Episodios

  • Legal News for Tues 12/30 - NIH Grant Second Look, CFPB in Life Support, Circuit Split Over NLRB Constitutional Questions and Year-End Tax Column Wrap

    Legal News for Tues 12/30 - NIH Grant Second Look, CFPB in Life Support, Circuit Split Over NLRB Constitutional Questions and Year-End Tax Column Wrap
    Dec 30 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Fundamental Laws of 1906On December 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II signed the “Fundamental Laws of 1906,” marking a pivotal moment in the Russian Empire’s struggle between autocracy and constitutionalism. This act came in response to the Revolution of 1905, a period of mass unrest fueled by political repression, economic hardship, and a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The October Manifesto, issued two months earlier, had promised the establishment of a legislative Duma and the expansion of civil liberties. However, the Fundamental Laws, signed in December, revealed the Tsar’s intention to retain ultimate authority despite these concessions.The document laid out a framework for governance, establishing a bicameral legislature with the Duma as its lower house, but Article 4 made clear that “the All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power.” This meant that, legally, any legislative progress remained subordinate to the Tsar’s will. The laws also granted the Tsar control over the military, foreign policy, and the ability to dissolve the Duma at his discretion.While the Fundamental Laws introduced formal legal structures and acknowledged the existence of limited civil rights, they were largely symbolic gestures rather than meaningful reforms. Instead of curbing autocratic rule, the laws codified it, cloaking absolute monarchy in the appearance of legality. This duality deepened public dissatisfaction and political fragmentation.Rather than stabilizing the empire, the signing of the Fundamental Laws sowed further distrust in the regime and highlighted the Tsar’s unwillingness to relinquish power. These contradictions contributed to the failure of the Duma system and fueled revolutionary momentum that would ultimately culminate in the revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration reached an agreement to review certain NIH grant applications that had been stalled or rejected amid a broader legal challenge over cuts to diversity-related research funding. The agreement followed a federal court ruling in Boston that found the NIH acted unlawfully when it canceled grants based on their perceived ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Though the Supreme Court later paused part of that ruling and shifted some aspects of the litigation to a court specializing in monetary claims, the review process for future NIH funding remained in legal limbo.Under the new agreement, the NIH will re-evaluate previously frozen or withdrawn grant applications, though it is not required to fund any specific proposals. Plaintiffs in the case, including researchers and several Democratic-led states, argued that the impacted studies—focusing on topics like HIV prevention, LGBTQ health, Alzheimer’s, and sexual violence—serve vital public health needs.One of the plaintiffs, University of New Mexico postdoctoral researcher Nikki Maphis, said the agreement allows important scientific work to resume after what she described as an “arbitrary and destructive freeze.” The underlying NIH policy change, which cut funding for projects deemed to reflect ideological rather than scientific priorities, remains contested. A prior ruling blocking the policy is still under appeal by the Department of Health and Human Services.Trump administration agrees to review stalled NIH research grants after lawsuit | ReutersThe Trump administration’s aggressive defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has pushed the agency to the brink of collapse, jeopardizing one of the few federal institutions explicitly designed to protect everyday Americans from financial harm. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has long served as a crucial recourse for people facing predatory lending, credit reporting errors, identity theft, and financial discrimination. The agency has helped return more than $21 billion to consumers since its founding. And yet, under President Trump’s second term, it’s being systematically dismantled—through funding cuts, legal challenges, and staffing reductions—with the administration openly declaring its intent to shut the agency down.In the absence of the CFPB, those wronged by financial institutions—like Bianca Jones, who battled a credit reporting error that nearly cost her a home, or Morgan Smith, who turned to the agency after being targeted by identity theft—may find themselves with nowhere to turn. The administration claims the CFPB promotes a political agenda, but the result is fewer protections for those already vulnerable. Rules around medical debt, overdraft fees, credit card terms, and mortgage lending have been gutted. Investigations have been shelved. Enforcement is evaporating.Critics argue that other regulators can fill the gap, but the CFPB was created because no one else was doing the job. Without it, financial institutions are more likely to abuse their power with impunity.You ...
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • Legal News for Mon 12/29 - CA Drops Rail Lawsuit, Tom Bodett Turns Out the Light on Motel 6, FBI in MN, NY Social Media Warning Law

    Legal News for Mon 12/29 - CA Drops Rail Lawsuit, Tom Bodett Turns Out the Light on Motel 6, FBI in MN, NY Social Media Warning Law
    Dec 29 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Wounded KneeOn December 29, 1890, the U.S. Army’s 7th Cavalry Regiment surrounded a Lakota Sioux encampment near Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The soldiers had orders to disarm the Lakota, who had recently fled the Standing Rock Reservation following the killing of Sitting Bull. Tensions were high, and as troops attempted to confiscate weapons, a shot was fired—its origin remains unclear. What followed was a brutal onslaught in which U.S. forces opened fire on largely unarmed Lakota men, women, and children. Estimates suggest that between 250 and 300 Lakota were killed, many while fleeing or after surrendering.The Wounded Knee Massacre was the final major confrontation between Native Americans and the U.S. military during the so-called Indian Wars. It marked the culmination of decades of broken treaties and violent enforcement of federal Indian policy. Despite the civilian toll, 20 soldiers were later awarded the Medal of Honor, a decision that has since drawn sustained criticism and calls for revocation. The legal status of the massacre—framed at the time as a military engagement—has increasingly been re-evaluated through the lens of human rights law and treaty violations.The Lakota were supposed to be protected under treaties like the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, which guaranteed their land and autonomy. However, the discovery of gold in the Black Hills and growing U.S. expansionism led to the steady erosion of those promises. Wounded Knee became a symbol of that betrayal and the failure of the U.S. government to uphold its legal obligations. In 1990, on the massacre’s centennial, Congress passed a resolution expressing “deep regret” but stopped short of issuing a formal apology. The massacre remains a central moment in the legal and political history of Native American rights in the United States.California announced it had dropped its lawsuit against the federal government over the Trump administration’s decision to cancel over $4 billion in high-speed rail funding. The California High-Speed Rail Authority said the move reflected a lack of trust in the federal government as a reliable partner. Despite the loss of funds, the agency stated it would continue the project using mostly state resources, noting that only 18% of total expenditures have come from federal dollars. A judge had recently declined to dismiss the case, but California chose to end the legal fight regardless.The U.S. Department of Transportation supported the funding withdrawal, citing a Federal Railroad Administration report that found the rail project riddled with missed deadlines, budget issues, and unrealistic ridership forecasts. Governor Gavin Newsom previously criticized the cuts as politically motivated and driven by Trump’s hostility toward California. The high-speed rail project, initially expected to cost $33 billion and be completed by 2020, is now projected to cost up to $128 billion with a completion target of 2033. So far, over 50 major structures and nearly 80 miles of guideway have been built.The state plans to attract private investors by mid-2026 and emphasized that construction will continue. Recent legislation provides $1 billion in annual state funding through 2045. Earlier in 2025, the federal government also rescinded $175 million for related projects. Despite legal and financial setbacks, the state remains committed to building the rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco.California drops lawsuit over Trump decision to pull $4 billion in high-speed rail funds | ReutersLongtime Motel 6 spokesman Tom Bodett settled a lawsuit against the motel chain after accusing it of using his name and voice without consent. Bodett, who became synonymous with the brand through his signature line, “we’ll leave the light on for you,” alleged the company continued using his likeness even after their professional relationship ended. The dispute arose when Motel 6’s new parent company, OYO, allegedly failed to make a $1.2 million contractual payment due in January, prompting Bodett to terminate their agreement.Despite the split, Bodett claimed his voice and name remained on Motel 6’s reservation phone system, violating federal trademark law and the terms of their contract. The company denied any wrongdoing, arguing Bodett himself breached the agreement, which they said nullified their payment obligation. The lawsuit, filed in June, was resolved in Manhattan federal court, though the settlement terms remain confidential.Bodett, now 70, is a well-known author and voice actor, with credits including NPR and Ken Burns documentaries. He had been the face and voice of Motel 6 since 1986 and was responsible for creating the brand’s iconic tagline. The lawsuit came after Motel 6 was acquired by India-based OYO, part of Prism (formerly Oravel Stays), in a $525 million deal from Blackstone in December 2024.Longtime Motel 6 spokesman Tom ...
    Más Menos
    8 m
  • Legal News for Tues 12/23 - CFPB Funding Fights, Trump DEI Crackdown Hits Limits, Mercedes $120m Settlement and IRS VDP Reform

    Legal News for Tues 12/23 - CFPB Funding Fights, Trump DEI Crackdown Hits Limits, Mercedes $120m Settlement and IRS VDP Reform
    Dec 23 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Federal Reserve ActOn December 23, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of debate over banking reform, intensified by the financial panic of 1907. The Act aimed to provide the country with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. It established twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks overseen by a central Board in Washington, D.C., striking a balance between public oversight and private banking interests.The Federal Reserve was given key powers, including the ability to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now the dominant form of U.S. currency), regulate banks, and serve as a lender of last resort during financial crises. This marked a significant shift from the fragmented and largely unregulated banking environment of the 19th century.Critics feared it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a few, while supporters believed it brought necessary structure and national oversight. Over the decades, the Fed’s role expanded, especially during the Great Depression, World War II, and more recently the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of the Fed also represented a broader legal evolution in how the federal government engaged with economic policy.A coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon to prevent the Trump administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The states argue that the administration’s decision to stop requesting funds from the Federal Reserve is unlawful and undermines Congress’s constitutional authority. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle the CFPB, including appointing his budget director, Russell Vought, as acting head and halting most agency operations.The CFPB was created in 2011 to safeguard consumers in the financial sector and has recovered over $21 billion for Americans. It is uniquely funded directly by the Federal Reserve rather than through Congressional appropriations. The administration claims the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB’s funding to come from the Fed’s combined earnings, which they argue are unavailable due to the Fed operating at a loss since 2022.The lawsuit highlights that the CFPB is legally required to process consumer complaints from states, and without funding, it cannot fulfill this duty. Plaintiffs also contend that the administration’s move violates the separation of powers by interfering with a congressionally established funding mechanism. Additional lawsuits from a federal employee union and nonprofits are pending in other courts, also seeking to compel the agency to resume funding requests.Democratic-led states sue to block US consumer watchdog’s defunding under Trump | ReutersA new push by the Trump administration to challenge corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) faces steep legal hurdles. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency is shifting toward what she calls a more “conservative view of civil rights,” focusing on potential discrimination against white men. Lucas has announced plans to investigate corporate DEI policies and pursue enforcement where race- or sex-based decisions are suspected.However, legal experts emphasize that proving such claims is difficult. Discrimination cases require clear evidence that someone was denied a job or benefit specifically because of their race or sex, not just because they were part of a changing applicant pool. Critics argue that the administration’s narrative misunderstands the legal and practical realities of workplace diversity, which is often designed to prevent discrimination, not perpetuate it.Despite aggressive executive orders targeting DEI, many companies are maintaining or quietly adjusting their programs to remain compliant. Legal audits and program rebranding are common, especially in industries like automotive. DEI advocates point out that the business case for inclusion remains strong, as companies see diverse teams as essential to long-term success.Ultimately, while the administration’s rhetoric may galvanize parts of its base, experts say turning that rhetoric into enforceable legal action will be difficult under existing anti-discrimination laws.Trump’s anti-corporate DEI campaign faces high legal hurdles | ReutersMercedes-Benz has agreed to pay $120 million to settle environmental and consumer protection claims brought by multiple U.S. states over its use of emissions-cheating software in certain diesel vehicles. The settlement resolves the remaining U.S. legal actions tied to the broader Dieselgate scandal, which has affected several automakers. The claims focused on Mercedes’ BlueTEC diesel models, ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Mon 12/22 - 2026 Immigration Crackdowns Coming, Federal Judge Blocks HUD Changes, Skadden Arps as Trump's $100m Lap Dog

    Legal News for Mon 12/22 - 2026 Immigration Crackdowns Coming, Federal Judge Blocks HUD Changes, Skadden Arps as Trump's $100m Lap Dog
    Dec 22 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Bernhard GoetzOn this day in legal history, December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot and wounded four young Black men—Troy Canty, Barry Allen, Darrell Cabey, and James Ramseur—on a New York City subway train. Goetz, who was white, claimed the men had attempted to rob him and that he acted in self-defense. The case quickly became a national sensation, exposing deep racial fault lines in public discourse and in the justice system. Supporters hailed Goetz as a vigilante hero responding to unchecked urban crime, while critics denounced his actions as racially motivated violence that reinforced systemic bias.Goetz fled the scene but turned himself in nine days later. During the investigation, he told police that he had intended to kill the men and expressed explicitly racist sentiments, calling them “savages.” Despite this, a grand jury initially refused to indict him for attempted murder, charging him only with criminal possession of a weapon. After public outcry, a second grand jury indicted him on multiple counts, including attempted murder and assault. In his 1987 trial, however, Goetz was acquitted of all charges except for illegal firearms possession.The verdict underscored how race and fear influenced perceptions of self-defense and victimhood. The jury accepted Goetz’s narrative of fear despite his own admission of intent and inflammatory language. The case highlighted the elasticity of self-defense laws, especially when invoked by white defendants against Black victims. It also foreshadowed later debates in high-profile cases where racial bias intersected with claims of justified force. Goetz ultimately served just over eight months in jail. Darrell Cabey, left paralyzed by the shooting, later won a $43 million civil judgment against him—a sum Goetz claimed he could never pay. The case remains a stark example of how legal standards of justification can mask broader social inequities.President Trump is preparing to expand immigration enforcement in 2026 with a significant boost in funding and more aggressive tactics, including a renewed focus on workplace raids. Despite growing political backlash, Trump plans to hire thousands of new agents, expand detention centers, and partner with private companies to track undocumented immigrants. His administration has already deployed federal agents to major cities, sparking protests over the use of tear gas, extrajudicial tactics, and the detention of U.S. citizens.ICE and Border Patrol are set to receive $170 billion through 2029, a massive increase over their current annual budgets. Miami recently elected its first Democratic mayor in decades, with voters citing Trump’s immigration policies as a motivating factor. While Trump continues to frame his crackdown as targeting criminals, government data shows a large portion of recent ICE arrests have involved individuals with no criminal record beyond immigration violations.Trump has also moved to strip temporary protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants and aims to deport one million people annually, although he’s likely to fall short of that target. Legal immigrants haven’t been spared either—some have been detained during green card interviews or had their naturalization ceremonies interrupted. The administration’s new workplace-focused approach could strain the economy, especially in industries reliant on immigrant labor, raising concerns about inflation and employer backlash.Critics argue the crackdown undermines due process and civil liberties, militarizes communities, and disproportionately targets people of color. As enforcement expands, business groups may be forced to respond more vocally, especially if employer raids disrupt operations. Trump’s overall approval on immigration has dropped sharply since March, suggesting growing public discomfort with the scope and style of enforcement.Trump set to expand immigration crackdown in 2026 despite brewing backlash | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on over $3 billion in federal grants that support housing and services for homeless individuals. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) planned changes to the Continuum of Care program likely violated the McKinney-Vento Act, which mandates a focus on stable, permanent housing for vulnerable populations.The lawsuit was brought by 20 mostly Democratic-led states, Washington, D.C., and a coalition of nonprofits and local governments. Plaintiffs argued that HUD’s proposed changes would endanger the housing of around 170,000 people, including families, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence—particularly concerning as winter sets in. McElroy, a Trump appointee, emphasized the public interest in upholding lawful agency action and maintaining stability for at-risk groups.The Trump ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Fri 12/19 - Trump Takes Aim at Green Card Lottery, ICE Blocking Judge Convicted, Epstein File Drama and No Tax on Car Loans is Bogus

    Legal News for Fri 12/19 - Trump Takes Aim at Green Card Lottery, ICE Blocking Judge Convicted, Epstein File Drama and No Tax on Car Loans is Bogus
    Dec 19 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Entrapment as DefenseOn December 19, 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sorrells v. United States, a case that reshaped how American courts evaluate government conduct in criminal investigations. The case involved a Prohibition-era prosecution in which a federal agent repeatedly pressured the defendant to obtain illegal liquor. The Court held that criminal convictions should not stand when the government induces a crime that the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit. This decision formally recognized entrapment as a valid defense under federal law.Rather than focusing only on the defendant’s actions, the Court emphasized the importance of limiting improper law enforcement tactics. The majority opinion reasoned that Congress could not have intended criminal statutes to be enforced through deception that manufactures crime. As a result, courts were instructed to examine whether the criminal intent originated with the government or the accused. The ruling reflected growing concern about aggressive policing methods during Prohibition. Over time, Sorrells became a foundational case cited whenever defendants challenge undercover operations. The decision also highlighted the judiciary’s role in supervising executive conduct in criminal prosecutions.The Trump administration has suspended the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program—commonly known as the green card lottery—following two high-profile campus attacks. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the move, stating that the suspect in the fatal shootings of a Brown University student and an MIT professor had entered the U.S. through the program. The shooter, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, a 48-year-old Portuguese national and former Brown student, was found dead in an apparent suicide. Noem said the pause is necessary to prevent further harm from what she called a “disastrous program.”The lottery program, which grants up to 50,000 green cards annually, has long been a target of Trump’s immigration agenda, which links violent incidents to immigration policy failures. This suspension follows earlier actions by the administration, including visa restrictions after a separate shooting by an Afghan national and a proposal to impose a $100,000 application fee for H-1B work visas, which are heavily used in the tech industry.Trump’s broader immigration crackdown also includes enhanced social media vetting for tourists, expanded ICE operations in major cities, and the development of large-scale immigration detention centers known as “mega centers.” These moves align with Trump’s campaign promises to tighten border controls and execute large-scale deportations.Trump Suspends US Green Card Lottery After Brown, MIT AttacksTrump administration officials are scrambling to meet a Friday deadline to release a large cache of documents related to the Justice Department’s investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. The release was mandated by a recently passed law, supported by both parties in Congress, following months of political pressure and public frustration over the administration’s resistance to transparency. Though President Trump initially opposed the legislation, he reversed course shortly before the vote amid growing dissent from his own supporters.The new law permits the Justice Department to withhold certain details, including victims’ identities and information tied to ongoing investigations. Attorneys in the department’s National Security Division have been racing to redact sensitive data, raising internal concerns about the risk of mistakes, especially regarding private information. The tight timeline has disrupted other DOJ casework since Thanksgiving.Trump’s handling of the Epstein matter has dented his support among Republicans, with only 44% approving of his actions, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll. This contrasts sharply with his broader 82% approval within the party. Critics argue that Trump’s past friendship with Epstein and his failure to follow through on a 2024 campaign promise to declassify the records have fueled suspicions of a cover-up. While Trump has denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has not been accused of wrongdoing, past email disclosures have added to the controversy.As more emails emerge—some implying Trump’s involvement, others suggesting no direct misconduct—the administration has tried to redirect attention toward figures like Bill Clinton and JPMorgan. But with midterms approaching, the Epstein file release may remain a political liability.Trump administration officials race to meet Friday deadline for Epstein files | ReutersWisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding for aiding a migrant in avoiding an immigration arrest at the courthouse, marking a significant legal win for the Trump administration’s intensified immigration enforcement efforts. The jury acquitted Dugan on a lesser charge of ...
    Más Menos
    11 m
  • Legal News for Thurs 12/18 - Courts Block Trump CFPB Firings, Doctors Sue RFK Jr. HHS Over Vaccines, DC Guard Deployment Remains and Trump Ballroom Moves Forward

    Legal News for Thurs 12/18 - Courts Block Trump CFPB Firings, Doctors Sue RFK Jr. HHS Over Vaccines, DC Guard Deployment Remains and Trump Ballroom Moves Forward
    Dec 18 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Trump ImpeachedOn December 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump, marking the third presidential impeachment in American history. The impeachment followed a months-long investigation centered on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. House Democrats alleged that the president abused the powers of his office by pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival. A second article charged Trump with obstruction of Congress for directing executive branch officials not to comply with House subpoenas. The votes largely split along party lines, reflecting deep political polarization.Impeachment itself did not remove Trump from office, but instead formally accused him of constitutional wrongdoing. Under the Constitution, the House holds the sole power of impeachment, functioning similarly to a grand jury. Once impeached, the process shifted to the Senate, which is responsible for conducting a trial. Chief Justice John Roberts later presided over the Senate proceedings, as required when a president is tried. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in February 2020, falling short of the two-thirds vote needed for conviction. Despite the acquittal, the impeachment reinforced Congress’s oversight authority over the executive branch. The episode also highlighted ongoing debates about the limits of presidential power and the role of impeachment as a constitutional check.A federal appeals court in Washington reversed an earlier ruling that would have allowed the Trump administration to move forward with mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Sitting as a full bench, the court blocked plans to cut as much as 90% of the agency’s workforce and agreed to rehear the administration’s appeal of a lower court order that had paused efforts to dismantle the bureau. As a result, the administration remains temporarily barred from gutting the agency while litigation continues. The legal fight has stretched on for months, during which the CFPB has been largely sidelined. Congress originally created the CFPB after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices by banks, lenders, and other financial companies. Its mission includes enforcing federal consumer financial laws and preventing the kinds of predatory conduct that helped trigger the financial collapse. Supporters of the agency, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, praised the ruling as necessary to shield families from financial harm.Critics within the Trump administration have argued the CFPB is politically motivated (as protecting consumers from predatory financial practices is political, apparently) and should be eliminated, though they have also claimed in court that some version of the agency would remain. Complicating matters further, the CFPB faces a funding dispute over whether it can draw money from the Federal Reserve, raising concerns that it could run out of operating funds.US appeals court tosses decision allowing Trump mass firings at consumer bureau | ReutersFull DC Circuit Will Review Trump’s Bid to Dismantle CFPB (2)A group of leading medical organizations asked a federal judge to allow their lawsuit challenging vaccine policy changes under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to move forward. The groups argue that recent actions by Kennedy and the Department of Health and Human Services will reduce vaccination rates and endanger public health. They point to a directive removing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and children without advance notice or explanation. The lawsuit also challenges Kennedy’s decision to dismiss 17 experts from a CDC advisory panel and replace them with members more aligned with his views. That reconstituted panel later voted to scale back broad vaccine recommendations, including limiting COVID-19 shots to shared decision-making with doctors and eliminating universal recommendations for certain childhood vaccines.The plaintiffs claim the panel was unlawfully reshaped in violation of federal law requiring advisory committees to be balanced and free from improper influence. Government lawyers argue the medical groups lack standing because the CDC’s guidance merely advises consultation with doctors and does not directly harm them. The plaintiffs counter that they have been injured by having to divert resources to help doctors navigate confusing and abrupt policy shifts. The judge indicated skepticism toward the government’s standing argument, particularly in light of statements suggesting doctors could face liability for deviating from CDC guidance. A ruling on whether the case can proceed is expected before a scheduled January hearing.US medical groups urge judge to allow challenge to Kennedy-backed vaccine policies to proceed | ReutersA federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., to...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Weds 12/17 - A Judge Revisits Trump's Deportation Policy, Judge Thapar's Xenophobia as "Constitutional Theory," and a $500m Avatar Suit

    Legal News for Weds 12/17 - A Judge Revisits Trump's Deportation Policy, Judge Thapar's Xenophobia as "Constitutional Theory," and a $500m Avatar Suit
    Dec 17 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Project Blue Book EndsOn this day in legal history, December 17, 1969, the U.S. Air Force officially terminated Project Blue Book, its two-decade-long investigation into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Launched in 1952 during a peak in UFO sightings and Cold War anxiety, Project Blue Book reviewed over 12,000 reports of aerial phenomena. The Air Force concluded that most sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, aircraft, or hoaxes, and found no evidence of extraterrestrial activity or threats to national security. With its closure, the government effectively stepped back from public-facing UFO investigations, although some believe military interest continued behind closed doors.Legally, the end of Project Blue Book catalyzed decades of litigation and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as citizens, journalists, and researchers sought access to government-held UFO data. The skeptical legal view has often emphasized that classified information typically relates to military technology or surveillance programs, not alien spacecraft. Despite popular culture’s fixation on extraterrestrials, courts have routinely deferred to executive branch claims of national security in resisting full transparency.While the project’s conclusion did not trigger direct legislation, it helped shape a legal culture around government secrecy, classification standards, and the public’s right to know. It also fueled persistent legal tension between conspiratorial narratives and evidentiary standards. As UFOs—now reframed as “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAPs)—have resurfaced in congressional hearings in recent years, Blue Book remains a touchstone for the limits of disclosure and the enduring gap between public curiosity and provable claims.Skepticism remains warranted: decades later, no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim of extraterrestrial contact—despite tens of thousands of pages released and re-litigated under FOIA.U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston expressed openness to again striking down a Trump policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that permit deportation to countries other than a migrant’s country of origin, often with as little as six hours’ notice. Judge Murphy had previously issued an injunction in April to halt such deportations, arguing they violated due process, but the Supreme Court paused that order in June via its “shadow docket” without providing detailed reasoning.Despite acknowledging the likely involvement of the Supreme Court again, Murphy indicated that he may still rule on the merits of the case, though any decision would likely be temporarily stayed. The lawsuit, a class action, targets a DHS memo from March and guidance from July that permits deportations based on “credible” diplomatic assurances. Plaintiffs argue these policies fall short of constitutional protections, while the Justice Department insists migrants already have opportunities to raise objections during proceedings. The judge criticized the lack of clarity from the Supreme Court’s earlier intervention and emphasized the importance of due process in removal proceedings.US judge open to again striking down Trump policy on third-country deportations | ReutersA Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge has argued that constitutional rights do not extend to immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully, a position he laid out in a partial dissent in a Second Amendment case. Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar agreed with upholding a federal ban on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants but rejected the majority’s reasoning. Instead, he argued the case should have been resolved by declaring that only U.S. citizens are included in “the people” protected by the Constitution. Thapar relied heavily on the Constitution’s preamble and an originalist reading of history, asserting that the Founders never intended constitutional protections to apply to non-citizens, especially those unlawfully present.The majority opinion rejected that framing, pointing to Supreme Court precedent recognizing that non-citizens who develop substantial connections to the country may invoke constitutional rights. Thapar went further, suggesting that even the First and Fourth Amendments were not originally meant to protect non-citizens. The case arose from a challenge by a Guatemalan national convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms, but Thapar’s reasoning reached far beyond gun regulation. His dissent echoes arguments long advanced by the Trump administration and aligns with his status as a former Trump Supreme Court shortlist candidate.From my perspective, this is a racist, xenophobic, and profoundly ahistorical take that threatens to usher in a shameful new...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Tues 12/16 - No Tax on Overtime is Bogus, Trump's $10b Lawsuit, Law School Enrollment Way Up, Ball Room Court Fight and SNAP Deadline Ruling

    Legal News for Tues 12/16 - No Tax on Overtime is Bogus, Trump's $10b Lawsuit, Law School Enrollment Way Up, Ball Room Court Fight and SNAP Deadline Ruling
    Dec 16 2025
    This Day in Legal History: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court’s approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State’s minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court’s posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court’s conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt’s controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it’s a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida’s unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC’s position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump’s legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled ...
    Más Menos
    10 m