Episodes

  • Legal News for Tues 8/12 - SCOTUSblog Goldstein Update, ABA and Trump, $1b Law Firm Merger, CBO Uninsured Forecast Under OBBBA, and DC $4.4b Stadium

    Legal News for Tues 8/12 - SCOTUSblog Goldstein Update, ABA and Trump, $1b Law Firm Merger, CBO Uninsured Forecast Under OBBBA, and DC $4.4b Stadium
    Aug 12 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Japanese PM Convicted of Accepting BribesOn August 12, 1983, former Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei was convicted of accepting bribes from the American defense contractor Lockheed Corporation in one of Japan’s most notorious political scandals. Tanaka, who served as prime minister from 1972 to 1974, was found guilty of taking approximately $2 million in illicit payments to facilitate the purchase of Lockheed aircraft by Japanese airlines. The scandal, part of a broader international investigation into Lockheed’s bribery of foreign officials, became emblematic of the deep entanglement between corporate influence and political decision-making in postwar Japan.Tanaka’s conviction marked the culmination of years of investigation, during which he retained significant political clout despite resigning as prime minister in 1974 amid allegations. His sentence included four years in prison and a fine, though he remained free on appeal for years thereafter. The Lockheed scandal not only damaged public trust in Japan’s political establishment but also exposed vulnerabilities in the country’s campaign finance and lobbying regulations.Tanaka’s political machine, known as the “Etsuzankai,” was legendary for its ability to secure votes and wield influence through personal networks, favors, and targeted public works projects. Even after his resignation and conviction, Tanaka’s allies dominated Japanese politics for much of the 1980s, demonstrating the persistence of patronage systems despite corruption scandals.Internationally, the case was a warning shot to defense contractors and multinational corporations about the legal risks of engaging in covert payments to secure contracts. For Japan, it became a touchstone in ongoing debates about transparency, accountability, and the need for stronger anti-corruption laws. Tanaka, often called “the paragon of postwar corruption,” remained a polarizing figure—admired by some for his populist economic policies and condemned by others for his abuse of public office.Federal prosecutors in Maryland have expanded their case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein, alleging he used his law firm’s client trust account in 2021 to hide nearly $1 million from the IRS before purchasing a home. The revised indictment, filed August 8, claims Goldstein moved personal funds into his firm’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account to avoid tax collection. It also adds details about earlier allegations that he misrepresented the source of $968,000 seized from him in 2018—telling a border officer it was gambling winnings, then later claiming to the IRS it was a loan, including from a foreign gambler.Prosecutors further allege Goldstein misled a litigation funder while seeking help with tax debts and a mortgage, and tried to dissuade a former firm manager from cooperating with investigators. The updated charges correct some dates, moving one alleged diversion of client fees from 2021 to 2020, and expand the time frame for certain tax evasion counts to include conduct through March 2021. These changes follow Goldstein’s motion to dismiss several counts as time-barred.While the client trust account allegation is new, no new counts were added. Goldstein still faces four counts of tax evasion, ten counts of assisting false tax returns, five counts of willful failure to pay taxes, and three counts of false statements on loan applications. He is represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in United States v. Goldstein.SCOTUSblog’s Goldstein Facing New Allegations in Criminal CaseThe American Bar Association’s (ABA) policymaking body has passed a resolution opposing government actions that punish lawyers, firms, or organizations for representing clients or causes the government dislikes. This move comes amid heightened tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has restricted DOJ attorneys from attending ABA events, reduced the ABA’s role in vetting judicial nominees, and threatened its authority to accredit law schools.The resolution warns that the rule of law is endangered if lawyers or judges face retaliation for doing their jobs. It also denounces threats to impeach judges solely for their rulings. The ABA has an active lawsuit against the administration, alleging a coordinated campaign of intimidation against major law firms—claims the DOJ has asked a court to dismiss, arguing the ABA lacks standing and evidence of harm.Trump has issued executive orders targeting firms over past clients and hires, prompting some firms to agree to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to avoid further action. Others have sued successfully to block orders that revoked security clearances and restricted access to government work. The ABA contends these tactics have discouraged public interest legal work and harmed the ability of vulnerable clients to secure representation.American Bar Association adopts resolution ...
    Show More Show Less
    9 mins
  • Legal News for Mon 8/11 - New FERC Head, Landmark National Guard Trial in CA, Law Firm Q2 Gains, and EPA Ending Union Contract

    Legal News for Mon 8/11 - New FERC Head, Landmark National Guard Trial in CA, Law Firm Q2 Gains, and EPA Ending Union Contract
    Aug 11 2025
    This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS DecisionOn August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court’s willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court’s entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary’s role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump’s energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump’s priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump’s first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country’s largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner’s promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, PowerA closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump’s June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump’s authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president’s power to use military forces domestically.Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | ReutersU.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump’s trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry’s Financial Index score hit 55...
    Show More Show Less
    6 mins
  • 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
  • Legal News for Tues 8/5 - Duane Morris Income Partner Pay Suit, DOJ Grand Jury on Obama-era Intel, Nunes Loses, Judicial AI Errors and FLOSS Nonprofits

    Legal News for Tues 8/5 - Duane Morris Income Partner Pay Suit, DOJ Grand Jury on Obama-era Intel, Nunes Loses, Judicial AI Errors and FLOSS Nonprofits
    Aug 5 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Reagan Fires Air Traffic ControllersOn August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan followed through on a warning to striking air traffic controllers by initiating the dismissal of over 11,000 of them. The controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), had walked off the job on August 3, demanding better wages, shorter hours, and improved working conditions. Reagan responded firmly, citing the fact that federal employees had taken an oath not to strike against the government. In a speech delivered the same day the strike began, he gave them 48 hours to return to work or face termination. When the deadline passed without compliance, the administration acted swiftly, beginning the process of mass firings. The move marked a defining moment in Reagan’s presidency and had lasting effects on labor relations in the public sector. It also effectively broke PATCO as a union, with the government decertifying it shortly afterward. The decision underscored Reagan’s commitment to law and order as well as his hardline stance against labor disruptions that affected national infrastructure. It sent a powerful signal to other unions and shifted the political climate around collective bargaining. The Federal Aviation Administration eventually rebuilt the workforce, but full staffing and operations took years to stabilize.A federal judge in San Diego has ruled that Duane Morris LLP must face most of the claims in a proposed class action accusing the firm of misclassifying certain employees as "partners" to shift tax and benefit costs onto them while denying them a share of the firm's profits. The case was brought by Meagan Garland, a former employment law partner at the firm, who alleges that Duane Morris used the "non-equity partner" designation to avoid paying payroll taxes and employee benefits like health and disability insurance.Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo rejected Duane Morris' motion to dismiss the majority of Garland’s claims, though she allowed two dismissed claims to be amended. Garland also claims the firm engaged in discriminatory pay practices, alleging that women and minorities were paid less than white male colleagues. Duane Morris, founded in Philadelphia, denies any wrongdoing and contends that Garland was properly treated as a partner under the law. The lawsuit spotlights the broader issue of how law firms use partnership titles that may not reflect actual ownership or control.US law firm Duane Morris must face lawsuit over alleged partner pay scheme | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, is reportedly convening a grand jury to investigate claims that officials from former President Barack Obama’s administration fabricated intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation stems from assertions by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has alleged the intelligence community was politically weaponized. The DOJ recently formed a strike force to assess those claims, though it has not commented on the reported grand jury.President Donald Trump has amplified Gabbard’s accusations, calling them vindication and reiterating his unsubstantiated claim that Obama committed treason by trying to link him to Russia. Gabbard, who declassified certain documents, claimed they reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” to sabotage Trump’s campaign. Democrats have dismissed the allegations as false and politically driven.The 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and help Trump, primarily through cyber operations and disinformation. However, it found no conclusive evidence that the efforts changed the outcome. Russia has consistently denied any involvement.US DOJ to open grand jury to investigate Obama officials, source says | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Devin Nunes—former congressman and current CEO of Trump Media—against NBCUniversal over statements made by Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show. The case centered on Maddow’s 2021 claim that Nunes failed to turn over a package he received from Ukrainian legislator Andrii Derkach, who was sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent. Nunes argued that Maddow knowingly misrepresented the situation, since the package had, in fact, been given to the FBI.U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel ruled that Nunes failed to show Maddow acted with "actual malice," a legal requirement for defamation claims brought by public figures. Castel said there was no evidence Maddow knew her statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. He also found no indication that her political bias drove her to fabricate the claim. Maddow and her team had relied on other sources, and weren’t even named as defendants in the suit—NBCUniversal was.The judge noted that Nunes couldn't prove Maddow was aware of a Politico article stating the FBI ...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • Legal News for Fri 8/1 - Threats Against Judges, US Funding Deportations from Costa Rica, and an Appeals Court Weighs in on Trump's "Emergency" Tariff Powers

    Legal News for Fri 8/1 - Threats Against Judges, US Funding Deportations from Costa Rica, and an Appeals Court Weighs in on Trump's "Emergency" Tariff Powers
    Aug 1 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Switzerland’s Federal CharterOn August 1, 1291, the seeds of what would become modern Switzerland were planted with the signing of the Federal Charter, or Bundesbrief, by the cantons of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden. This wasn’t the dramatic formation of a nation-state as we think of it today—it was three rural Alpine communities making a legal pact for mutual defense and cooperation in the face of growing Habsburg pressure. The document itself is barely over 300 words long, written in Latin, and mostly focuses on conflict resolution and how not to stab each other in the back (literally and figuratively). But make no mistake, this was a radical assertion of local legal autonomy during a time when imperial rule was the norm.The Federal Charter stands as an early example of federalism—three small political entities entering into a horizontal, legally binding agreement without ceding total sovereignty to a monarch or emperor. In legal terms, it was more covenant than constitution, but its emphasis on mutual aid, lawful arbitration, and collective security laid the groundwork for Switzerland's famously decentralized structure. The signatories agreed to resist foreign judges and unlawful acts of violence, a precursor to ideas we now enshrine in due process and the rule of law.This wasn’t a flashy revolution. There were no declarations of independence or fiery speeches. Just some pragmatic legalese scratched onto parchment that said, in effect, “Let’s have each other’s backs, settle disputes fairly, and not get bossed around by some distant duke.” Over time, this unassuming agreement evolved into the Swiss model of federalism and neutrality that still defines the nation today. It’s not just legal history—it’s a reminder that even minimalist governance structures can have maximal staying power.Federal judges who issued rulings against Donald Trump’s policies have come forward with disturbing accounts of harassment, threats, and violent intimidation. At a “Speak Up For Justice” event, five judges—including Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell—described receiving death threats, being targets of “swatting” incidents, and even having pizzas delivered to their homes under the name of a murdered judge’s son. McConnell, who blocked a major White House funding freeze earlier this year, disclosed that he received six credible death threats and over 400 hostile voicemails. One threat involved someone searching the dark web for his address, saying they wanted "Smith & Wesson to pay him a visit."Judge John Coughenour, who ruled against Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship, recounted a terrifying police raid on his home due to a false murder report. The FBI later alerted him to a bomb threat. Despite being appointed by Republican President Reagan, Coughenour criticized political attacks on the judiciary as damaging to democratic institutions. The White House called the threats unacceptable and emphasized the importance of judicial safety. On the same day as the event, the Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee Gadyaces Serralta to lead the U.S. Marshals Service, who pledged to prioritize judge protection.By mid-June, 408 threats against 297 judges had been logged in the fiscal year. Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered in 2020, praised the speaking judges for breaking their silence in defense of judicial independence.US judges recount death threats, 'swatting' after rulings against Trump | ReutersAccording to exclusive reporting done by Reuters, the U.S. State Department plans to allocate up to $7.85 million to support deportation operations in Costa Rica, marking a significant expansion of American-backed regional immigration enforcement. The funds, redirected from an economic development account, will be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate with Costa Rican authorities to carry out deportations of migrants—especially those transiting through the country en route to the U.S.This arrangement resembles a 2024 Biden-era agreement with Panama, where the U.S. financed detention and deportation of migrants moving northward. The new Costa Rica program is framed as a capacity-building effort that will fund deportation logistics and training on asylum screening. Still, critics warn it could deny vulnerable populations fair access to asylum protections.The plan follows a Trump administration request earlier in the year for Costa Rica to accept 200 migrants from Africa, Asia, and Europe previously detained in the U.S. Many of them remain in Costa Rica, raising questions about long-term outcomes. Details on when deportations will begin or the final destination countries remain unclear.Officials have also acknowledged that some migrants are now traveling south through Costa Rica, fleeing northward crackdowns and the end of Biden’s humanitarian parole options. The agreement does not require a direct connection ...
    Show More Show Less
    21 mins
  • Legal News for Thurs 7/31 - Trump Pumps Crypto, Public Defender Funding Cuts, Uber Liability Question and Eric Tung's Sexist Comments

    Legal News for Thurs 7/31 - Trump Pumps Crypto, Public Defender Funding Cuts, Uber Liability Question and Eric Tung's Sexist Comments
    Jul 31 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today’s process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins’ patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world’s most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic’s commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump’s crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump’s family’s crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report’s findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee’s financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary’s ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber’s lack of ...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins