エピソード

  • Legal News for Tues 7/8 - Lawsuit Against RFK and HHS Over Vaccine Schedule, Trump Targets Hondurans and Nicaraguans, and Maryland's Troubled New Tech Tax

    Legal News for Tues 7/8 - Lawsuit Against RFK and HHS Over Vaccine Schedule, Trump Targets Hondurans and Nicaraguans, and Maryland's Troubled New Tech Tax
    2025/07/08
    This Day in Legal History: Vermont Abolishes Slavery for MenOn July 8, 1777, the Vermont Republic adopted a constitution that became the first in what would eventually become the United States to formally abolish slavery. At the time, Vermont was not yet a state—it was an independent republic formed after declaring independence from both New York and British colonial rule. The new constitution, influenced by Enlightenment principles and revolutionary ideals, declared that “no male person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be held by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice” after the age of 21.This clause effectively outlawed slavery for adult men and set the groundwork for emancipation, although enforcement was inconsistent. Vermont’s action was revolutionary, especially considering that slavery remained deeply entrenched in both the southern and northern American colonies. While other Northern states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts would later take steps toward abolition, Vermont’s constitutional ban was a bold and early legal rebuke of human bondage.Despite its symbolic significance, the legal impact was somewhat limited. Vermont did not join the Union until 1791, and historical records indicate that some slavery-like practices may have persisted unofficially. Nevertheless, the 1777 constitution established an early legal precedent for anti-slavery sentiment, showing how legal documents could be used to challenge institutional oppression. The language also hinted at the contradictions between American ideals of liberty and the reality of enslavement.Several major U.S. medical organizations filed a lawsuit on July 7 against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the HHS, challenging recent changes to federal COVID-19 vaccine policy. The plaintiffs—including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians—are seeking to overturn Kennedy’s directive removing COVID-19 vaccines from the CDC’s immunization schedules for children and pregnant women. They argue that the move poses an immediate threat to public health and undermines evidence-based medical policy.The complaint accuses Kennedy of dismantling the federally established vaccine framework that has historically saved millions of lives. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, took control of HHS earlier this year and has taken steps to reshape vaccine policy. In addition to altering the immunization schedules, he also dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee and replaced them with seven individuals, some of whom have publicly opposed vaccination.Medical groups contend that these actions are not grounded in science and place vulnerable populations at significant risk of preventable diseases. HHS has not yet commented on the lawsuit.Medical groups sue HHS, Kennedy over vaccine policy | ReutersThe Biden administration had extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Hondurans and Nicaraguans in 2023, citing lingering effects of Hurricane Mitch, political instability, and economic hardship. But on July 7, the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump announced it will end those protections effective September 6, 2025, impacting roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans. TPS offers deportation relief and work permits to migrants from countries experiencing crisis, but Trump officials argue the program has been overused.Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said both countries have recovered significantly, referencing tourism, real estate, and energy developments. Critics, including Democrats and migrant advocates, say ending TPS will uproot people who have legally lived and worked in the U.S. for decades and may force them to return to dangerous or unstable conditions. The Honduran deputy foreign minister acknowledged the decision wasn't country-specific, but part of a broader rollback of TPS protections.Trump’s administration has already targeted TPS designations for migrants from Venezuela, Haiti, Afghanistan, and Cameroon. Legal battles continue over the policy’s rollback: while the Supreme Court recently upheld ending TPS for Venezuelans, a federal judge blocked the termination for Haitians just last week.Trump to end deportation protections for thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week focuses on Maryland’s new 3% digital services tax, which took effect on July 1. I argue that while the state’s goal of modernizing its tax base is understandable, the execution creates more problems than it solves. Rather than taxing consumption—the standard, more efficient route—Maryland is taxing business inputs like data hosting and web services. This approach violates basic tax principles, potentially stifling investment and driving up operational costs for firms doing business in the state.The administrative burden is uniquely complex. ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分
  • Legal News for Mon 7/7 - Trump Deportation Full Trial, Apple EU Antitrust Appeal, Looming Trump Cuts to Legal Aid for Domestic Violence Survivors

    Legal News for Mon 7/7 - Trump Deportation Full Trial, Apple EU Antitrust Appeal, Looming Trump Cuts to Legal Aid for Domestic Violence Survivors
    2025/07/07
    This Day in Legal History: Newlands ResolutionOn July 7, 1898, President William McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution, formally annexing the Hawaiian Islands into the United States. Unlike traditional territorial expansion through treaties, this annexation occurred via a joint resolution of Congress—an unusual and legally contested mechanism. The resolution was named after Representative Francis Newlands of Nevada and passed by a narrow margin, reflecting deep divisions over imperialism, expansion, and national identity. Supporters argued that annexing Hawaii would bolster American strategic and economic interests, particularly as the U.S. was engaged in the Spanish-American War and needed a naval base in the Pacific.The legality of annexation by joint resolution, as opposed to treaty ratification requiring a two-thirds Senate majority, sparked constitutional debate. Critics contended that this method sidestepped constitutional checks and amounted to imperial overreach. Native Hawaiians had overwhelmingly opposed annexation, as demonstrated in the Kūʻē Petitions signed by over 20,000 islanders. The resolution disregarded this opposition, cementing a colonial dynamic that would echo in future U.S. territorial acquisitions.The annexation also laid the groundwork for the eventual formation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1900 and its statehood in 1959, though not without continued controversy and calls for sovereignty. Legally, the Newlands Resolution exemplified the flexibility—and limits—of congressional authority in foreign affairs and territorial governance. It also introduced enduring questions about consent, self-determination, and the legitimacy of U.S. expansionism under constitutional law.This event highlights how domestic legal processes were used to justify international actions, revealing tensions between democratic ideals and imperial ambitions.A rare trial is beginning in Boston over a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of deporting international students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian activism. The case was brought by academic groups including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. It centers on actions taken after Trump signed executive orders targeting non-citizens with so-called "hateful ideology" and promising to fight antisemitism. Plaintiffs allege that these directives led the State and Homeland Security Departments to revoke visas and detain students like Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, both of whom were targeted after expressing pro-Palestinian views.Unlike most Trump-era immigration cases, this one is proceeding to a full trial rather than being decided early by a judge. U.S. District Judge William Young emphasized that a trial is the best path to uncover the truth. Plaintiffs argue the policy violates the First Amendment, accusing the administration of suppressing political dissent on college campuses. The administration denies a deportation policy exists, claiming decisions are made based on security concerns, not ideology. Homeland Security officials insist the U.S. won’t tolerate advocacy that they perceive as violent or anti-American.The trial outcome could shape how immigration authorities interpret and apply free speech protections to non-citizens in academic settings. It’s only the second Trump-era policy case to reach trial under Judge Young, who has publicly criticized the judiciary for avoiding fact-finding through trials.Rare trial to begin in challenge to Trump-backed deportations of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersApple has formally appealed a €500 million ($587 million) fine imposed by the European Commission for allegedly violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The Commission found that Apple restricted app developers from directing users to more affordable options outside its App Store, which regulators said limited competition and consumer choice. Apple filed its lawsuit at Europe’s second-highest court on the last day allowed for appeal, arguing that the fine is excessive and that the EU is overreaching by trying to dictate how it operates its App Store.The company claims it altered its policies to comply with the DMA and to avoid further daily fines, which could amount to €50 million per day. Apple also contends that the Commission's demands are both confusing for developers and harmful to users. Despite the changes, EU regulators are still reviewing the company’s new terms and have solicited feedback from app developers before deciding if additional enforcement is needed.The case is part of broader efforts by the EU to rein in the influence of major tech companies and ensure fair digital market practices under the newly implemented DMA.Apple takes fight against $587 million EU antitrust fine to court | ReutersMaryland Legal Aid (MDLA), a critical legal support system for low-income individuals, especially women and...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分
  • Legal News for Thurs 7/3 - Roberts Reasserts Control at SCOTUS, RFK HHS Overhaul, Trump Asylum Ban and CPSC Firings

    Legal News for Thurs 7/3 - Roberts Reasserts Control at SCOTUS, RFK HHS Overhaul, Trump Asylum Ban and CPSC Firings
    2025/07/03
    This Day in Legal History: George Carlin’s Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin’s infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin’s monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin’s routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn’t definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court’s conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts’ leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court’s emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court’A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy’s reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Legal News for Weds 7/2 - TPS Win for Haitians, Penn's Shameful Capitulation on Human Rights, A Ruling that Federal Judges are Public Officials and Gutting Grad Student Loans

    Legal News for Weds 7/2 - TPS Win for Haitians, Penn's Shameful Capitulation on Human Rights, A Ruling that Federal Judges are Public Officials and Gutting Grad Student Loans
    2025/07/02
    This Day in Legal History: Night of the Long Knives EndsOn July 2, 1934, the Night of the Long Knives officially ended, marking one of the most chilling examples of how legal systems can be manipulated to legitimize authoritarian violence. Over the course of several days, Adolf Hitler ordered a purge within his own Nazi Party, targeting the Sturmabteilung (SA) and its leader Ernst Röhm, whom he saw as a threat to his consolidation of power. The executions, carried out primarily by the SS, claimed over 150 lives—many without trial or due process. While it was essentially a mass political assassination campaign, Hitler framed the violence as a necessary defense of the German state.What made the purge particularly sinister was how it was later codified. On July 3, 1934, the Nazi-controlled cabinet passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders, declaring them acts of state necessity. This not only provided immunity for the perpetrators but also cloaked state violence in the veneer of legality. The judiciary, already aligned with or cowed by the Nazi regime, did not challenge the legality of the purge. Instead, they accepted the new norm that the Führer's word had the force of law.The Night of the Long Knives exemplifies a central danger in legal history: when the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of one. Under Nazi rule, laws were not instruments of justice, but tools for enforcing ideological purity and eliminating dissent. This episode remains a stark warning of how legal frameworks can be bent—or entirely rewritten—to serve totalitarian ends.A federal judge in Brooklyn blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 521,000 Haitian immigrants before the program’s scheduled expiration in February 2026. The Department of Homeland Security had moved to terminate the protections early, citing an August 3 end date later revised to September 2. However, Judge Brian Cogan ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted unlawfully by bypassing statutory procedures and lacking the authority to partially vacate Haiti’s TPS designation. He emphasized that the interests of Haitian immigrants in maintaining lawful status and employment in the U.S. far outweighed any claimed governmental harm. The ruling noted that the administration remains free to end TPS, but only in accordance with congressional mandates. The plaintiffs, including Haitian TPS holders, churches, and a labor union, argued that Noem’s actions were both procedurally flawed and racially motivated. Haiti’s ongoing crisis—marked by extreme gang violence and instability—was a central factor in the court’s decision. DHS responded by defending the decision to terminate TPS, stating it was never meant to function as de facto asylum, and pledged to appeal. The case underscores the legal limits on executive authority in immigration policy and reflects broader resistance to Trump’s hardline stance, including similar efforts to rescind TPS for other nationalities.US judge blocks Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians | ReutersIn a shameful capitulation to the Trump administration, the University of Pennsylvania has agreed to disavow its past adherence to NCAA rules allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports. As part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Education under Title IX, Penn will publicly apologize for permitting swimmer Lia Thomas and others to compete and will retroactively erase records and titles won by transgender athletes. The university, under federal investigation since April, has also committed to reaffirming support for Trump-era executive orders that narrowly define sex in women’s athletics. Penn President J. Larry Jameson attempted to deflect responsibility, noting that the school had simply followed then-valid national athletic regulations, but still conceded that some students may have been "disadvantaged." The Education Department’s announcement, echoing transphobic language, framed the agreement as a victory for “protecting women” from “gender ideology extremism.” While Penn did not confirm, the deal appears tied to the reinstatement of $175 million in federal funding Trump had suspended in March. This decision, cheered by some as protecting competitive fairness, is seen by LGBTQ advocates as a rollback of rights and a politically motivated attack on a small and vulnerable population.University of Pennsylvania reaches compliance deal with Trump administration on transgender athletes | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that judges are public officials for the purposes of defamation law, meaning they must meet the higher "actual malice" standard to successfully sue for reputational harm. U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Florida dismissed a lawsuit filed by fellow federal judge Frederic Block, who had accused former members of his Florida condo association's board of defaming him by implying ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Legal News for Tues 7/1 - SCOTUS Defangs EPA, Trump's Ongoing Birthright Citizenship Debacle, Trump vs. Perkins Coie, and Data Center Tax Breaks

    Legal News for Tues 7/1 - SCOTUS Defangs EPA, Trump's Ongoing Birthright Citizenship Debacle, Trump vs. Perkins Coie, and Data Center Tax Breaks
    2025/07/01
    This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today’s IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn’t until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California’s stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday did not validate Trump’s policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump’s administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge’s decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Legal News for Mon 6/30 - Global M&A Up, SCOTUS Win for Trump Might be Limited, GOP Tax Bill Tensions and Wall Street Chasing CA Wildfire Profits

    Legal News for Mon 6/30 - Global M&A Up, SCOTUS Win for Trump Might be Limited, GOP Tax Bill Tensions and Wall Street Chasing CA Wildfire Profits
    2025/06/30
    This Day in Legal History: 26th AmendmentOn June 30, 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This change was largely driven by the political and social pressures of the Vietnam War era, when young Americans were being drafted to fight at 18 but could not vote. The rallying cry “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” captured the public’s attention and galvanized a national movement. Though proposals to lower the voting age had circulated for decades, the urgency escalated in the 1960s and early 1970s as anti-war sentiment intensified.Congress passed the amendment with overwhelming support, and it achieved ratification at an unprecedented pace—taking just over three months, the fastest in U.S. history. This amendment added a new section to the Constitution, explicitly prohibiting federal and state governments from denying the right to vote to citizens aged 18 or older based on age. The swift ratification reflected broad bipartisan consensus and mounting public pressure to align civic duties and rights.The legal shift represented a significant expansion of suffrage in the United States, enfranchising millions of young people. It was also a notable example of constitutional change in response to contemporary social conditions and activism. States were subsequently required to amend their laws and election systems to accommodate the younger electorate, which has since played a key role in shaping political outcomes.Global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the first half of 2025 grew in value, despite fewer overall deals, thanks to a surge in megadeals—particularly in Asia. Market uncertainties tied to President Trump’s tariff initiatives, high interest rates, and geopolitical tension initially dampened expectations. However, confidence among bankers is rising, with many believing that the worst of the turbulence has passed. The U.S. equity markets, bolstered by record highs in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, have helped restore optimism for stronger M&A activity in the second half of the year.Preliminary data show $2.14 trillion in global deals from January through June 27, a 26% increase year-over-year, driven in part by Asia’s doubling in activity to nearly $584 billion. North America saw a 17% rise in deal value to over $1 trillion. Large deals, such as Toyota’s $33 billion supplier buyout and ADNOC’s $18.7 billion acquisition of Santos, helped drive Asia-Pacific’s share of global M&A to over 27%. Meanwhile, fewer total deals—down to 17,528 from over 20,000 last year—were offset by a 62% rise in transactions worth over $10 billion.Eased antitrust policies in the U.S. and a drop in market volatility contributed to a more favorable environment. Investment bankers are now more optimistic, citing a strong pipeline for the second half and renewed IPO activity. Institutional investors are re-engaging, further fueling expectations of continued M&A momentum.Global M&A powered by larger deals in first half, bankers show appetite for megadeals | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled to curtail the use of “universal” injunctions—orders that block government policies nationwide—marking a major legal victory for President Donald Trump. This decision limits the ability of individual judges to halt federal actions across the entire country, reinforcing that relief should generally only apply to the plaintiffs involved. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, aimed to rein in what some conservatives see as judicial overreach.However, this legal win may not help Trump implement one of his most controversial policies: an executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents. Three lower court judges had already blocked the order, citing likely violations of the 14th Amendment. Although the Supreme Court narrowed the injunctions, it left room for opponents to pursue class-action suits or broader relief through state challenges.Legal scholars expect a wave of class-action cases and continued efforts by states and advocacy groups to block the order’s implementation before the 30-day delay expires. States argue they need nationwide protection due to the administrative chaos such a policy would bring. Yet the Court declined to resolve whether states are entitled to broader injunctions, leaving that question to lower courts. If challengers fail to secure class-wide or state-level blocks, the executive order could go into effect unevenly across the country, creating legal confusion for families affected by it.Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship | ReutersSenate Majority Leader John Thune is racing to meet President Donald Trump’s July 4 deadline to pass a massive tax and spending bill, navigating deep divisions within the Republican Party. The $3.3 trillion legislation, which includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Legal News for Fri 6/27 - Justice Kennedy Warns Democracy at Risk, Ripple's Failed Settlement, SCOTUS on Birthright Citizenship Kinda and Revenge Tax + Pro Codes Act, Both Bad

    Legal News for Fri 6/27 - Justice Kennedy Warns Democracy at Risk, Ripple's Failed Settlement, SCOTUS on Birthright Citizenship Kinda and Revenge Tax + Pro Codes Act, Both Bad
    2025/06/27
    This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government’s role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy’s concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren’t securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    22 分
  • Legal News for Thurs 6/26 - Judge Blocks Trump's Job Corps Shuttering, Meta Wins AI Copyright Case not on Merits, and IRS Strained but Successful 2025 Filing Season

    Legal News for Thurs 6/26 - Judge Blocks Trump's Job Corps Shuttering, Meta Wins AI Copyright Case not on Merits, and IRS Strained but Successful 2025 Filing Season
    2025/06/26
    This Day in Legal History: United States v. VirginiaOn this day in legal history, June 26, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Virginia, striking down the Virginia Military Institute’s (VMI) male-only admissions policy. The 7–1 ruling held that the exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized that gender-based government action must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to be constitutional.VMI had long argued that its adversative, military-style education would be compromised by the inclusion of women. In response to the lawsuit, Virginia created a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College, which the Court found to be inherently unequal. The Court concluded that Virginia failed to show that its gender-based admissions policy was substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice Ginsburg’s opinion stressed that generalizations about gender roles cannot justify the denial of opportunity. The ruling did not require VMI to change its core program but made clear that women must be given equal access to it. This decision marked a significant moment in the legal evolution of gender equality and helped to dismantle one of the most visible public institutions that had resisted coeducation.Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the decision imposed a rigid standard of gender equality that went beyond the Constitution’s text and history. Nevertheless, the ruling reflected the Court’s growing skepticism of laws that enforce traditional gender roles. United States v. Virginia remains one of the most cited gender discrimination cases and is considered a hallmark of Ginsburg’s judicial legacy.A federal judge has extended a block on the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle Job Corps, a longstanding job training program for low-income youth. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that the Department of Labor's plan to abruptly end the program without congressional approval likely violates federal law. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Job Corps Association and several of its contractors.Job Corps, established in 1964, provides educational and vocational training for disadvantaged individuals aged 16 to 24. It currently serves about 25,000 participants at 120 centers nationwide, with an annual budget of $1.7 billion. The administration argued the program was inefficient, citing low graduation rates, poor job placement, and issues with violence and security at centers.However, plaintiffs maintain that only Congress can terminate a federally funded program and that the Labor Department failed to follow statutory procedures for closing individual centers. Judge Carter agreed, stating that once Congress mandates and funds a program, the executive branch cannot unilaterally terminate it.US judge extends block on Trump's bid to eliminate Job Corps program | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco ruled in favor of Meta Platforms, dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI system, Llama. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found the authors failed to show sufficient evidence that Meta’s AI training harmed the market for their work—an essential element in proving copyright infringement under U.S. law.While Chhabria emphasized that unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training could be illegal in many scenarios, he clarified that his ruling was limited to the plaintiffs’ failure to present the right arguments or evidence. This position diverges from another recent ruling in which Judge William Alsup found that Anthropic’s AI use of copyrighted content qualified as fair use.The authors’ legal team criticized the decision, calling Meta’s actions a form of “historically unprecedented pirating,” while Meta praised the outcome and defended fair use as essential for developing transformative AI technologies.This case is part of a broader legal wave in which creators are challenging companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic over AI systems trained on copyrighted materials. At the heart of the dispute is whether using such content without payment or permission to create AI-generated works constitutes fair use or undermines creative incentives.Meta fends off authors' US copyright lawsuit over AI | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, I note the IRS managed an objectively successful 2025 filing season—processing nearly 138 million returns, most of them electronically—but also that success masks deeper structural weaknesses. While headline numbers are strong, the IRS suspended over 13 million returns, largely due to fraud checks or errors, delaying refunds and spotlighting operational vulnerabilities. One of the most glaring issues is the average 20-month wait time...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    6 分