エピソード

  • Legal News for Fri 9/19 - NIOSH Gutted, Trump Economic Agenda in SCOTUS Hands, ICE Terrorizes DC and Senate Confirms USPTO Head

    Legal News for Fri 9/19 - NIOSH Gutted, Trump Economic Agenda in SCOTUS Hands, ICE Terrorizes DC and Senate Confirms USPTO Head
    2025/09/19
    This Day in Legal History: Lord Haw-Haw SentencedOn September 19, 1945, William Joyce—infamously known as “Lord Haw-Haw”—was sentenced to death by a British court for high treason. Joyce had gained notoriety during World War II for broadcasting Nazi propaganda over German radio to British audiences, aiming to demoralize Allied troops and civilians. Born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in the UK and Ireland, Joyce later became a naturalized German citizen and an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler. His broadcasts, delivered in a nasal, sneering voice, opened with the phrase “Germany calling,” and earned him the derisive nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" from British listeners.After the war, Joyce was captured by British forces in Germany and brought back to the UK to stand trial. Despite his German citizenship, the court ruled that he had committed treason because he had held a British passport when he began working for the Nazis. His legal defense argued that he owed no allegiance to Britain at the time of the broadcasts, but the court held that possession of the passport created a duty of allegiance. The case raised significant questions about the limits of national loyalty and the reach of British treason laws.On January 6, 1946, Joyce was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison, becoming one of the last people to be executed for treason in the UK. The trial and execution were controversial, with some legal scholars and public commentators questioning the soundness of the court’s interpretation of allegiance. Nevertheless, the sentence was seen by many at the time as a necessary response to one of the most prominent domestic collaborators of the war.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), long considered a cost-effective and critical pillar of U.S. workplace safety, has been effectively dismantled under the Trump administration’s 2025 restructuring efforts. The agency, a division of the CDC responsible for certifying N95 masks, studying firefighter deaths, and leading occupational health research, saw roughly 90% of its 1,000 staff receive layoff notices on April 1. This move paralyzed core programs, from black lung screenings to PPE certifications, halting NIOSH's role as both a public safeguard and a quiet corporate consultant. The sudden cuts sparked chaos: lab animals were euthanized, crucial research was frozen, and businesses warned of safety gaps and market instability.Many affected workers have since resigned or are stuck on administrative leave, while others remain in limbo as lawsuits challenge the legality of the terminations. Despite statements from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming essential functions remain intact, internal confusion and partial walk-backs—like budget proposals still seeking to slash 80% of NIOSH funding—suggest deeper dismantling intentions. Business leaders, labor unions, and safety advocates have united in rare bipartisan pushback, warning of long-term risks to both worker health and industrial standards.The agency's downfall is part of a broader campaign to weaken the federal workforce, spearheaded by Project 2025 architects and executed with sweeping firings, anti-DEI mandates, and deep budget cuts across agencies. Former government scientists describe the collapse of safety infrastructure as a slow, invisible crisis—where the full damage may not emerge for years. With morale shattered and talent fleeing, the future of U.S. workplace safety research is in jeopardy.Trump Team Derailed Corporate America’s Most Valuable ConsultantTwo major elements of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda—his global tariffs and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, raising pivotal questions about the scope of presidential power. The court has agreed to hear a challenge to Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, a law traditionally used to sanction hostile foreign actors, not manage trade. Arguments are set for November 5. Separately, Trump is seeking to fire Cook, claiming misconduct; however, critics argue this is a pretext for targeting her policy views and that doing so violates the 1913 law establishing the Fed's independence.Legal scholars warn that siding with Trump in either case could dramatically expand executive authority. Trump has already tested legal boundaries across immigration, diversity, and civil service policy. While lower courts have often blocked his initiatives, the Supreme Court—now with a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees—has frequently sided with him. The Cook case raises unprecedented constitutional questions, as no president has ever removed a Fed governor.Meanwhile, Trump's tariff actions have destabilized global trade relations and spurred economic uncertainty, though his allies argue they are central to his economic strategy. A decision ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    31 分
  • Legal News for Thurs 9/18 - Disney and Amazon Lawsuits, $1.7B GloriFi Claim, Khalil Fights Deportation and Court Blocks HHS Cuts

    Legal News for Thurs 9/18 - Disney and Amazon Lawsuits, $1.7B GloriFi Claim, Khalil Fights Deportation and Court Blocks HHS Cuts
    2025/09/18
    This Day in Legal History: Fugitive Slave ActOn September 18, 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law, intensifying the national divide over slavery. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the law mandated that all escaped enslaved individuals, upon capture, be returned to their enslavers and that officials and citizens of free states were legally obligated to cooperate. Federal commissioners were authorized to issue arrest warrants without a jury trial, and those accused had no right to testify in their own defense.The law also imposed heavy penalties on anyone aiding a fugitive, including fines and imprisonment, which provoked outrage among abolitionists and free Black communities. The act effectively nationalized the institution of slavery, forcing even anti-slavery states to participate in its enforcement. This led to dramatic and sometimes violent resistance, including the formation of vigilance committees and the expansion of the Underground Railroad.Free Black Americans faced new dangers under the law, as it encouraged bounty hunters and unscrupulous officials to seize and enslave them under false pretenses. Several high-profile cases, such as the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston in 1854, drew mass protests and highlighted the law's harsh impact. The Fugitive Slave Act deepened sectional tensions and hardened Northern opposition to slavery, pushing the nation closer to civil war.A Chapter 7 trustee for the bankrupt fintech startup GloriFi has filed a $1.7 billion malpractice lawsuit against law firm Winston & Strawn and its Houston managing partner, Michael Blankenship. The suit alleges the firm prioritized the interests of GloriFi’s founder, Texas oil investor Toby Neugebauer, over the company’s, ultimately contributing to its collapse. GloriFi—formally known as With Purpose Inc.—marketed itself as an “anti-woke” financial institution aimed at conservative consumers. The complaint claims Winston & Strawn enabled Neugebauer to engage in self-dealing, manipulate board control, and undermine corporate governance, deterring major investors and derailing a proposed SPAC merger that once valued the company at $1.7 billion.The trustee accuses the firm of negligence, fiduciary breaches, and aiding fraudulent transfers, alleging its conduct drove investor confidence down and played a key role in the company’s failure. Winston & Strawn denies wrongdoing and promises to contest the "meritless claims." The legal action follows a court-approved settlement earlier this year that allowed GloriFi’s trustee to pursue claims via a separate entity tied to one of the investors. This is one of multiple legal efforts by the trustee, who previously sued Chapman & Cutler LLP over similar allegations related to Neugebauer’s control of the company. High-profile backers of GloriFi included Peter Thiel, Ken Griffin, Vivek Ramaswamy, and an aide to former Vice President Mike Pence.Winston & Strawn Sued in ‘Anti-Woke’ Bank Startup Bankruptcy (1)A U.S. immigration judge ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American activist and Columbia University student, to either Algeria or Syria. The ruling is based on allegations that Khalil intentionally misrepresented facts on his green card application. Khalil’s legal team disputes the decision and plans to appeal, citing a separate federal court order that currently prevents his detention or deportation while his civil rights case proceeds.Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was previously held for over 100 days by immigration authorities and missed the birth of his child while in custody. He was released in June after a federal judge criticized his prolonged detention over a civil immigration issue as unconstitutional. Khalil claims the government's efforts to remove him are retaliatory, tied to his outspoken pro-Palestinian activism and free speech. He argues that the charges against him are fabricated and politically motivated.The case has drawn criticism from civil rights organizations concerned about the erosion of due process and free speech rights, especially in the context of recent federal pressure on universities to curtail pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia University, where Khalil studies, was a focal point of such demonstrations in the previous year.US immigration judge orders Khalil deportation, his lawyers say separate ruling protects him for now | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Amazon violated consumer protection laws by collecting billing information for its Prime subscription service before clearly disclosing the full terms, giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a partial win in its case against the company. The FTC alleges Amazon used deceptive practices to enroll tens of millions of users in Prime without proper consent and made cancellations deliberately difficult. The judge found that these actions potentially violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), and that ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Legal News for Weds 9/17 - KPMG Audits Fall Short, Tesla Crash Settlement, State Terrorism Charges Dropped in Mangione Case and Law Firms Suing Trump Despite Deals

    Legal News for Weds 9/17 - KPMG Audits Fall Short, Tesla Crash Settlement, State Terrorism Charges Dropped in Mangione Case and Law Firms Suing Trump Despite Deals
    2025/09/17
    This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Fort PittOn September 17, 1778, the Treaty of Fort Pitt—also known as the Treaty of Fort Pitt or the Delaware Treaty—was signed between the newly independent United States and the Lenape (Delaware) Nation. It was the first formal treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe, signaling an alliance during the Revolutionary War against British forces. The treaty, negotiated at Fort Pitt (present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), promised military collaboration, mutual defense, and provisions for supplies and protection for the Lenape people. In a striking and largely symbolic provision, the treaty even entertained the idea of creating a 14th state within the Union to be governed by Native Americans.Though the treaty framed the Lenape as equal partners, its promises were quickly eroded by reality. The United States failed to deliver many of the resources it pledged, and the idea of a Native-governed state was abandoned almost as soon as it was proposed. Lenape leaders had agreed to the treaty in part out of necessity, caught between colonial and British expansion and hoping to safeguard their people’s survival. Instead, they faced encroachment, displacement, and repeated betrayals.Within a few years, American militias and settlers would violate the treaty’s terms, seizing land and disregarding Lenape sovereignty. The alliance never materialized in the way it was envisioned. The treaty, once a beacon of potential cooperation, became an early example of the fragility of Native-American treaties with the United States. It set a precedent for broken agreements that would recur throughout American expansion.A Senate report released by Democrats on September 17, 2025, criticized KPMG LLP for failing to act on warning signs at Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank prior to their 2023 collapses. The auditors issued clean reports just weeks before the banks failed due to rising interest rates and liquidity issues, yet they allegedly ignored key red flags such as massive asset devaluations, governance concerns, and internal risk assessments. Lawmakers said KPMG adopted an overly narrow view of its responsibilities and maintained close, long-term relationships with the banks, raising questions about its objectivity. The report highlighted a revolving door between KPMG and the banks, with executives and audit staff frequently moving between roles. KPMG defended its audits, saying it followed U.S. standards and criticized the report as out of step with other investigations, which have not blamed auditors for the failures.Senator Richard Blumenthal called for substantial reform to the audit industry, citing “willful blindness” by KPMG and a failure to protect the public. Though the Senate subcommittee's report is unlikely to spur immediate regulatory changes—especially given the political instability at the PCAOB—it proposed new oversight tools, including mandatory auditor rotation and a whistleblower office. The report also recommended making audit enforcement investigations public sooner, arguing that long delays leave investors unaware of potential problems. KPMG, meanwhile, noted it had improved its audit practices and achieved its best regulatory inspection in 15 years.KPMG Dismissed Red Flags at Regional Banks, Senate Review FindsA New York state judge dismissed two terrorism-related charges against Luigi Mangione, who remains accused of second-degree murder in the killing of health insurance executive Brian Thompson. Justice Gregory Carro ruled that prosecutors failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mangione acted with the intent to intimidate health workers or influence government policy—criteria necessary for charges under the state's terrorism statute. While the judge acknowledged the seriousness of the crime, he clarified that not all non-traditional crimes qualify as terrorism.Mangione, 27, still faces nine other charges in the state case, including multiple counts of criminal possession of a weapon and a charge for possessing false identification. He has also been indicted federally, where the U.S. Justice Department is seeking the death penalty. The state court’s decision does not impact the federal terrorism case, which remains active. Thompson, a former CEO at UnitedHealthcare, was shot outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel in December 2024 during a company event.The case has drawn national attention, particularly as concerns grow over politically motivated violence following the recent killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Public reaction to Mangione has been sharply divided, with some viewing him as a vigilante figure amid frustration with rising healthcare costs. Supporters even rallied outside the courthouse, holding signs and wearing themed attire. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and no trial dates have been scheduled.Luigi Mangione wins dismissal of terrorism counts in US insurance ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Legal News for Tues 9/15 - Maurene Comey's Fight, Musk Settles X Trademark Dispute, Google Lawyers Want $85m in Fees and Norway's Wealth Tax Referendum

    Legal News for Tues 9/15 - Maurene Comey's Fight, Musk Settles X Trademark Dispute, Google Lawyers Want $85m in Fees and Norway's Wealth Tax Referendum
    2025/09/16
    This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration’s ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk’s company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk’s rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk’s company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Legal News for Mon 9/15 - Big Law Firing over Kirk Criticism, Deportation Block for Minors, Mass Federal Firings Ruled Illegal and UC Berkeley Hands Over Details on Scores

    Legal News for Mon 9/15 - Big Law Firing over Kirk Criticism, Deportation Block for Minors, Mass Federal Firings Ruled Illegal and UC Berkeley Hands Over Details on Scores
    2025/09/15
    This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg Laws EnactedOn this day in legal history, September 15, 1935, Nazi Germany enacted the Nuremberg Laws, codifying one of the most infamous legal frameworks of racial discrimination and hate in modern history. Announced at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, these laws included the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, the Reich Citizenship Law, and later, the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People. Together, they stripped Jews of German citizenship, prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans,” and laid the groundwork for systematic persecution.The Reich Citizenship Law divided citizens into two classes: full citizens, who were of "German or related blood," and subjects, who were denied full political rights. Jews were relegated to the latter category. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor banned intermarriage and extramarital relations between Jews and Germans, criminalizing personal relationships based on ancestry. Violators could be imprisoned or sent to concentration camps.To enforce these laws, the Nazi regime devised elaborate charts and pseudoscientific metrics to assess Jewish ancestry, culminating in a 1936 chart issued by the Reich Health Office. This visual aid defined citizens by the number of Jewish grandparents they had, assigning labels like Mischling (mixed race) to those with partial Jewish heritage. Even one Jewish grandparent could strip a person of civil rights.The Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German People added a eugenic dimension, requiring couples to undergo genetic testing before marriage and barring those deemed "genetically unfit" from reproducing. These legal measures normalized state-sponsored racism and laid a legal foundation for the Holocaust.Big Law firm Perkins Coie terminated an attorney over a social media post that appeared to criticize conservative figure Charlie Kirk following his shooting death. The firm stated the post did not align with its values and that the lawyer’s conduct fell significantly below professional expectations. The firing was made effective immediately. Kirk, 31, served as executive director of Turning Point USA and was a prominent supporter of Donald Trump. He was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. Perkins Coie has a history of political entanglements, notably becoming one of the first law firms to sue Trump after his executive orders targeted firms representing political adversaries. These orders reportedly restricted access to federal facilities, revoked security clearances, and jeopardized client contracts. The firm was a particular focus for Trump due to its work during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, including hiring Fusion GPS to conduct research that led to the Steele dossier, which alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.Perkins Coie Fires Attorney Over Social Media Post on Kirk ShootingU.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly extended a temporary block on the deportation of unaccompanied Guatemalan children with active immigration cases. The move halts a Trump-era effort that attempted to deport 76 minors without proper notice or legal process, including waking children in the early hours of August 31 to board planes. The judge's ruling followed a contentious September 10 hearing, where he criticized a Justice Department attorney for falsely claiming that all the children’s parents had requested their return. A report from the Guatemalan Attorney General's Office later revealed that most parents couldn’t be located, and many of those found did not want their children repatriated.The children in question mostly come from Guatemala’s Indigenous, rural regions—Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quiché, and Alta Verapaz—areas known for high poverty and malnutrition. Guatemalan officials emphasized that such a large-scale repatriation request was unprecedented. Some families reportedly mortgaged their homes to finance the children's migration, indicating the high stakes involved.US judge extends block on deportations of unaccompanied Guatemalan migrant children | ReutersU.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully directed the mass firing of around 25,000 federal probationary employees earlier this year. These workers, many of whom had served in their roles for less than a year, were dismissed under a directive from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in February. The mass terminations sparked lawsuits from unions, nonprofits, and the state of Washington, arguing the firings lacked legal justification.Judge Alsup found that the OPM's directive was unlawful and "pretextual," noting the terminations were falsely framed as performance-related. While he acknowledged that the workers had been harmed, he declined to order their reinstatement, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
  • Legal News for Fri 9/12 - Senate Rule Changes, Block on Trump's Head Start Gutting, DOJ Lawsuit against Uber

    Legal News for Fri 9/12 - Senate Rule Changes, Block on Trump's Head Start Gutting, DOJ Lawsuit against Uber
    2025/09/12
    This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to BrownOn September 12, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, firmly rejecting a challenge by the State of Arkansas to the enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education. In the wake of Brown, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, Arkansas officials sought to delay desegregation efforts in Little Rock, citing violent resistance and the need to preserve public order. The state's governor and legislature argued they were not bound by the Court’s ruling.The Supreme Court rejected that claim unequivocally. In a rare decision signed by all nine justices, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the binding nature of its interpretations. It stated that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and that the Court’s rulings are final and must be followed by all states, regardless of political disagreement or local unrest.The ruling was a direct rebuke to Governor Orval Faubus, who had used the Arkansas National Guard to block the entry of nine Black students into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. President Eisenhower had responded by sending federal troops to enforce the desegregation order. Cooper v. Aaron underscored the federal judiciary’s power to enforce constitutional rights, even in the face of open defiance by state authorities.The Court's opinion in Cooper was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, signaling that federal law could not be nullified by state action. It also clarified that resistance to judicial decisions, especially on constitutional matters, was itself unconstitutional. By reasserting its own authority and that of the federal government, the Court helped ensure that desegregation would proceed, however slowly, across the South.Senate Republicans pushed through a rule change aimed at speeding up the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s executive-branch nominees. In a 53-45 vote, the GOP majority limited the ability of Senate Democrats to slow the process, allowing groups of nominees to be confirmed together rather than individually. The change does not apply to Cabinet heads or federal judges.Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the move, saying the chamber was being bogged down by procedural delays. In contrast, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff warned the rule change weakens institutional checks on presidential power, calling it a further erosion of Senate independence. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized it as enabling a “conveyor belt of unqualified nominees.”This is the third significant alteration in 12 years to Senate rules that weaken the minority party’s influence, a trend that began with Democrats in 2013 and continued under Republicans in 2017. Critics argue the Senate is drifting away from its traditional role as a stabilizing body in the legislative process. The first group of Trump nominees could see expedited confirmation as early as next week. Stephen Miran’s Federal Reserve nomination will proceed under the prior rules.US Senate loosens rule to speed confirmation of some Trump nominees | ReutersA federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a policy that would have barred undocumented children from enrolling in Head Start, a federal preschool program for low-income families. Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked the authority to impose immigration-based restrictions on access to Head Start, criticizing the agency for failing to follow proper rulemaking procedures.The decision followed a similar ruling one day earlier from a federal judge in Rhode Island, which halted the policy in 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The Seattle lawsuit was brought by Head Start associations from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with two parent advocacy groups. They challenged a July directive that expanded the interpretation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start among programs limited to legal residents.Since 1998, HHS had interpreted the law as not applying to non-postsecondary education programs like Head Start. Judge Martinez stated that Congress had effectively endorsed that interpretation by not altering the law and had even broadened access to Head Start over time. Despite recent limits by the U.S. Supreme Court on nationwide injunctions, Martinez justified his decision as necessary to provide uniform relief.Trump policy barring migrants from Head Start blocked nationwide | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, accusing the company of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against riders with disabilities. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint alleges that Uber drivers ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    11 分
  • Legal News for Thurs 9/11 - Trump Golf Course Assassin Trial Begins, Lawsuit Over Federal Firings, Ongoing Fed Removal Fight and Ruling on NJ Gun Laws

    Legal News for Thurs 9/11 - Trump Golf Course Assassin Trial Begins, Lawsuit Over Federal Firings, Ongoing Fed Removal Fight and Ruling on NJ Gun Laws
    2025/09/11
    This Day in Legal History: Certiorari Granted in WindsorOn September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government’s posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,Trial begins for man accused of trying to assassinate Trump, spotlighting US political violence | ReutersFive former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump’s second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC’s duty to safeguard merit-based ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分
  • Legal News for Weds 9/10 - Fed Independence Safe (For Now), Trump's Tariffs in Place (For Now), CA Social Media Law and Blocked DOJ Subpoena Harassing Trans Youth

    Legal News for Weds 9/10 - Fed Independence Safe (For Now), Trump's Tariffs in Place (For Now), CA Social Media Law and Blocked DOJ Subpoena Harassing Trans Youth
    2025/09/10
    This Day in Legal History: Sewing Machine PatentOn this day in legal history, September 10, 1846, Elias Howe was granted U.S. Patent No. 3640 for his invention of the lockstitch sewing machine. Though not the first to envision mechanical sewing, Howe’s design was the first to successfully automate stitching in a way that was both efficient and commercially viable. His machine used a needle with the eye at the point and a shuttle beneath the cloth to form a lockstitch—features that would become industry standards. Despite the innovation, Howe initially struggled to find financial backers and spent time in England attempting to sell his invention, with little success.When he returned to the United States, Howe discovered that other manufacturers had begun producing similar machines. Chief among them was Isaac Singer, who had developed and begun marketing a sewing machine that closely mirrored Howe's patented design. In 1854, Howe sued Singer for patent infringement, launching one of the first high-profile intellectual property battles in American history. The case turned on whether Singer’s improvements to the machine still relied on Howe’s patented mechanism.The court ultimately ruled in Howe's favor, affirming that Singer’s use of the lockstitch principle did indeed infringe upon Howe’s patent. Howe was awarded substantial royalties from Singer and other manufacturers using similar technology, securing both recognition and financial reward for his invention. This case set a foundational precedent for the enforceability of patent rights and underscored the economic stakes of intellectual property in the Industrial Age. By the time his patent expired, Howe had amassed a considerable fortune and had firmly established the legal and commercial viability of inventorship in a rapidly mechanizing society.A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking an early legal defeat for the administration in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the Fed's independence. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration’s justification—allegations of mortgage fraud committed before Cook took office—did not clearly meet the legal standard for removal. The law governing the Federal Reserve allows governors to be removed only “for cause,” a term not explicitly defined, and this is the first time its limits are being tested in court.Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, has denied all fraud allegations and is suing both Trump and the Fed, arguing the move is politically motivated due to her monetary policy views. Her legal team argues that even if the mortgage claims were accurate, they predate her Senate confirmation and therefore do not constitute grounds for removal. The White House contends that the president has broad authority to dismiss Fed governors and that this issue should not be subject to judicial review.Judge Cobb’s ruling allows Cook to remain in her position while the case proceeds and emphasized that the claims did not pertain to her conduct as a sitting Board member. The Department of Justice has opened a criminal probe into the mortgage allegations, issuing subpoenas from Georgia and Michigan. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court and may redefine limits on presidential power over the central bank. Legal experts and Fed supporters view the ruling as a significant moment in affirming the institution’s independence from political interference.US judge temporarily blocks Trump from removing Fed Governor Cook | ReutersTrump Can’t Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for Now, Judge Says (1)The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the review of the legality of President Trump’s global tariff policies, setting up a pivotal case over the limits of presidential power in trade. The Court will evaluate whether Trump unlawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law traditionally applied to sanction foreign adversaries—to justify tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and pressuring countries over issues like drug trafficking. Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped, arguing that IEEPA doesn’t grant presidents broad tariff authority and that such actions violate the Constitution’s assignment of trade powers to Congress.The Justice Department, appealing the rulings, claims that stripping Trump of this power would weaken the country’s defenses against economic threats. In contrast, the challengers—including small businesses, a toy company, and 12 Democrat-led states—argue that only Congress can impose tariffs and that Trump’s interpretation of the law is too expansive. The case invokes the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of large economic and political consequence.Oral arguments are scheduled for early November, with the ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    8 分