Minimum Competence cover art

Minimum Competence

Minimum Competence

By: Andrew and Gina Leahey
Listen for free

About this listen

 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.comAndrew Leahey Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • Legal News for Fri 8/8 - Trump Birthright EO Injunction, SCOTUS Raid Bid, Milbank Summer Bonus, Fed Swipe Fee Rule, and Apple Sued Over Apple Pay

    Legal News for Fri 8/8 - Trump Birthright EO Injunction, SCOTUS Raid Bid, Milbank Summer Bonus, Fed Swipe Fee Rule, and Apple Sued Over Apple Pay
    Aug 8 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Expansion of US House of RepresentativesOn August 8, 1911, President William Howard Taft signed into law a measure that permanently expanded the size of the U.S. House of Representatives from 391 to 433 members. This change followed the 1910 census, which revealed significant population growth and shifts in where Americans lived. Under the Constitution, House seats are apportioned among the states according to population, and each decade’s census can lead to changes in representation. Prior to 1911, Congress often responded to new census data by simply adding seats rather than redistributing them among states. The 1911 legislation reflected both that tradition and the political realities of the time, as expanding the House allowed growing states to gain representation without forcing other states to lose seats. It also set the stage for the modern size of the House—just two years later, New Mexico and Arizona joined the Union, bringing the total to 435 members. That number has remained fixed by law since 1929, despite the nation’s continued population growth. The 1911 increase carried implications beyond arithmetic: more members meant more voices, more local interests, and a larger scale for legislative negotiation. It also underscored Congress’s role in adapting the machinery of government to the country’s evolving demographics. In many ways, the expansion reflected Progressive Era concerns with fair representation and democratic responsiveness. While debates over House size have continued into the 21st century, the 1911 law remains a pivotal moment in the chamber’s institutional development. By enlarging the House, Taft and Congress preserved proportionality between population and representation, even if only temporarily.After the 1911 increase under President Taft, the size of the House stayed at 435 members following Arizona and New Mexico’s statehood in 1912. The idea at the time was that future census results would continue to trigger changes, either by adding more seats or by redistributing them among the states.But after the 1920 census, Congress ran into a political deadlock. Massive population growth in cities—and significant immigration—meant that urban states stood to gain seats while rural states would lose them. Rural lawmakers, who still held considerable power, resisted any reapportionment that would diminish their influence. For nearly a decade, Congress failed to pass a new apportionment plan, effectively ignoring the 1920 census results.To end the stalemate, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law capped the House at 435 seats and created an automatic formula for reapportionment after each census. Instead of adding seats to reflect population growth, the formula reassigns the fixed number of seats among states. This froze the size of the House even as the U.S. population more than tripled over the next century.Critics argue that the 1929 cap dilutes individual representation—today, each representative speaks for about 760,000 constituents on average, compared to roughly 200,000 in 1911. Supporters counter that a larger House would be unwieldy and harder to manage. The debate over whether to expand the House continues, but the 1929 law has held for nearly a hundred years, making Taft’s 1911 expansion the last time the chamber permanently grew in size.A fourth federal court blocked President Donald Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship, halting its enforcement nationwide. The order, issued on Trump’s first day back in office, sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Immigrant rights groups and 22 Democratic state attorneys general challenged the policy as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland sided with the challengers, issuing the latest in a series of nationwide injunctions despite a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing judges’ power to block policies universally. That June decision left a key exception: courts could still halt policies nationwide in certified class actions. Advocates quickly filed two such cases, including the one before Boardman, who had previously ruled in February that Trump’s interpretation of the Constitution was one “no court in the country has ever endorsed.”In July, Boardman signaled she would grant national relief once class status was approved, but waited for the Fourth Circuit to return the case after the administration’s appeal was dismissed. Her new order covers all affected children born in the U.S., making it the first post–Supreme Court nationwide injunction issued via class action in the birthright fight. The case, Casa Inc. et al v. Trump, continues as part of a broader legal battle over the limits ...
    Show More Show Less
    49 mins
  • Legal News for Thurs 8/7 - SEC Gag Rule Endures, Stanford Student Paper Free Speech Suit, Revived Drug Discounts and a Class Action Against Pepsi

    Legal News for Thurs 8/7 - SEC Gag Rule Endures, Stanford Student Paper Free Speech Suit, Revived Drug Discounts and a Class Action Against Pepsi
    Aug 7 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress’s constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC’s long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it’s applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC’s January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC’s ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency’s refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • Legal News for Weds 8/6 - Maxwell Fights Grand Jury File Release, Judge Blocks BRIC Cuts, Tesla Robotaxi Suit and RFK Jr. Guts Vaccine Projects

    Legal News for Weds 8/6 - Maxwell Fights Grand Jury File Release, Judge Blocks BRIC Cuts, Tesla Robotaxi Suit and RFK Jr. Guts Vaccine Projects
    Aug 6 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Voting Rights ActOn August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and civil rights history. The legislation aimed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, especially in the southern states where such practices were deeply entrenched. The Act outlawed literacy tests and other mechanisms that had been used for decades to suppress the Black vote. It also authorized federal oversight of voter registration and election procedures in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.The law came in the wake of sustained activism, including the Selma to Montgomery marches and the brutal attack on peaceful demonstrators in what became known as “Bloody Sunday.” Johnson, in a powerful address to Congress, tied the moral imperative of the Act to the nation’s founding ideals, declaring that “it is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote.” Within months of the Act’s passage, hundreds of thousands of Black Americans were registered to vote, reshaping political representation across the South.The Voting Rights Act has since been amended and interpreted by courts, with key provisions reauthorized multiple times. However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight, significantly weakening the Act’s enforcement mechanism. This decision opened the door to new state laws that voting rights advocates argue disproportionately affect minority voters.Legal scholars and civil rights lawyers continue to debate the future of the Act, with efforts ongoing to restore and update its protections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains one of the most consequential civil rights statutes in American history, transforming the legal landscape of democratic participation.Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted in 2021 for aiding Jeffrey Epstein in sexually abusing minors, is opposing the U.S. government's attempt to release transcripts from the grand jury that indicted her. Her legal team argues that public disclosure could irreparably damage her reputation and complicate a potential retrial, especially as she seeks to overturn her conviction at the U.S. Supreme Court. They claim the grand jury testimony is incomplete and lacks the scrutiny of cross-examination. The Department of Justice, citing public interest, requested permission from two Manhattan judges to release the material, prompting responses from Maxwell’s lawyers, Epstein’s estate, and alleged victims.President Donald Trump recently pushed for the release of the documents, seeking to address criticism from both allies and opponents about the handling of the Epstein-Maxwell case. Trump's Justice Department acknowledged that a rumored Epstein client list does not exist, which disappointed some supporters. While Epstein’s estate took no stance on the release, attorneys for victims advocated for limited disclosure that protects victims’ identities and allows pre-review by their legal teams.The Justice Department said the grand jury testimony largely aligned with evidence presented at Maxwell’s trial. Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court argues that a 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and prosecutors should have protected her as well. Additionally, she recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about potential information she may have on other individuals.Epstein partner Maxwell opposes release of her grand jury materials | ReutersA federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from diverting over $4 billion away from a disaster prevention grant program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, grants a preliminary injunction to stop the government from redirecting funds intended to help state and local governments prepare for natural disasters like floods and hurricanes.The lawsuit was filed by 20 predominantly Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts and Washington, arguing that FEMA lacked authority to cancel or repurpose the BRIC program without congressional consent. The judge agreed that the states faced potential irreparable harm and shouldn't have to wait until the funding was fully withdrawn to challenge the decision.FEMA, a part of the Department of Homeland Security, had labeled the program as wasteful and ineffective earlier this year, announcing plans to shut it down. However, Judge Stearns noted that such a move violated proper legal procedures and posed serious risks to public safety and infrastructure.The BRIC program was created in 2018 during Trump's first term and has since approved around $4.5 billion in funding for nearly 2,000 infrastructure projects, largely in coastal areas. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the ruling affirms ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.