Episodios

  • Legal News for Thurs 11/13 - Trump Named in Epstein Emails, Apple Says EU Fee Cuts Didn't Help Consumers and Google Sues Phishers

    Legal News for Thurs 11/13 - Trump Named in Epstein Emails, Apple Says EU Fee Cuts Didn't Help Consumers and Google Sues Phishers
    Nov 13 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Happy Brandeis DayOn November 13, 1856, Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He would go on to become one of the most influential jurists in American legal history. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson, Brandeis was the first Jewish justice and brought a deeply progressive and pragmatic philosophy to the bench. Long before his judicial career, he co-authored the seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy,” articulating a legal theory that would shape decades of constitutional interpretation. On the Court, he consistently championed civil liberties, individual privacy, and limitations on unchecked government and corporate power.Brandeis was known for his meticulous reasoning and willingness to dissent, often laying the groundwork for future majority opinions. In Whitney v. California (1927), his concurring opinion defended free speech in sweeping terms, arguing that the remedy for harmful ideas was more speech, not enforced silence—a principle that remains central to First Amendment jurisprudence. In economic cases, he frequently opposed monopolistic practices and was skeptical of concentrated financial power, earning him the moniker “the people’s lawyer.” His distrust of large institutions was not ideological but rooted in a belief that democracy and individual autonomy could only flourish when those institutions were held accountable.Brandeis also advanced the use of social science and empirical data in legal arguments, exemplified by the famous “Brandeis Brief” in Muller v. Oregon (1908), which emphasized real-world facts over abstract legal theory. He believed that courts should understand the broader implications of their rulings, particularly in cases affecting labor, privacy, and civil rights. Though his views were sometimes out of step with his contemporaries, many of his ideas became mainstream in later decades. Brandeis served on the Court until 1939, leaving a legacy of principled independence and intellectual rigor.House Democrats have released emails suggesting that Donald Trump may have been aware of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls. The documents include a 2019 email in which Epstein told author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls” and asked Ghislaine Maxwell to “stop,” as well as a 2011 message from Epstein to Maxwell claiming Trump spent significant time at his house with one of Epstein’s victims. The victim’s name is redacted, but the White House says it refers to the late Virginia Giuffre, who has publicly stated that Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing.Trump has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, emphasizing that their friendship ended years before Epstein’s death in jail in 2019. The White House dismissed the email release as a politically motivated stunt and accused Democrats of constructing a “fake narrative.” Still, the controversy has stirred unease among Trump’s base, with recent polling showing only 40% of Republicans support his handling of the Epstein case—far less than his usual approval ratings.Wednesday’s release coincides with the swearing-in of Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, whose vote could trigger a full House vote to declassify all Epstein-related records. Democrats, led by Rep. Robert Garcia, are pushing for full transparency, alleging that attempts to conceal the files raise deeper concerns about Trump’s connection to Epstein.House Democrats release Epstein papers saying Trump ‘knew about the girls’ | ReutersApple says recent fee cuts for app developers in the EU, made to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), have not led to lower prices for consumers. The company commissioned a study showing that developers kept prices the same or raised them for 90% of products, with only 9% seeing reductions—and those were consistent with typical pricing trends, not fee changes. Most of the financial benefit from reduced commissions, totaling €20.1 million, went to non-EU developers.Apple argues this undermines the DMA’s goal of helping consumers and fostering competition, instead creating new hurdles for startups and potential risks for users. The European Commission has not yet commented. The DMA targets tech giants like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, aiming to level the playing field and offer users more choice.Developer fee cuts not passed on to EU users, Apple says | ReutersGoogle has filed a federal lawsuit in New York aiming to dismantle an international phishing operation it claims originated in China. According to the complaint, the group used software called “Lighthouse” to impersonate entities like Google, the U.S. Postal Service, and E-ZPass, sending fake text messages that tricked users into revealing sensitive personal and financial information. Nearly 200,000 fraudulent websites were allegedly created in just 20 days, targeting over a million people ...
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Legal News for Weds 11/12 - SCOTUS Snap Ruling, Former CFPB Alums Launch Lawsuits, NCAA "Volunteer" Coach Settlement, and MX Flawed VAT Fraud Solution

    Legal News for Weds 11/12 - SCOTUS Snap Ruling, Former CFPB Alums Launch Lawsuits, NCAA "Volunteer" Coach Settlement, and MX Flawed VAT Fraud Solution
    Nov 12 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990On November 12, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 into law, enacting one of the most ambitious environmental regulatory packages in U.S. history. The amendments addressed a broad range of air quality concerns, including acid rain, smog in urban areas, and emissions of hazardous air pollutants. At the time, the legislation was notable for its bipartisan support and its embrace of both traditional regulation and market-based solutions. Among its most innovative features was the introduction of a cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, the primary cause of acid rain. This program placed a national cap on emissions and allowed utilities to buy and sell allowances, incentivizing the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices.The legislation also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 189 toxic air pollutants, a massive expansion from the original eight. It required cleaner gasoline in high-pollution areas and set deadlines for phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. States were mandated to submit detailed plans for meeting federal air quality standards, significantly increasing local accountability. The law established a new operating permit system for major sources of air pollution, centralizing compliance efforts. It also increased civil and criminal penalties for violators and expanded the public’s right to sue polluters and the government for non-enforcement.The amendments reflected growing public concern about environmental degradation and represented a turning point in how the federal government approached pollution control. By pairing stricter standards with economic incentives, the 1990 law helped redefine regulatory strategy in environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court extended a temporary pause on a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits during the ongoing government shutdown. The administration is currently withholding approximately $4 billion from the program, which supports 42 million low-income Americans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who initially granted the pause, stated she would have denied the request to extend it further. The pause is now set to expire Thursday, though an end to the shutdown could render the legal fight moot. Meanwhile, the Senate has approved a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history. The lapse in SNAP funding marks the first such disruption in the program’s six-decade existence, prompting recipients to rely on food pantries and cut back on essential expenses like medications.US Supreme Court extends pause on order requiring Trump to fully fund food aid | ReutersThree former senior enforcement officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have launched a new legal initiative aimed at holding corporations accountable in the absence of federal action. The project, backed by the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, will focus on bringing strategic lawsuits against companies accused of exploiting consumers, workers, and small businesses. The team—Eric Halperin, Cara Petersen, and Tara Mikkilineni—previously held top roles at the CFPB before it was effectively sidelined by the Trump administration.The CFPB’s enforcement and supervision functions were largely dismantled this year, leaving a vacuum in consumer protection at the federal level. In response, consumer advocates and state officials have begun stepping in to fill the enforcement gap. Halperin emphasized that rising corporate profits alongside deepening financial stress for ordinary Americans is no coincidence, pointing to a lack of oversight that enables corporate misconduct to go unchecked.Former top enforcers at US watchdog join project to bring pro-consumer lawsuits | ReutersThe NCAA has agreed to a $303 million settlement to resolve claims from over 7,700 current and former Division I coaches who say they were illegally denied pay under a now-repealed policy that barred compensation for so-called “volunteer” coaches in all sports except baseball. Filed in federal court in Sacramento, the proposed class action settlement still requires approval from U.S. District Judge William Shubb. If approved, no coach will receive less than $5,000, with average payouts expected to be around $39,260 before fees, and some six-figure awards anticipated.The plaintiffs argued the NCAA and its member schools violated antitrust laws by maintaining the compensation ban, a rule repealed in 2023. The NCAA denies wrongdoing but said the deal provides “certainty and clarity.” The lawyers representing the coaches plan to seek up to 30% of the settlement—around $90.9 million—in legal fees. This case follows a $49 million NCAA settlement with baseball coaches over similar claims and comes amid broader legal pressure on the NCAA, including a pending $2.8 billion settlement ...
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Legal News for Tues 11/11 - SCOTUS Declines Kim Davis' Appeal, Reagan Judge Quits Over Trump, Changes to How Judicial Nominees are Announced

    Legal News for Tues 11/11 - SCOTUS Declines Kim Davis' Appeal, Reagan Judge Quits Over Trump, Changes to How Judicial Nominees are Announced
    Nov 11 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Armistice DayOn November 11, 1918, World War I came to an end with the signing of the Armistice between the Allies and Germany. While not a legal instrument in the treaty sense, the armistice was a binding agreement that had massive legal and geopolitical ramifications. Its terms, including a cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of German forces, and surrender of military equipment, were enforced by military and diplomatic means, laying the groundwork for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The legal aftermath of the war led to the creation of new nation-states, redrawn borders, and the first formal attempt at international governance through the League of Nations.November 11 would later be recognized in the United States as Veterans Day, originally commemorated as Armistice Day, reflecting the legal shift from honoring only WWI veterans to recognizing all who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The legal transition occurred in 1954 when President Eisenhower signed legislation formally renaming the holiday. The legal framework surrounding veterans’ benefits also expanded post-WWI, with landmark legislation like the GI Bill of Rights in 1944 and its subsequent reauthorizations, shaping how the U.S. compensates military service.Internationally, the armistice also contributed to legal debates over war guilt and reparations, particularly with Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles—the so-called “War Guilt Clause”—which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies. That clause became a flashpoint in both legal and political discussions and was later cited by Germany as a grievance contributing to the rise of Nazism and WWII.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis had argued that her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shielded her from liability, but lower courts rejected that defense, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees exceeding $360,000 to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore. The Sixth Circuit found that Davis’s actions constituted state action, not protected private conduct, and that she could not invoke her own constitutional rights to infringe on the rights of others while acting in an official capacity.Davis had also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, arguing it rested on the same substantive due process doctrine as Roe v. Wade, which the Court overturned in 2022. However, the justices declined to take up that issue, just as they had in 2020. The Court’s refusal to revisit Obergefell signals a reluctance, at least for now, to reexamine established rights to same-sex marriage, even as the bench remains deeply conservative.US Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage right | ReutersSenior U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, appointed by President Reagan in 1985, announced his resignation in order to publicly oppose what he describes as President Donald Trump’s abuse of legal authority. In an article for The Atlantic, Wolf accused Trump of weaponizing the law against political enemies while shielding allies, a pattern he claims contradicts the principles he upheld over five decades in the Justice Department and on the bench. Wolf cited Trump’s direction to Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict political opponents, including New York AG Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, as especially troubling.Wolf expressed frustration over the ethical constraints on judges that prevent them from speaking out publicly, saying he could no longer remain silent as Trump undermined the rule of law and dismantled oversight mechanisms such as inspectors general and the FBI’s public-corruption unit. His resignation comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, underscored by combative rhetoric at a recent Federalist Society event. Wolf, who had previously criticized the handling of ethics complaints against Justice Clarence Thomas, said he now plans to support litigation and advocacy efforts to protect democratic norms and defend judges unable to speak for themselves.Reagan Judge Says He Quit Bench to Speak Out Against TrumpThe Trump administration has significantly shortened the time between publicly announcing judicial nominees and holding their Senate confirmation hearings, in some cases to as little as two days—far less than the typical 28-day window used by past administrations. While the Senate Judiciary Committee still adheres to its rule requiring 28 days between receiving nominee questionnaires and hearings, the White House now delays public disclosure until much later in the process, often after nominees have cleared internal background checks. Critics argue this reduces transparency and limits public scrutiny of lifetime judicial appointments, while supporters claim the process is ...
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Legal News for Mon 11/10 - Trump Pardons all the Criminal Cronies, Democrats Retreat from Shutdown, SNAP Funding Litigation and a Surge in Law Firm Demand

    Legal News for Mon 11/10 - Trump Pardons all the Criminal Cronies, Democrats Retreat from Shutdown, SNAP Funding Litigation and a Surge in Law Firm Demand
    Nov 10 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Social Security AmendmentsOn November 10, 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at addressing a looming fiscal crisis in the Social Security system. At the time, the program was projected to run out of funds within months, threatening benefits for millions of retirees. The bipartisan effort, led by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, produced a package of reforms that fundamentally altered the structure of Social Security and continue to shape its operation today. One of the most significant changes was the gradual increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67, a shift that reflected growing life expectancies and was designed to reduce long-term benefit payouts.Another major provision subjected Social Security benefits to federal income tax for higher-income recipients, marking a departure from the program’s previously tax-exempt status. These changes helped restore solvency to the system and underscored the evolving view of Social Security not merely as a safety net, but as part of a broader fiscal policy framework. The amendments also mandated that federal employees begin paying into Social Security and included temporary payroll tax increases.The 1983 reforms were notable for their rare bipartisan consensus, forged between a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled House. The political compromise demonstrated that major structural entitlement reform was possible when both parties shared a sense of urgency and responsibility. The law’s legacy is complex—it shored up the system for decades but left future generations facing similar solvency questions. Legal scholars and policymakers still reference the 1983 amendments as a model of negotiated reform, even as the political climate has become more polarized. The taxation of benefits and the higher retirement age remain central to debates about equity and sustainability within the program.The Social Security Amendments of 1983 exemplify how statutory changes can recalibrate entitlement programs to respond to demographic and economic pressures, while raising ongoing questions about intergenerational fairness and fiscal responsibility.A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to rely solely on $4.65 billion in contingency funds, which would have resulted in reduced aid, but the court found this inadequate. The Rhode Island judge had ordered the USDA to tap into a separate $23.35 billion fund intended for child nutrition programs to cover the $4 billion shortfall and avoid widespread harm to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.While the 1st Circuit declined to stay the lower court’s ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order, creating ongoing uncertainty about benefit distribution. The USDA has since directed states to reverse any moves to issue full benefits made before the pause, warning of potential financial penalties. The administration argued that it couldn’t be forced to reallocate funds during a shutdown, blaming Congress for the funding crisis. However, the appeals court emphasized the urgent need to prevent food insecurity during the winter. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by cities, nonprofits, a union, and a food retailer seeking full benefit payments.Trump administration cannot withhold full funding for food aid, US appeals court rules | ReutersLarge and midsized U.S. law firms experienced a strong increase in client demand during the third quarter of 2025, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Demand rose 3.9% year-over-year—marking one of the largest quarterly gains in two decades and the highest outside the 2021 post-pandemic rebound. Transactional practices drove much of this growth, particularly among midsized firms, with M&A work rising 6.7%, corporate work up 4.4%, and real estate and tax also showing solid gains.Litigation demand increased 4.9%, while labor and employment rose 4%. Bankruptcy, however, dipped slightly by 0.4%. Demand for countercyclical practices—those that tend to rise in downturns—was more modest, with larger firms seeing smaller gains compared to firms ranked 101–200. Midsized firms also saw a 3.9% rise in these areas. Analysts attribute part of the shift to corporate clients seeking cost control by reallocating work to more affordable firms.Billing rates were also up 7.4%, contributing to greater profitability despite a 7.5% increase in overhead expenses driven by tech investments. While current trends point to a strong 2025, the report warned of continued global economic and geopolitical instability that could reverse gains quickly.US law firms saw demand surge in third quarter - report | ...
    Más Menos
    8 m
  • Legal News for Fri 11/7 - Ruling Forthcoming on Trump's Portland Incursion, Sandwich-thrower Acquitted, Court Order to Fully Fund SNAP by Friday

    Legal News for Fri 11/7 - Ruling Forthcoming on Trump's Portland Incursion, Sandwich-thrower Acquitted, Court Order to Fully Fund SNAP by Friday
    Nov 7 2025
    This Day in Legal History: 2000 Presidential ElectionOn November 7, 2000, the United States held a presidential election that would evolve into one of the most significant legal showdowns in American history. The race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore came down to a razor-thin margin in Florida, where just hundreds of votes separated the two candidates. Under state law, the closeness of the vote triggered an automatic machine recount. What followed was a legal and political firestorm involving punch-card ballots, partially detached chads, and controversial ballot designs like the “butterfly ballot,” which some argued led to voter confusion.Litigation quickly erupted in Florida state courts, with both campaigns fighting over recount procedures and ballot validity. Central to the legal debate was whether Florida counties could use different standards in determining voter intent during manual recounts. The legal issues raised tested interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause and the boundaries of state versus federal authority in managing elections. Amid national uncertainty and media frenzy, the dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.On December 12, 2000, the Court issued a 5–4 decision halting the Florida recount, citing equal protection concerns due to inconsistent recount standards across counties. The ruling effectively secured Florida’s 25 electoral votes for Bush, granting him the presidency despite losing the national popular vote. The decision was criticized by many for its perceived partisanship and for explicitly stating it should not be viewed as precedent. It remains one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in modern history.The legal battles following the November 7 election exposed deep vulnerabilities in U.S. election infrastructure and prompted calls for reform, including updating voting technology and clarifying recount laws. The case continues to shape discussions around judicial involvement in elections, federalism, and democratic legitimacy.A federal judge is expected to rule on whether President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon to suppress protests. The case, brought by Oregon’s attorney general and the City of Portland, challenges the legality of Trump’s domestic military deployment under emergency powers, with broader implications for similar plans in other Democrat-led cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C.U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who already issued a temporary order blocking the deployment, will now decide if that block should become permanent. The central legal question is whether the Portland protests legally constituted a rebellion, which is one of the few conditions under which federal troops may be used domestically.The Justice Department argued the deployment was justified, citing violence at a federal immigration facility and describing Portland as “war-ravaged.” Defense attorneys for Oregon and Portland countered that most protests were peaceful and that any violence was limited and contained by local authorities.A Reuters review revealed 32 federal charges tied to the protests, mostly for assaulting federal officers. Only a few resulted in serious charges or potential prison time.This case marks a significant test of civil-military boundaries and the limits of presidential emergency powers, and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.Judge to rule on Trump’s Portland troop deployment | ReutersSean Charles Dunn, a former Justice Department employee, was acquitted of misdemeanor assault by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., after a high-profile trial over an incident in which he threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a 2025 protest. The case, which gained viral attention, stemmed from an August 10 altercation during President Trump’s law enforcement surge in the capital. Video footage showed Dunn yelling at officers and then throwing the sandwich, which reportedly splattered mustard and left onion on the officer’s equipment.The jury deliberated for about seven hours over two days before finding Dunn not guilty under a statute that criminalizes assaulting or interfering with federal officers. Prosecutors argued the sandwich throw interfered with official duties, while Dunn’s defense contended it caused no injury and was symbolic, intended to divert law enforcement from what Dunn feared was an impending immigration raid at a nearby LGBTQ+ nightclub. The CBP officer testified the sandwich left minor messes but no harm, and later received humorous gifts from coworkers related to the incident, which the defense used to downplay its seriousness.The verdict is another setback for the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, which has struggled to secure convictions in protest-related cases stemming from Trump enforcement policies. Dunn, who had been fired from the DOJ shortly after the incident...
    Más Menos
    37 m
  • Legal News for Thurs 11/5 - SCOTUS Weighs Trump Tariff Powers Under IEEPA, Tung to 9th Circuit, CA Republicans Sue over Prop 50

    Legal News for Thurs 11/5 - SCOTUS Weighs Trump Tariff Powers Under IEEPA, Tung to 9th Circuit, CA Republicans Sue over Prop 50
    Nov 6 2025
    This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay’s tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court’s future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay’s influence as the Court’s inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court’s lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress’s constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president’s determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump’s use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to...
    Más Menos
    8 m
  • Legal News for Weds 11/5 - SCOTUS Weighs Trump Tariff Power, 1st Circuit Appointee Confirmed, SBF Appeal Chugs Forward and Google Settles with Epic Games

    Legal News for Weds 11/5 - SCOTUS Weighs Trump Tariff Power, 1st Circuit Appointee Confirmed, SBF Appeal Chugs Forward and Google Settles with Epic Games
    Nov 5 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Saddam Hussein Sentenced to DeathOn November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The charges stemmed from the 1982 massacre of 148 Shiite men and boys in the town of Dujail, an act of collective punishment after an assassination attempt on Hussein. The verdict came after a year-long trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal, a special court established to prosecute former members of Saddam’s regime. The proceedings were highly controversial, drawing criticism for their fairness, security lapses, and political interference.Saddam’s defense team faced threats and attacks, with several lawyers murdered during the trial. International human rights organizations expressed concern over the tribunal’s procedures, noting a lack of due process protections. Despite these criticisms, the court found Hussein guilty and sentenced him to death. His co-defendants, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bandar, also received death sentences. Saddam remained defiant throughout the trial, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the court and accusing it of being a tool of occupation.The sentence was upheld on appeal and carried out swiftly, with Saddam Hussein executed on December 30, 2006. His execution, filmed and leaked online, sparked outrage and deepened sectarian tensions in Iraq. Many saw the trial and its aftermath as exacerbating divisions rather than promoting justice and reconciliation. The event marked a pivotal moment in Iraq’s post-invasion legal and political reconstruction, highlighting both the possibilities and limits of transitional justice in a conflict-ridden environment.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law not originally intended for such use. The case stems from lawsuits by affected businesses and 12 mostly Democratic-led states, claiming Trump’s application of IEEPA to impose tariffs violated constitutional limits, as Congress—not the president—holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. The law has traditionally been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions during national emergencies, not to regulate routine trade.Trump’s administration has defended the tariffs as a national security measure and emphasized their economic impact, having generated nearly $90 billion in revenue. The president has pressured the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to uphold his interpretation of IEEPA, warning that overturning the tariffs would leave the nation vulnerable. If struck down, the administration intends to pursue the tariffs through other legal avenues.Critics argue the case reflects broader concerns about Trump’s expansion of executive power, as IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Federal Circuit Court ruled against Trump, stating that Congress likely did not intend to hand the president such broad trade authority and invoking the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive power absent clear congressional approval. The justices’ decision will test their willingness to check presidential overreach and could reshape the boundaries of executive authority in economic policy.Supreme Court weighs legality of tariffs in major test of Trump’s power | ReutersSupreme Court Confronts Trump’s Power to Disrupt World Trade (1)The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee, Joshua Dunlap, to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, marking a significant shift for the Boston-based court that had, until now, consisted solely of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The confirmation vote was 52-46, largely along party lines. This is Trump’s first successful appointment to the 1st Circuit, long viewed as a legal roadblock to many of his policies due to its liberal composition.Dunlap, a conservative litigator from Maine, has a background in challenging progressive state laws, including Maine’s ranked-choice voting system and paid family leave policies. He previously interned with the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom and has expressed personal views critical of abortion and same-sex marriage in past public writings. During his confirmation hearing, he maintained that his personal beliefs would not influence his judicial decisions.The vacancy Dunlap fills opened when Judge William Kayatta, an Obama appointee, assumed senior status in late 2024. President Biden had nominated Julia Lipez for the seat, but her confirmation stalled before the end of his term. With this appointment, Trump gains a foothold in a court that has played a central role in legal challenges against his administration, and which could now shift incrementally rightward.Senate confirms Trump’s pick to join liberal-majority US appeals court | ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Tues 11/4 - SBF Appeal, Getty Loses to Stability AI, PA Rushes Regulations for "Skill Games" to Avoid Higher Tax

    Legal News for Tues 11/4 - SBF Appeal, Getty Loses to Stability AI, PA Rushes Regulations for "Skill Games" to Avoid Higher Tax
    Nov 4 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Massachusetts Institutes Death Penalty for HeresyOn November 4, 1646, the Massachusetts General Court enacted a law that imposed the death penalty for heresy, marking one of the most extreme expressions of religious intolerance in early American colonial history. The law required all members of the colony to affirm the Bible as the true and authoritative Word of God. Failure to do so was not merely frowned upon—it was made a capital offense. This legislation reflected the theocratic underpinnings of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which had been established by Puritans seeking religious freedom for themselves but not necessarily for others.The Puritan leadership equated dissent with disorder, and heresy with treason against divine authority. The law was aimed particularly at groups such as Quakers, Baptists, and others who challenged orthodox Puritan theology. While it is unclear whether anyone was actually executed under this specific statute, it laid the foundation for later persecution, including the execution of Mary Dyer, a Quaker, in 1660. The law exemplifies how early colonial governments wielded both civil and religious authority in tandem.It also foreshadows the centuries-long struggle in American legal and cultural history to define the boundaries between church and state. Though the U.S. Constitution would later enshrine religious freedom in the First Amendment, this 1646 law demonstrates how precarious that freedom was in earlier periods. The harshness of the law also underscores the broader context of 17th-century Europe and its colonies, where religious uniformity was often enforced through state power. Massachusetts would gradually shift away from such punishments, but not without considerable resistance.Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal team will argue before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his conviction for defrauding FTX customers should be overturned. The 33-year-old former crypto executive is currently serving a 25-year sentence after being found guilty in 2023 of stealing $8 billion from FTX users. His lawyers claim the trial judge unfairly excluded key evidence—specifically, information supporting Bankman-Fried’s belief that FTX had sufficient assets to cover customer withdrawals. Prosecutors counter that the evidence against him, including internal records and testimony from former associates, was overwhelming.Bankman-Fried was once considered a leading figure in the crypto space, known for his high-profile donations and media presence before his downfall. During the trial, former executives at FTX and Alameda Research testified that he instructed them to misuse customer funds to cover hedge fund losses. He was convicted of two fraud counts and five conspiracy charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who sentenced him in March 2024, said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted criminally but underestimated the risk of detection. There are also unconfirmed reports that some in his circle are lobbying Donald Trump for a pardon, though Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated at a low-security facility in California and is expected to be released in 2044.Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyers to argue for new fraud trial for FTX founder | ReutersGetty Images has largely lost its high-profile UK lawsuit against Stability AI, the company behind the image-generating tool Stable Diffusion. Getty had accused Stability AI of copyright infringement, claiming the AI system was trained on millions of its images without permission. However, Getty dropped the core part of the case mid-trial due to insufficient evidence about where and how the AI was trained, leaving that central legal question unresolved. The remaining claims focused on trademark infringement and secondary copyright violations.The High Court ruled that Getty partially succeeded on the trademark issue, noting Stable Diffusion sometimes generated images that included Getty’s watermark. But the judge emphasized that this finding was historically narrow and of limited scope. Getty’s broader copyright claim was dismissed, with the court finding that Stable Diffusion does not store or directly reproduce copyrighted works. Legal experts called the ruling disappointing for copyright holders and warned it exposed gaps in UK intellectual property protections regarding AI.Both companies claimed aspects of victory: Getty pointed to the trademark ruling and the recognition that AI models can be subject to IP laws, while Stability AI emphasized that the decision effectively cleared the core copyright concerns. Getty warned the decision highlights the difficulty even well-funded companies face in protecting creative works and urged governments to strengthen transparency rules around AI training data. Legal analysts say the ruling leaves a major legal question unresolved—whether training AI on copyrighted content without consent constitutes infringement under UK law.Getty Images largely loses landmark UK ...
    Más Menos
    7 m