornerstone. Cicero’s life was not without turmoil. His opposition to Julius Caesar's dictatorship and later to Mark Antony cost him dearly. He was executed in 43 BC during the proscriptions. Cicero endures not only as a towering figure in law and politics but also as one of those ancient philosophers whose works people skim through, extract a handful of pithy quotes, and then relentlessly share at dinner parties or on social media. His knack for universal truths ensures his words still resonate, even as they occasionally overstay their welcome in the mouths of exhausting folks. President Biden plans to issue an executive order permanently banning new offshore oil and gas development in specific U.S. coastal waters. This move, based on the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is intended to be difficult for future administrations to reverse and comes as Biden seeks to solidify his environmental legacy in the final weeks of his presidency. The protections aim to safeguard marine ecosystems, protect vulnerable coastal communities, and combat climate change, aligning with calls from environmental groups and congressional Democrats.  While Biden’s actions will not affect existing leases, the scope of the new protections is expected to include key areas like parts of the Pacific near California and the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida. Conservationists have praised the move as a necessary step to protect U.S. waters, while oil industry advocates argue it jeopardizes energy independence. Former President Donald Trump is likely to attempt reversing the order, though previous court rulings suggest such efforts may face significant legal hurdles. Offshore drilling remains a contentious issue, with opposition particularly strong in coastal regions reliant on tourism. Biden to Ban More Offshore Oil Drilling Before Trump Arrives (1) A group of Tesla shareholders is appealing a Delaware Chancery Court decision that voided Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package, which would have been the largest CEO compensation in U.S. history. Filed on December 31, the appeal also challenges Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick’s $345 million award in attorneys' fees.  McCormick had ruled that Tesla’s board and Musk breached fiduciary duties to investors when approving the massive compensation plan. Despite shareholder approval votes in 2018 and 2024, the court found the deal unfairly tilted in Musk’s favor. The plaintiffs, including ARK Investment Management LLC and individual investors, argue the appeal is necessary to restore shareholder voting rights and accountability. Attorneys for the shareholders assert that over 70% of investors supported the pay package in two separate votes, emphasizing the high level of approval. Legal representation for Musk, the board, and opposing shareholders have yet to respond to requests for comment. The appeal seeks to overturn a ruling that has intensified debates about executive compensation and corporate governance. Elon Musk Pay Deal Decision Appealed to Delaware High Court (1) The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 docket includes pivotal labor and employment cases addressing workplace discrimination, wage law exemptions, and employee benefits. Among the key issues is whether workers from "majority backgrounds," like white or heterosexual individuals, face higher hurdles in proving discrimination claims under Title VII. The Court's decision could reshape lawsuits challenging diversity policies.  Another case will decide if retirees can sue former employers for disability bias, as exemplified by a Florida firefighter denied benefits. This issue has divided lower courts on whether retirees meet the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirements. Wage law exemptions are also under review, with the Court considering the evidentiary standard employers must meet to prove workers are exempt from overtime protections. Additionally, justices will address the standards for lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), involving allegations of excessive fees in retirement plans. These cases could have broad implications for labor law, corporate practices, and workplace equity, shaping the rights of employees and obligations of employers across the nation. Reverse bias, wage law exemptions top US Supreme Court's 2025 labor docket | Reuters The U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice over allegations of ethics violations related to unreported gifts and luxury travel from a wealthy benefactor. The Conference cited amendments Thomas made to his financial disclosure reports, addressing issues raised by Democratic lawmakers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced similar scrutiny over omissions in her reports but had also filed corrections, leading to the rejection of a referral request against her. Democratic lawmakers argued that Thomas's failure to disclose violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, but Thomas stated he was advised such disclosures were unnecessary for "personal hospitality." He committed to following updated guidelines in future filings. The Judicial Conference pointed to its recent efforts to clarify financial disclosure rules and noted Thomas’s compliance with the new standards. The body also raised constitutional concerns about its authority to refer the matter to the DOJ, further noting the issue was moot since lawmakers had already requested an investigation directly from Attorney General Merrick Garland. Critics accused the judiciary of failing to hold Thomas accountable, while the judiciary emphasized the ongoing improvements to ethical oversight. US Supreme Court's Thomas will not be referred to Justice Department | Reuters This week’s closing theme is by Johann Strauss Jr.  This week’s closing theme celebrates Johann Strauss Jr., affectionately known as the "Waltz King," whose music epitomizes the charm and elegance of 19th-century Vienna. Born in 1825 into a musical dynasty, Strauss Jr. surpassed his father’s legacy, becoming one of the most celebrated composers of light music. His works captured the spirit of Viennese high society, turning the waltz from a simple dance into an art form beloved across Europe. Strauss's compositions, such as The Blue Danube and Tales from the Vienna Woods, are synonymous with refinement and festivity, making him a perennial favorite for New Year’s concerts worldwide. His waltzes are not merely music for dancing; they evoke vivid imagery, from shimmering ballrooms to idyllic countryside scenes. Known for his melodic genius and rhythmic vitality, Strauss’s music remains a joyful celebration of life and beauty. This week, we highlight a medley of Strauss Jr.’s waltzes, a perfect encapsulation of his artistry and his gift for weaving together effervescent themes. It’s a chance to immerse yourself in the glittering world of 19th-century Vienna and to reflect on the enduring magic of his music. Whether as a tribute to the New Year or simply an appreciation of Strauss’s timeless melodies, this medley invites us to waltz into the weekend with grace and exuberance. Without further ado, a waltz medley by the Waltz King – Johann Strauss Jr.  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

    13 min

  7. 2 JANV.

    Legal News for 1/2 - Law School Trends in '25, 9/11 Plea Deals at Gitmo, Backlash to DEI Reshapes Corporate Programs, Column on DGE and the IRS

    This Day in Legal History: Palmer Raids On January 2, 1920, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer orchestrated a sweeping crackdown on suspected radicals in what came to be known as the "Palmer Raids." Over 500 federal agents, joined by local law enforcement, conducted coordinated raids across 33 U.S. cities, arresting between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals. The targets were primarily immigrants accused of being communists, anarchists, or other political radicals. Many of those detained were held without warrants or evidence, and legal proceedings against them often lacked due process. These raids were the culmination of the first Red Scare, a period marked by paranoia about leftist ideologies following the Russian Revolution and a wave of domestic labor unrest. Palmer justified the operation as a necessary defense against a supposed revolutionary threat, publishing his infamous article, The Case Against the 'Reds,' which fanned public fears. However, the raids quickly drew criticism for their unconstitutional practices. Detainees were denied legal counsel, held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, and subjected to deportation without fair hearings. Prominent legal figures and organizations denounced the Palmer Raids, seeing them as a gross abuse of government power. Critics argued that Palmer’s actions not only violated individual rights but also reflected an opportunistic attempt to bolster his political ambitions. The backlash led to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which emerged as a leading advocate against such government overreach. In hindsight, the Palmer Raids are a stark reminder of how fear and political expediency can undermine constitutional protections. They stand as a cautionary tale about the dangers of sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security, a pattern that has echoed through subsequent decades. Law schools are navigating significant changes as they head into 2025, with notable trends shaping the legal education landscape. Enrollment is surging, with applications for fall 2025 up 25% compared to last year. This follows a 6% increase in applicants and a 5% rise in first-year students in 2024. Interest in legal careers appears driven by the prominent role of law in current events, including the recent presidential election. The competition for spots, particularly at elite schools, is intensifying, with a sharp increase in applicants holding top LSAT scores. Diversity in law school classes remains a critical issue. While the overall diversity of the 2024 entering class held steady, Black and Hispanic enrollment at top-ranked "T-14" law schools dropped by 8% and 9%, respectively, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action ban. Experts anticipate further impacts on diversity as fewer undergraduates of color enter the pipeline, with effects becoming clearer by 2028. For now, Black and Hispanic applicants are up significantly, reflecting continued interest in legal education. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to influence law school curricula, though adoption varies widely. While only a small percentage of faculty actively teach AI-focused courses, some schools, like UC Berkeley and Arizona State, now offer AI-specific degrees or certificates. Legal writing courses and law clinics are increasingly integrating AI tools, responding to the legal profession’s rapid adoption of generative AI technologies. Advocates argue that law schools must accelerate these efforts to meet employer and industry demands. Law school trends to watch in 2025 | Reuters A U.S. military appeals court has upheld the validity of plea deals for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and two accomplices. This decision follows an earlier ruling by a military judge stating that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s attempt to invalidate the agreements in August was untimely. Under these plea deals, the three men could plead guilty to their roles in the 9/11 attacks in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.  The Pentagon has not commented on the ruling but previously indicated that Austin was surprised by the plea deals, which were made independently of his office. The 9/11 attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Mohammed remains one of the most notable detainees at Guantanamo Bay, a detention center established in 2002 to hold foreign militant suspects. The case has renewed criticism of Guantanamo Bay, with human rights advocates condemning the use of torture and calling for accountability. Separately, on the same day as the court ruling, the Pentagon announced the repatriation of Ridah Bin Saleh Al-Yazidi, one of Guantanamo’s longest-held detainees, to Tunisia after being detained for over 20 years without charge. The facility currently houses 26 detainees, 14 of whom are eligible for transfer. US military appeals court says plea deals related to 9/11 attacks may proceed | Reuters Corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs faced mounting pressure in 2024, a trend likely to continue into 2025. Conservative activists, such as Robby Starbuck, successfully pushed major corporations like Walmart and Ford to modify or scale back their DEI initiatives. Starbuck’s efforts have caught the attention of investors, with some threatening shareholder proposals in response to unwanted changes. Companies are also adjusting their language and communication around DEI to avoid political backlash, with organizations like Citigroup and Uber removing terms like "anti-racist" from corporate filings. The legal and political landscape is shifting as well. Trump’s incoming administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, plans to restrict corporate DEI through measures like prohibiting SEC workforce disclosures and barring government contracts for companies with DEI programs. Simultaneously, legal challenges from groups like America First Legal are targeting DEI policies as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with lawsuits filed against companies like IBM's Red Hat. Some corporations now list DEI as a potential risk factor in their filings, signaling concerns about legal or reputational fallout from their diversity efforts. Despite the scrutiny, many businesses quietly continue pursuing diversity goals, while some executives maintain that inclusivity is essential for long-term success. This balancing act reflects the growing complexity of navigating DEI in a polarized environment. Corporate DEI Programs Recoil and Rebrand as Pressure Mounts In my column this week, I contend that if the Department of Government Efficiency, which will not be a real executive agency, wants to make the IRS more efficient it should do so by ordering more audits of wealthy taxpayers.  Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s push for government efficiency could start by significantly improving federal revenue by addressing the $696 billion annual tax gap—the difference between taxes owed and collected. Research suggests that better auditing of high-income taxpayers, without requiring new legislation, could recover substantial unpaid taxes, aligning with the duo's mission of improving efficiency. Studies show that audits of wealthier individuals yield a high return on investment, deterring future tax evasion while reinforcing compliance. The IRS, weakened by years of budget cuts, requires more personnel to handle labor-intensive audits of complex high-income returns effectively. Targeted funding has already proven successful, as the Inflation Reduction Act enabled the IRS to recover over $1 billion from high-net-worth taxpayers. For every $1 spent auditing a taxpayer in the 90th percentile, the IRS recouped $12 in taxes owed – a truly staggering return on investment. However, the agency still struggles to match its 1995 staffing levels, highlighting a critical need for further investment. Closing the tax gap would not only generate significant revenue but also restore fairness by ensuring progressive tax rates function as intended. This effort is essential for creating an accurate picture of government resources and addressing fiscal responsibility. Whether Musk and Ramaswamy’s commission will embrace this nuanced approach to tax administration remains to be seen, but don’t hold your breath. A successful efficiency audit of the IRS hinges on informed decision-making and precision – something neither Musk nor Ramaswamy has evinced having in matters of politics. Musk, Ramaswamy Can Target Inefficiency by Closing the Tax Gap 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

  8. 30/12/2024

    Legal News for Mon 12/30 - Fox Corp's Defamation Lawsuit, Trump Loses Again to E. Jean Carroll, Oil Industry Climate Liability and Law Firm Mergers in '25

    This Day in Legal History: First Year with No Lynchings On December 30, 1952, the Tuskegee Institute released a landmark report marking the first recorded year without a lynching of African Americans in the United States since the institute began keeping records in 1881. The grim practice of lynching—extrajudicial killings often carried out by mobs to enforce racial subjugation—had claimed thousands of lives, becoming a chilling emblem of racial terror, particularly in the Southern United States. Tuskegee's data captured the scope of this violence, documenting nearly 4,000 lynchings of Black individuals over the prior seven decades. The significance of 1952 as a year without reported lynchings underscored the impact of growing civil rights activism, the waning influence of vigilante groups, and increasing legal accountability. This milestone also reflected shifts in public attitudes and the effectiveness of organizations like the NAACP, which tirelessly campaigned against lynching and for federal anti-lynching legislation. Despite this progress, racial violence and discrimination persisted in other forms, underscoring that the end of lynching did not mean the end of systemic racism. "Strange Fruit," a haunting protest song famously recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939, had kept the horrors of lynching at the forefront of public consciousness. Its stark imagery of "black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze" served as a chilling reminder of the atrocities endured by Black Americans. While the 1952 milestone was a cause for solemn reflection, it was also a call to sustain the fight for racial justice and equality in a nation still grappling with deep-seated prejudices. Rupert Murdoch and other senior leaders of Fox Corporation will face claims from investors alleging personal responsibility for financial harm stemming from false election conspiracy theories aired by Fox News. Delaware Chancery Court’s Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster denied Fox’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs had sufficiently argued that Murdoch could likely be held liable for knowingly permitting defamatory content to be broadcast. The lawsuit follows Fox’s record-breaking settlement with Dominion Voting Systems and comes as Smartmatic pursues a separate $2 billion defamation suit.  The investors claim that the leadership’s actions and decisions led to significant economic fallout, asserting that corporate governance failures allowed reputational and financial damage to occur. While the court’s decision enables the case to proceed, it does not guarantee success for the plaintiffs, leaving the ultimate outcome of the claims to trial. Fox, Murdoch, Execs Must Face Election Defamation Payout Suit A federal appeals court upheld a $5 million verdict against Donald Trump in a case brought by E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine columnist, who accused him of sexual assault and defamation. The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stems from a 2023 jury verdict that found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and defaming her in a 2022 Truth Social post. While jurors did not find Trump guilty of rape, they awarded Carroll $2.02 million for sexual assault and $2.98 million for defamation. Carroll has also secured an $83.3 million defamation verdict from a separate jury in January 2024, which Trump is appealing. These legal battles persist despite Trump’s return to the presidency following his 2024 election victory. Trump's defense argued that the trial judge improperly allowed testimony from two other women alleging past misconduct and included the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape as evidence. Both trials were overseen by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan.  This case continues to highlight the lack of immunity for sitting presidents in civil litigation unrelated to their official duties, following a precedent set during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Trump loses appeal of E. Jean Carroll $5 million defamation verdict | Reuters The oil and gas industry is facing increasing legal and legislative pressure over its role in climate change. States like New York and Vermont have enacted “climate Superfund” laws, with New York’s targeting $75 billion from major polluters over 25 years to fund climate mitigation efforts. Meanwhile, multiple states and cities have filed lawsuits alleging misinformation campaigns by fossil fuel companies about climate change and plastic pollution. These efforts, while separate, are creating a coordinated front against the industry and building evidence to attribute emissions to specific companies. Experts suggest that legislative efforts like climate Superfund laws and lawsuits may bolster each other by generating an evidentiary record for liability. However, there are concerns about overstepping legal boundaries, as courts may reject overlapping claims for damages under federal laws like the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Fossil fuel companies argue that climate-specific laws conflict with existing federal laws such as the Clean Air Act and may face challenges in implementation. The American Petroleum Institute and energy companies have expressed resistance to these legal actions, with a preference for fighting rather than settling claims. While states hope to hold polluters accountable, the success of these strategies remains uncertain as courts, lawmakers, and the industry test the boundaries of new legal frameworks. Climate Liability Laws, Litigation Add to Oil Industry Headache The legal industry is set for another wave of consolidation in 2025, with several major law firm mergers scheduled for January 1. Among these, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders will merge with Locke Lord to create Troutman Pepper Locke, a firm with 1,600 attorneys and projected annual revenues exceeding $1.5 billion. Similarly, Womble Bond Dickinson is merging with Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, combining to form a 1,300-lawyer firm with $742 million in revenues. Taft Stettinius & Hollister is joining with Sherman & Howard, projecting revenues of $810 million for the merged entity. Philadelphia-based Ballard Spahr will combine with Lane Powell, forming a 750-lawyer firm operating in 18 U.S. offices. These moves follow 41 law firm mergers in the first nine months of 2024, with industry analysts predicting continued activity next year. Firms are responding to client demand for broader services and geographic reach, as businesses increasingly consolidate their legal needs with fewer providers.  Smaller and midsize firms are pursuing mergers to access new markets and clients, while the most profitable firms focus on lateral hires and internal growth. Rising costs, including attorney salaries and investment in generative AI technologies, are also pressuring firms to consolidate.  Transatlantic mergers are gaining momentum as well, with U.K.-based firms like Allen & Overy and Herbert Smith Freehills expanding into the U.S. market through deals with Shearman & Sterling and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, respectively. These global mergers highlight the evolving competitive landscape in the legal sector. Law firms' quest for market share drives New Year's merger wave | 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
Tout afficher (493)

Notes et avis

4,7
sur 5
9 notes

À propos

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

Informations

  • Création
    Andrew and Gina Leahey
  • Années d’activité
    2023 - 2025
  • Épisodes
    493
  • Classification
    Tous publics
  • Copyright
    © Andrew Leahey
  • Site web de l’émission
    Minimum Competence

Vous aimeriez peut‑être aussi

Pour écouter des épisodes au contenu explicite, connectez‑vous.

Recevez les dernières actualités sur cette émission

Connectez‑vous ou inscrivez‑vous pour suivre des émissions, enregistrer des épisodes et recevoir les dernières actualités.
Choisissez un pays ou une région

Afrique, Moyen‑Orient et Inde

Asie‑Pacifique

Europe

Amérique latine et Caraïbes

États‑Unis et Canada