This Day in Legal History: May Day vs. Law Day

On May 1, 1958, the United States marked the first Law Day, a civic observance created after President Dwight D. Eisenhower designated the date as a national occasion to honor the rule of law. Eisenhower’s proclamation called on lawyers, journalists, broadcasters, schools, and civic groups to help the public better understand the American legal system. Congress later gave the observance formal status in 1961, making May 1 the country’s official annual Law Day. The American Bar Association traces the idea to its former president Charles S. Rhyne, who wanted a national celebration of the legal system and the constitutional principles that support it.

But May 1 already carried a different legal meaning long before it became Law Day. In the 1880s, organized labor made May 1 central to the campaign for the eight-hour workday. Labor leaders had called for May 1, 1886, to be the date when eight hours would be treated as the standard legal day’s work. Workers around the country responded with strikes and rallies, turning May Day into an enduring symbol of labor rights. In Chicago, the demonstrations led into the Haymarket events, where violence, prosecutions, death sentences, and later pardons made the episode a lasting part of the legal history of labor organizing, criminal justice, and political speech.

That makes May 1 one of the more complicated dates on the American legal calendar. Officially, it is Law Day, a celebration of courts, constitutional government, and respect for legal institutions. Historically, it is also May Day, a reminder that many legal protections were not simply handed down by courts or legislatures. They were demanded by workers, protesters, organizers, and communities willing to challenge existing law in the hope of changing it.

A California federal trial over Elon Musk’s challenge to OpenAI’s shift toward a for-profit structure was paused Thursday after Musk’s lawyers appeared to accidentally make Musk’s $97.4 billion offer for OpenAI assets fair game at trial. The issue began when Jared Birchall, who runs Musk’s family office, testified that he helped organize investors who made the offer because they believed Sam Altman’s role on both sides of OpenAI’s restructuring created a conflict. OpenAI’s lawyers then challenged Birchall’s testimony, arguing that his views about Altman were partly based on what attorneys told him rather than his own firsthand knowledge.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sent the jury home early and questioned Birchall herself, pressing him on how the investor group arrived at the massive offer amount. She seemed unconvinced by his answers and told Musk’s counsel that they had “opened the door” to evidence that previously had been limited by a magistrate judge. The judge then demanded to know who on Musk’s team suggested asking Birchall about the offer, and attorney Marc Toberoff ultimately said he had. Birchall also acknowledged that Toberoff created the financial analysis behind the offer and sent a letter to California regulators opposing OpenAI’s restructuring.

Musk’s lawyers argued that OpenAI first brought up the offer letter during Musk’s cross-examination and that there had been confusion about whether the document was admitted by agreement. Judge Gonzalez Rogers did not immediately decide how to handle the dispute and set a Friday hearing on the issue and jury instructions. The broader trial centers on Musk’s claim that OpenAI, Altman, Brockman, and Microsoft breached OpenAI’s charitable-trust obligations by moving away from its nonprofit mission for private gain. Earlier in the day, the judge also barred Musk’s AI expert from testifying about broad catastrophic risks of artificial intelligence, saying the case is about breach of trust, not the future danger of AI.

OpenAI Judge Pauses Trial To Probe Musk Attys On $97B Bid - Law360 UK

Purdue Pharma received approval from a New York bankruptcy judge for a $125 million settlement with McKinsey & Co. over claims connected to McKinsey’s consulting work on Purdue’s opioid sales and marketing. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane found the deal fair and reasonable, allowing Purdue to stay on schedule to exit Chapter 11 and activate its $7.4 billion bankruptcy plan. McKinsey will pay the settlement in two parts, starting with $65 million shortly after Purdue leaves bankruptcy. About $50 million from that first payment will go to personal injury claimants, while the remaining money will benefit state and local governments and Native American tribes through a trust.

The deal followed mediation involving Purdue, the unsecured creditors committee, and other parties, with the creditors committee prepared to sue McKinsey if settlement talks failed. Purdue’s bankruptcy has been heavily shaped by disputes over opioid-related liability, the Sackler family’s contributions, and the legality of releasing third-party claims. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling against nonconsensual third-party releases forced Purdue and its creditors to renegotiate the plan. The revised plan now includes a $6.5 billion Sackler family contribution and $900 million from Purdue. Purdue will be dissolved and replaced by Knoa Pharma, a public benefit company focused on addiction treatment and overdose reversal medications. The settlement also comes after McKinsey separately agreed to pay $650 million to resolve federal charges tied to its Purdue work.

Purdue’s $125M McKinsey Deal Gets OK Ahead Of Ch. 11 Exit - Law360

A Reuters analysis found that Big Law hiring remains heavily concentrated among a small group of elite law schools, even though remote recruiting was expected to broaden access. In 2025, only 16 law schools sent at least half of their graduating class into associate jobs at firms with 251 or more lawyers. By contrast, 89 ABA-accredited schools placed 10% or fewer of their graduates in those jobs, and 11 schools placed none. Half of all law schools together produced only 10% of the 7,869 new large-firm associates, while just 21 top schools produced half of them.

Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement said the profession’s emphasis on pedigree continues to block opportunities for capable students outside elite schools. During the pandemic, large-firm recruiting moved online, which made it easier for firms to interview students from more schools. But that change has not significantly widened the hiring pipeline. One reason is that firms are recruiting earlier, sometimes during students’ first year before law school grades are available. With less law-school performance data to review, firms may lean more on undergraduate records, work experience, and the prestige of the law school itself.

The article also notes that Columbia Law School had the highest percentage of 2025 graduates going to large firms, at 78%, and that most of the schools sending at least half their graduates into Big Law are also among the U.S. News “T-14.” The broader message is that recruiting technology changed, but the underlying hierarchy did not. Remote interviews may have made access to interviews easier, but they have not erased the structural advantage held by students at the most prestigious law schools.

Pipeline to Big Law jobs stays narrow despite recruiting shifts | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Rodney King

On April 29, 1992, a California jury acquitted four Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist whose assault had been captured on videotape the year before. The beating took place on March 3, 1991, after a police chase, when officers repeatedly struck King while a bystander recorded the incident from nearby. The footage became one of the most important pieces of video evidence in modern American legal history, not because it settled the matter, but because it showed how even seemingly clear evidence can be interpreted differently in a courtroom.

To much of the public, the video appeared to show obvious police brutality. To the defense, it became something to be slowed down, segmented, and reframed as a series of split-second decisions by officers claiming fear and loss of control. When the jury acquitted the officers, the verdict landed in Los Angeles as a statement about far more than one criminal prosecution. For many residents, especially Black Angelenos, it confirmed the belief that the legal system was unwilling or unable to hold police accountable for violence against Black citizens.

The verdict triggered several days of unrest across Los Angeles, leaving more than 60 people dead, thousands injured, and large portions of the city damaged. The case also forced the country to confront the relationship between race, policing, prosecutorial burden, and jury perception. The state-court acquittals did not end the legal story, because federal prosecutors later brought civil rights charges against the officers.

In 1993, two officers, Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon, were convicted in federal court, while two others were acquitted. King also later received a civil damages award from the City of Los Angeles. April 29 remains a major date in legal history because it revealed the limits of video evidence, the difficulty of prosecuting police officers, and the deep public consequences that can follow when a courtroom verdict collides with what millions of people feel they have already seen.

Purdue Pharma was sentenced in federal court in New Jersey to $5.5 billion in fines and penalties tied to its 2020 guilty plea over misconduct connected to OxyContin sales. The sentencing helps clear the path for Purdue to wind down through bankruptcy and fund a broader $7.4 billion opioid settlement. Before approving the plea deal, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo heard hours of testimony from people who described addiction, death, and family devastation connected to the opioid crisis. More than 200 victims submitted letters, and more than 40 people spoke in court.

Purdue’s chairman, Steve Miller, apologized directly to victims after the judge instructed him to do so. Arleo also apologized from the bench, telling victims that the government had failed them by missing opportunities to stop Purdue’s conduct earlier. Many speakers said financial punishment was not enough and argued that Purdue’s owners, the Sackler family, or company executives should face prison time. The judge said she could not impose jail time because the Justice Department had charged the company, not the individual owners or executives. Although the formal sentence is $5.5 billion, most of that amount will not actually be paid, with the government expected to collect $225 million if Purdue uses its remaining assets to pay creditors.

The settlement includes money for governments and an $865 million fund for individuals, but many victims worry they will be excluded because they cannot produce old prescription records. Purdue says it is on track to exit bankruptcy as a new nonprofit company focused on opioid addiction treatment and overdose-reversal medicines.

Purdue Pharma receives $5.5 billion sentence, paving way for opioid settlement | Reuters

The Justice Department has indicted former FBI Director James Comey over a 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged as “86 47,” which prosecutors say amounted to a threat against President Donald Trump. The case was filed in federal court in North Carolina and charges Comey with threatening the president’s life and transmitting a threat across state lines. Comey has said he did not intend violence, explaining that he deleted the post after learning some people interpreted the numbers that way.

Trump and his allies had argued the message was a threat, with “47” referring to Trump as the 47th president and “86” being read by them as a call to remove him violently. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the indictment as a standard threat case, while critics and Comey’s lawyers say it looks like a politically motivated prosecution. The Secret Service had previously looked into the post and interviewed Comey, but he was not charged at that time. One should also place the indictment in the broader context of Trump’s Justice Department pursuing cases against people and groups seen as political opponents.

Comey already faced a separate criminal case over alleged false testimony to Congress, but that case was dismissed after a judge found a problem with the prosecutor’s appointment, and the government is appealing. Comey’s lawyers are expected to argue that the new case is both retaliatory and protected by the First Amendment. The central legal fight will likely be whether the post was a “true threat” or protected political speech.

Trump’s DOJ indicts former FBI director James Comey over ‘86 47’ post | Reuters

The Trump administration has fired all current members of the National Science Board, according to two former board members who spoke to Reuters. The board, created in 1950, helps oversee the National Science Foundation and advises both the president and Congress on science and engineering policy. It had more than 20 members, who were appointed to six-year terms, and most of them came from academia, with others from national labs, nonprofits, and private industry. Former board members Yolanda Gil and Keivan Stassun said they were told by email that their removals were effective immediately.

According to Gil, all 22 current members were terminated and no explanation was given. Stassun said the move was disappointing but not surprising in light of other Trump administration actions affecting scientific research and independent federal bodies. The National Science Foundation referred questions to the White House. A White House official said the NSF’s work would continue without interruption and suggested that the board’s congressionally created powers may need to be updated. The firings fit into a broader pattern described by political experts as an effort by the administration to reshape independent institutions by replacing existing officials with more loyal leadership.

Trump administration fires entire National Science Board | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Ratifies the Constitution

On April 28, 1788, Maryland became the seventh state to ratify the United States Constitution. The state’s ratifying convention met in Annapolis from April 21 to April 28, ending with Maryland’s formal approval of the new federal charter. This was a major legal step because Article VII of the Constitution required ratification by nine states before the Constitution could take effect. Maryland’s vote therefore brought the country within two states of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a stronger national government.

The decision also mattered because Maryland occupied an important position between northern and southern states, giving its approval broader political weight. Unlike some states where ratification debates were bitter and closely divided, Maryland approved the Constitution by a wide margin. Its delegates accepted the proposed structure of separated powers, a bicameral Congress, a single executive, and a federal judiciary. They also accepted the Constitution’s grant of greater national authority, including the power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, and enforce federal law. For supporters of ratification, Maryland’s approval showed that the Constitution was gaining momentum beyond the earliest Federalist strongholds. For opponents, it underscored how quickly the new framework was becoming a legal and political reality.

Maryland’s ratification did not itself put the Constitution into force, but it helped make that outcome increasingly likely. By June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, satisfying Article VII and allowing the new constitutional government to begin. Maryland’s April 28 vote thus stands as one of the key legal milestones in the transition from confederation to constitutional union.

The U.S. Supreme Court formally reinstated a Texas congressional map that could help Republicans gain seats in the U.S. House in the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling made official an earlier interim decision from December, when the Court allowed Texas to use the map while the litigation continued. The map had been approved by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature in August 2025 and signed by Governor Greg Abbott.

Reuters reports that the map could shift as many as five Democratic-held House seats toward Republicans. A lower court had previously blocked the map after finding that it was likely racially discriminatory and potentially violated constitutional protections. The Supreme Court reversed that lower court decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The case comes amid a broader fight over mid-decade redistricting, in which both Republican- and Democratic-led states have redrawn maps outside the usual once-a-decade cycle for partisan advantage. California, for example, was allowed by the Supreme Court in February to use a new map designed to benefit Democrats after the Texas redistricting effort. The stakes are high because Republicans hold narrow majorities in Congress, and a shift in either chamber could affect President Trump’s legislative agenda and congressional oversight. The ruling does not end the larger national debate over when redistricting crosses the line from lawful political mapmaking into unconstitutional discrimination.

US Supreme Court formally reinstates pro-Republican Texas voting map | Reuters

The United States has agreed to adjust its Venezuela sanctions so the Venezuelan government can pay for Nicolás Maduro’s defense lawyer in his U.S. drug trafficking case. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken from Caracas by U.S. special forces on January 3, brought to New York, and charged with offenses including narcoterrorism conspiracy. Both have pleaded not guilty and are being held in Brooklyn while awaiting trial. Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, had asked U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to dismiss the case, arguing that sanctions blocking Venezuela from paying legal fees interfered with Maduro’s constitutional right to the lawyer of his choice. The defense said neither Maduro nor Flores could afford private counsel without Venezuelan government support. Prosecutors argued that the sanctions served national security and foreign policy interests, and that courts should not force the Treasury Department to change sanctions because foreign policy belongs mainly to the executive branch.

Judge Hellerstein appeared unwilling to dismiss the case, but he also questioned whether blocking payment was justified when Maduro and Flores were already in U.S. custody and U.S.-Venezuela relations had improved after Maduro’s ouster. The government’s decision to allow the payments removes a procedural obstacle that could have complicated or delayed the prosecution. The case remains politically charged, with U.S. officials accusing Maduro of corruption and drug trafficking, while Maduro denies the allegations and says they are a pretext for U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil resources. The dispute shows how sanctions, criminal prosecution, and constitutional criminal procedure can collide when a foreign former leader is brought into a U.S. courtroom.

US to let Venezuela pay Maduro’s lawyer in drug trafficking case | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS’s potential settlement with President Donald Trump and his family over leaked tax data presents a legitimacy problem as much as a legal one. The agency may be able to resolve the case through ordinary settlement procedures, but this is not an ordinary plaintiff: Trump is the head of the executive branch that ultimately oversees the IRS. That creates a serious perception risk, because the public may view the dispute as the administration negotiating with itself. The column argues that any settlement should be tied clearly to remedies available under Section 7431 of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs civil damages for unauthorized tax disclosures. It also stresses that similarly situated taxpayers affected by the same IRS contractor’s leak should be treated consistently, or at least that any differences in treatment should be publicly explained.

The concern is that a major payout to Trump or his family could appear to create a two-tier tax system, even if the technical legal process is defensible. I compare the risk to the Teapot Dome scandal, where public confidence suffered because people believed insiders were benefiting from a different set of rules. The column also points to another high-profile tax leak case involving a billionaire, where the resolution focused on apology, acknowledgment of policy failures, and stronger data safeguards rather than a massive damages award. That prior case provides a useful benchmark, even though not every case must settle the same way. To protect credibility, I argue that DOJ recusal, an independent arbiter, or similar safeguards may be necessary so the process has visible independence. The larger point is that the IRS depends heavily on voluntary compliance, and voluntary compliance depends on taxpayers believing the system is fair. If the agency appears to give special treatment to the most powerful taxpayer in the country, the long-term cost may be far greater than any settlement amount.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln Suspends Habeas Corpus

On April 27, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln authorized military officials to suspend the writ of habeas corpus along the rail lines between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. The order came in the opening weeks of the Civil War, when Washington was vulnerable, Union troops were moving through hostile territory, and federal officials feared sabotage and rebellion along critical transportation routes.

Habeas corpus is one of the oldest protections in Anglo-American law, allowing a detained person to demand that the government justify their imprisonment before a court. By suspending it, Lincoln allowed military authorities to detain certain people without immediately producing them for judicial review. The legal problem was that the Constitution says habeas corpus may be suspended “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,” but it does not clearly say which branch of government may do the suspending.

Lincoln argued that the rebellion created an emergency that required swift executive action. Critics argued that the suspension power belonged to Congress, not the president, because the Suspension Clause appears in Article I, the part of the Constitution dealing mostly with legislative powers. The conflict soon came to a head in Ex parte Merryman, after John Merryman, a Maryland secessionist, was arrested by military authorities and denied ordinary habeas review.

Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his constitutional authority and that only Congress could suspend the writ. Lincoln did not comply with Taney’s order, maintaining that the survival of the Union justified extraordinary action. Congress later gave statutory support for wartime habeas suspension, but the controversy over Lincoln’s initial action has remained central to debates over presidential power, civil liberties, and constitutional government during crisis.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Cisco Systems and the Alien Tort Statute, focusing on whether U.S. companies can face liability for allegedly helping foreign governments commit human rights abuses. The case comes from Falun Gong practitioners who claim Cisco built surveillance tools for China’s “Golden Shield” program that helped officials identify, detain, torture, and persecute members of the religious movement. A federal district court dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit revived much of it in 2023, finding the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Cisco aided and abetted violations of international law. Cisco argues that the Ninth Circuit improperly expanded the Alien Tort Statute by recognizing aiding-and-abetting liability even though Congress did not expressly create that cause of action. The company says the ATS was originally meant to cover only a narrow set of claims, such as piracy, violations of safe conduct, and harms to ambassadors. Cisco also relies on Supreme Court precedent to argue that courts should not create secondary liability unless Congress clearly authorizes it.

The Falun Gong plaintiffs respond that aiding-and-abetting liability has long been part of international law and is especially important when serious abuses require technology, infrastructure, or corporate support. They argue that torture, extrajudicial killing, disappearances, and prolonged arbitrary detention are already recognized as serious international-law violations that can support ATS claims. Business groups and the federal government warn that expanding ATS liability could chill foreign investment and interfere with U.S. foreign relations by forcing American courts to judge the conduct of foreign governments. Supporters of the plaintiffs argue that corporate accountability can discourage companies from profiting from foreign repression and can promote fair competition for businesses that follow human rights standards. The Supreme Court’s ruling could shape how much legal risk U.S. companies face when selling technology or services to governments accused of human rights abuses.

Justices To Focus On Alien Tort Statute In Cisco Spying Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing Bayer’s attempt to limit or end a large wave of lawsuits over Roundup, the weedkiller Bayer acquired when it bought Monsanto in 2018. The case involves John Durnell, a Missouri man who won a $1.25 million jury verdict after claiming years of Roundup exposure contributed to his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer argues that federal pesticide law should block state-law failure-to-warn claims because the Environmental Protection Agency has approved Roundup labels without a cancer warning. The company says EPA approval shows the product was not legally “misbranded” and that Bayer could not substantially change the label without agency approval. Durnell’s lawyers argue that EPA registration does not make the label immune from challenge and that Missouri warning law mirrors federal requirements rather than adding new ones.

The dispute turns on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which regulates pesticide labeling and limits states from imposing requirements that differ from federal law. Bayer says more than 100,000 plaintiffs have brought Roundup-related cancer claims and that a Supreme Court win could largely end the litigation. The company has also proposed a $7.25 billion settlement to resolve many current and future claims, though some pending appeals and excluded claims would remain outside the deal. Agricultural and crop industry groups, along with the Trump administration, support Bayer, while environmental, farmworker, and public health groups support Durnell. Bayer warns that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to keep supplying glyphosate products to farmers. A decision is expected by the end of June.

US Supreme Court hears Bayer’s fight against Roundup lawsuits | Reuters

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft is headed to trial in federal court in Oakland, California. Musk claims OpenAI betrayed its original nonprofit mission by creating a for-profit structure after he left the board, while using his name and early financial support to build what he calls a profit-driven enterprise. He is reportedly seeking $150 billion in damages, with money going to OpenAI’s charitable arm, and also wants OpenAI returned to nonprofit status. OpenAI denies wrongdoing and argues that Musk’s real motive is to regain control and help his own AI company, xAI. Microsoft also denies collusion and says its partnership with OpenAI began after Musk had left.

The trial is expected to feature testimony from major tech figures, including Musk, Altman, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Internal documents are likely to play a major role, including diary entries from Brockman that reveal tension inside OpenAI over Musk’s influence and the organization’s future. Musk’s side points to those materials as evidence that OpenAI’s leaders became focused on profit rather than the public-benefit mission. OpenAI’s side says Musk knew about possible restructuring plans, wanted to be CEO, and later attacked the company after it became successful. The case comes as OpenAI faces heavy competition, major computing costs, and possible IPO plans, while Musk’s xAI is also trying to compete in the AI market. The broader fight is not just about money, but about who controls one of the most influential companies in artificial intelligence.

Elon Musk’s trial against Sam Altman to reveal the ongoing power struggle for OpenAI | Reuters

Cole Tomas Allen, a 31-year-old California man, is expected to appear in Washington federal court after allegedly trying to breach security at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner while President Donald Trump was present. Authorities say Allen shot at a U.S. Secret Service agent at a hotel checkpoint before being tackled and arrested. The agent was hit, but a tactical vest stopped the shot, and the agent was later released from the hospital. Formal charges had not yet been filed at the time of the report, but prosecutors said Allen is expected to face charges including assault on a federal officer and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Officials also said more serious charges, including attempted assassination, could still be considered as the investigation continues.

Authorities say Allen traveled from California to Washington by train and booked a room at the Washington Hilton, where the dinner was held. They also say he left family members a manifesto referring to himself as the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and discussing plans to target senior Trump administration officials. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Trump may have been among the intended targets. The shooting disrupted the high-profile dinner, forced attendees to take cover, and led security personnel to move senior officials out of the room. Monday’s court hearing is expected to be brief, with a judge advising Allen of his rights and prosecutors likely asking that he remain detained. The incident has renewed concerns about security for Trump and other public officials.

Suspect in Washington dinner shooting set to appear in court | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Nix v. Hedden

On April 24, 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court received submissions in Nix v. Hedden, the famous case asking whether a tomato should be treated as a fruit or a vegetable. The question sounds like the setup to a joke, but the legal issue was practical and financial: under the Tariff Act of 1883, imported vegetables were taxed, while fruits were not.

That meant the classification of tomatoes had real consequences for importers bringing tomatoes into the United States. The plaintiffs argued that tomatoes are fruits in the botanical sense because they grow from the flower of the plant and contain seeds. The government argued that, whatever botanists might say, tomatoes were commonly bought, sold, cooked, and eaten as vegetables.

The Supreme Court sided with the government. In its decision, the Court held that the tariff law should be read according to the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable,” not their technical scientific meanings. Justice Horace Gray explained that tomatoes are usually served with dinner, not dessert, and are understood in common speech as vegetables.

The case became a lasting example of how courts interpret statutes by looking at the way language is used in everyday life. It also shows that legal disputes often turn less on abstract definitions than on context, usage, and consequences. Nix v. Hedden remains memorable because it turns a simple grocery-store question into a lesson about statutory interpretation: the tomato may be a fruit to a botanist, but for tariff law in 1893, it was a vegetable.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged U.S. Army Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke with allegedly using classified information to profit from prediction-market bets tied to a military raid involving former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Van Dyke, who was stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, allegedly helped plan and carry out the operation that resulted in Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, being brought to New York in January.

Prosecutors say he began trading on Polymarket markets related to Maduro and Venezuela on Dec. 26, 2025, shortly before the Jan. 3, 2026 raid. According to the indictment, Van Dyke made more than $400,000 from those trades. The government alleges that, after making the money, he tried to hide the proceeds. He is charged with violating the Commodity Exchange Act, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also brought a related enforcement action against him. Van Dyke was expected to appear first in federal court in North Carolina before later appearing in the Southern District of New York. Counsel information for him was not immediately available.

Soldier Aware Of Maduro Raid Bet On Polymarket, Feds Say - Law360

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas warned that proposed federal data privacy legislation could undermine state laws meant to protect judges and other public officials from having their personal information exposed online. Salas has pushed for stronger privacy protections since 2020, when a lawyer went to her New Jersey home and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. Congress later passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which shields federal judges’ personal information online. Since then, more than a dozen states, including New Jersey, New York, and Maryland, have adopted similar protections for state judges, and some laws also cover law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and family members.

Salas raised her concerns at an American Bar Association conference in Boston as House lawmakers consider federal privacy bills that would create national standards and preempt state laws. The bills, called the GUARD Financial Data Act and the SECURE Data Act, would require covered companies to limit collection of consumer data and give people rights to access or delete their information. But unlike New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, the federal proposals would not let individuals sue companies for privacy violations. Salas said replacing stronger state protections with weaker federal rules could put judges across the country at greater risk. House committee representatives either declined to comment or did not respond.

NJ judge whose son was killed warns against weakening state data privacy laws | Reuters

Spirit Aviation told a New York bankruptcy judge that it is in advanced talks with the federal government over a major financing package that could help keep its second Chapter 11 case on track. The airline’s lawyer, Marshall Huebner of Davis Polk, confirmed that negotiations are underway but did not verify reports about the possible size of the package or whether the government would receive an ownership stake. He said the proposed funding could do more than simply support the bankruptcy case and could position Spirit to compete strongly after restructuring. Spirit plans to seek court approval of the financing on April 30.

The financing discussions come after the war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran caused jet fuel prices to rise sharply, disrupting Spirit’s existing reorganization plan. The airline had previously proposed canceling general unsecured claims and restructuring around support from secured noteholders, but it postponed seeking approval to send that plan to creditors. Judge Sean Lane approved a $533 million sale of about 20 aircraft to CSDS Aircraft and also granted Spirit a 90-day extension of its exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan. Spirit also disclosed that it missed an interest payment, triggering a default under its debtor-in-possession loan. The noteholder group funding much of that loan said it intends to enforce its rights and would oppose any relief that harms the lenders.

Spirit In ‘Advanced’ Talks With Gov’t For Ch. 11 Financing - Law360

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan Sentenced

On April 23, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a crime that had shaken the United States the previous year. The sentencing came after a highly publicized trial in Los Angeles, where prosecutors argued that the killing was deliberate and politically motivated. Evidence presented at trial included eyewitness accounts placing Sirhan at the scene and actively firing the fatal shots. His own recorded statements, which expressed hostility toward Kennedy, played a key role in establishing intent. The defense raised questions about Sirhan’s mental state, but these arguments did not overcome the prosecution’s narrative of premeditation.

The jury ultimately found him guilty of first-degree murder, leading to the imposition of the death penalty under California law at the time. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the broader national trauma surrounding political assassinations in the 1960s. However, the legal status of capital punishment in California soon shifted dramatically. In 1972, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Anderson, which held that the death penalty as then applied violated the state constitution. As a result, Sirhan’s sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, aligning his case with others affected by the ruling.

The Sirhan case remains significant in legal history for its intersection with issues of political violence and criminal accountability. It also illustrates how broader constitutional developments can reshape individual sentences long after a trial concludes. Debates about his culpability and mental state have persisted, raising ongoing questions about the standards for criminal responsibility. At the same time, the case is frequently cited in discussions about the fairness and consistency of the death penalty. It stands as a reminder of how legal systems respond to acts that carry both criminal and profound national consequences.

Anthropic has asked a federal court in California to rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit brought by major music publishers, including Universal Music Group, over the use of song lyrics to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The company argues that its use of copyrighted lyrics qualifies as “fair use” because it is transformative, meaning the material was used to help the AI understand language rather than to reproduce songs. Anthropic claims this kind of use supports innovation across fields like science, business, and education.

The publishers, including Concord and ABKCO, disagree and argue that the AI system can generate outputs that resemble or compete with their lyrics, potentially harming the market for original works. They originally filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging that Anthropic copied lyrics from hundreds of songs by well-known artists without permission. This dispute is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against AI companies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, over how training data is used.

Anthropic is seeking summary judgment, which would allow it to win the case without a full trial if the judge agrees that its actions were legally protected fair use. The outcome could be highly influential, as courts are currently split on whether AI training on copyrighted material is permissible. The company also emphasizes that copyright law is intended to benefit the public by encouraging innovation, not just to compensate creators.

At the center of the case is a key legal question: whether copying large amounts of copyrighted material to train AI systems can be considered transformative use under copyright law. This issue is likely to shape future rulings as similar cases continue to move through the courts.

Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Labor has introduced a proposed rule to clarify when multiple employers can be held jointly responsible for wage and hour violations. The rule, titled Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, is designed to create a clearer and more consistent standard across federal law. Officials say the goal is to resolve conflicting interpretations among federal courts and make compliance easier for businesses.

According to acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, the proposal aims to both simplify regulations for employers and strengthen protections for workers. The rule would mark the agency’s first formal guidance on joint employment since the prior regulation from an earlier administration was rescinded without replacement. Unlike that earlier version, the new proposal would apply to multiple statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Department believes a uniform standard will reduce confusion, encourage better business practices, and ensure workers can recover wages or benefits even if one employer fails to pay. Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers emphasized that clearer rules can improve enforcement and reduce litigation.

The proposal is currently open for public comment through June 22 and follows earlier signals that the agency planned to revisit joint employer standards.

BREAKING: DOL Unveils Joint Employer Rule Proposal - Law360

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it may side with the Federal Communications Commission in a dispute over how the agency issues fines to wireless carriers. The case involves major companies like Verizon Communications and AT&T, which argued that the FCC’s internal enforcement process violates their constitutional right to a jury trial. The fines stem from findings that the companies failed to properly protect customer location data, resulting in penalties totaling over $100 million.

During oral arguments, several justices expressed doubt about the companies’ claims, suggesting that the FCC’s forfeiture orders are not final or binding unless enforced in court. This distinction appeared central, as it implies companies still have the option to challenge the penalties before a judge and jury. Justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, compared the process to a legal choice—either accept the penalty or contest it through litigation.

Some members of the Court, however, raised concerns about whether companies may feel pressured to comply due to uncertainty or reputational harm. John Roberts suggested the issue might be more about public perception than a direct legal burden, while Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the FCC had been fully clear about the non-binding nature of its orders.

The dispute comes amid broader scrutiny of federal agency power, especially following a 2024 decision limiting enforcement proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite that precedent, the justices did not appear ready to apply the same reasoning to the FCC’s system. Lower courts had previously split on the issue, prompting Supreme Court review.

A final decision is expected by late June and could clarify how far federal agencies can go in using internal processes to impose financial penalties.

US Supreme Court leans toward FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Richard Nixon Dies

On April 22, 1994, Richard Nixon died at the age of 81, marking the end of a presidency that left a lasting imprint on American legal history. Nixon’s legacy is inseparable from the Watergate scandal, a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of presidential power. The scandal began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and expanded into a wide-ranging investigation of abuse of executive authority. As evidence mounted, legal battles emerged over whether a sitting president could withhold information under claims of executive privilege.

The issue came to a head in the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, where the Court unanimously ruled that the president must comply with a subpoena to release tape recordings. This decision significantly narrowed the scope of executive privilege, establishing that it is not absolute and cannot be used to obstruct justice. The ruling reinforced the principle that even the president is subject to the rule of law. Facing near-certain impeachment, Nixon resigned in August 1974, becoming the first U.S. president to do so.

His resignation demonstrated the strength of constitutional checks and balances, particularly Congress’s oversight authority and the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes over executive power. In the years that followed, Watergate prompted reforms such as the War Powers Resolution and amendments to campaign finance laws. Legal scholars continue to cite the episode as a defining moment in the development of accountability for high-ranking officials. Nixon’s death in 1994 closed a chapter, but the legal principles shaped during Watergate remain central to debates over presidential authority.

West Virginia reached an $11 million settlement with Roblox to address concerns about child safety on the platform. The agreement follows a nine-month investigation led by Attorney General JB McCuskey, which found that existing safeguards exposed children to explicit content and potential predators. As part of the deal, Roblox must implement mandatory age verification before users can access chat features, aiming to reduce anonymous misuse. The platform will also restrict adults from contacting users under 16 unless they are verified trusted connections. Additional protections include default safe-content settings for minors and alerts when young users enter private chats for the first time.

The settlement allocates funds over several years, including money for public safety campaigns, internet safety specialists, and educational workshops. Roblox stated that the agreement aligns with its broader goal of improving digital safety and collaborating with regulators. This deal comes amid similar actions by other states, including a recent agreement in Nevada with comparable age verification measures. Multiple lawsuits across the country accuse Roblox of failing to prevent adults from exploiting minors on the platform. Many of these cases have been consolidated in federal court in California, where plaintiffs allege harm resulting from online grooming.

W.Va. Strikes $11.5M Deal With Roblox Over Kid Safety - Law360

A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas can require public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, overturning a lower court order that had blocked the law. The decision upheld Texas Senate Bill 10, finding that the requirement does not violate the Constitution’s protections against government establishment of religion or its guarantees of religious freedom. The majority reasoned that the law does not force anyone to adopt religious beliefs or interfere with how individuals practice their faith.

The challenge was brought by families from various religious and nonreligious backgrounds, who argued that the mandate infringes on their right to control their children’s religious upbringing. Their attorney indicated plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the decision, calling it a victory for the state and emphasizing the historical influence of the Ten Commandments.

The ruling was not unanimous, with a strong dissent arguing that the court ignored binding Supreme Court precedent. The dissent pointed to a 1980 Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar Kentucky law, suggesting the Texas measure should also be unconstitutional. By reversing the earlier injunction, the appeals court cleared the way for the law to take effect while further appeals are expected.

Texas can require Ten Commandments in classrooms, US appeals court rules | Reuters

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down from her role in U.S. Department of Labor amid controversy tied to an internal watchdog investigation into alleged misconduct. The probe reportedly examined claims of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, along with other workplace concerns, though some allegations were publicly disputed. Her departure follows weeks of media coverage and discussion during a congressional oversight hearing.

The White House announced that Chavez-DeRemer will move to a private-sector position, while Deputy Secretary Keith Sonderling will serve as acting head of the agency. In public statements, Chavez-DeRemer highlighted her efforts to support workers, expand job training, and address economic issues during her tenure, while administration officials praised her leadership.

The situation also involved broader personnel disruptions, including reports that several aides were placed on leave or left their positions. Additional complaints and allegations—some denied or unproven—contributed to scrutiny surrounding her leadership. Her husband was also investigated over separate allegations, though no charges were filed.

Chavez-DeRemer’s exit adds to other recent Cabinet-level departures during Donald Trump’s administration. Lawmakers, including Representative Rosa DeLauro, criticized the situation as a leadership failure and called for a replacement focused on the department’s mission. Observers noted that Sonderling could be a leading candidate for the permanent role, though no official nomination has been announced.

Trump’s Labor Secretary Steps Down - Law360

A federal appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruled that a nearly 160-year-old ban on home distilling is constitutional, deepening a disagreement with another appellate court. The court said the prohibition is a valid way for Congress to ensure collection of excise taxes on distilled spirits, reasoning that allowing home production could lead to widespread tax evasion. The case was brought by John Ream, who wanted to distill whiskey at home for personal use.

The ruling comes shortly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, finding the same law unnecessary and unconstitutional. This disagreement between appellate courts—known as a circuit split—raises the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will step in to resolve the issue. Ream’s legal team has already indicated plans to appeal.

The law at issue dates back to 1868, when Congress enacted it during Reconstruction to combat liquor tax evasion. Violations can carry significant penalties, including prison time and fines. In upholding the ban, the majority opinion emphasized Congress’s longstanding rationale that prohibiting home distilling encourages consumers to buy taxed alcohol instead. A dissenting judge, however, argued the case should not proceed because Ream failed to show he faced a real risk of prosecution.

US appeals court calls 158-year-old home distilling ban constitutional, creates split | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: John Adams Sworn in as VP

On April 21, 1789, John Adams was sworn in as the first Vice President of the United States, becoming one of the earliest officials to assume office under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. His inauguration followed the formation of the new federal government and helped signal that the Constitution was not merely theoretical but fully operational. At the time, the role of Vice President was not yet clearly defined, leaving Adams to shape many of its early norms through practice rather than precedent. The Constitution assigned him the duty of presiding over the Senate, placing him at the intersection of the executive and legislative branches. This hybrid function raised early questions about separation of powers, a core principle embedded in the constitutional structure. Adams himself reportedly found the position frustrating, as it carried limited executive authority while restricting his participation in Senate debates. Despite these limitations, his service helped establish procedural expectations for how the Vice President would engage in legislative affairs.

The peaceful assumption of office by Adams also reinforced the legitimacy of the new constitutional system at a time when its durability was uncertain. It demonstrated that leadership transitions could occur within a stable legal framework rather than through upheaval or force. This moment contributed to the broader development of constitutional governance by modeling adherence to formal legal processes. Early officeholders like Adams played a critical role in translating the Constitution’s text into functioning institutions. His tenure also highlighted ambiguities in the document, many of which would later be addressed through political practice and constitutional amendments. Over time, the vice presidency evolved into a more active executive role, but its foundation was laid during this initial transition period. Adams’s swearing-in remains a key example of how early constitutional actors shaped the practical meaning of the nation’s governing document.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revisit its denial of a whistleblower award to an anonymous claimant. The court granted a partial win to the individual, sending the case back to the agency for a clearer explanation of its reasoning. Although the court’s full opinion remains sealed, earlier oral arguments suggested the judges were focused on whether the claimant’s actions met the legal definition of “voluntary” under Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC had previously rejected the claim, stating that it only learned of the information after contacting the individual, who had first shared allegations with the media. The claimant argued that this sequence should not disqualify them from receiving an award.

Whistleblower awards under Dodd-Frank apply when provided information leads to enforcement actions with penalties exceeding $1 million, with awards ranging from 10% to 30% of collected sanctions. Because of this structure, the denied award in this case could amount to a significant financial loss. The court’s decision signals concern that the SEC may not have adequately justified its interpretation of the law. The ruling does not guarantee the claimant will receive an award but requires the agency to reconsider and better articulate its position. The case highlights ongoing tension over how strictly the SEC defines eligibility requirements for whistleblowers. It also underscores the importance of transparency in agency decision-making when financial incentives and legal protections are at stake.

DC Circ. Orders SEC Rethink Of Whistleblower Claim - Law360

A Reuters investigation found that Tesla, Inc. has paid little to no U.S. federal income tax over most of its history, including reporting a zero-dollar tax bill for 2025 despite generating substantial revenue. While some of these low tax obligations are explained by earlier business losses and government incentives for clean energy, the report highlights another major factor: profit shifting through foreign subsidiaries. Specifically, Tesla units in the Netherlands and Singapore recorded about $18 billion in profits that were not taxed in those countries and likely avoided U.S. taxation as well. Experts cited in the report estimate this strategy may have reduced Tesla’s U.S. tax burden by more than $400 million.

The mechanism appears tied to transferring intellectual property rights to overseas entities, allowing profits tied to those assets to be recorded in lower-tax jurisdictions. One Dutch-linked entity, structured as a partnership, reportedly had no employees and functioned mainly as a conduit for income. These arrangements are legal and commonly used by multinational corporations, though they remain controversial and are often criticized as exploiting gaps in international tax systems. The findings contrast with past public comments by Elon Musk, who has expressed skepticism about using aggressive tax loopholes. The report found no evidence that Tesla violated tax laws, but it underscores ongoing debates about corporate tax practices and transparency.

Musk scorned “shady” loopholes, yet offshore tax tricks likely saved Tesla hundreds of millions | Reuters

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc., finding that challengers are likely to prove the deal would harm competition. The ruling came from a California federal court, which issued a preliminary injunction stopping the companies from integrating while lawsuits from DirecTV and several state attorneys general move forward. The court said the merger could lead to higher fees for distributors, fewer choices for consumers, and reductions in local journalism. It also warned that combining the companies would increase leverage to threaten “blackouts,” where broadcasters pull channels during fee disputes, potentially leaving viewers without access to sports and local news.

The judge emphasized that Nexstar must keep Tegna operating as an independent competitor for now, noting that further integration could cause irreversible harm, including layoffs and station closures. Although the deal had already received approval from regulators like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, the court found that oversight did not sufficiently address antitrust concerns. State officials and DirecTV argue the merger would create the largest local TV station owner in the U.S., reaching a vast majority of households and concentrating too much control in one company. Nexstar has said it will appeal the decision and continues to defend the merger as beneficial for local broadcasting.

To understand the stakes, it helps to know what these companies control. Nexstar is already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., operating more than 200 stations affiliated with major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, and it also owns the cable network NewsNation. Tegna owns dozens of local TV stations across major markets, many of which also carry network programming and produce local news. DirecTV, while not a broadcaster, distributes these channels to subscribers and would be directly affected by any increase in fees. Together, Nexstar and Tegna would control over 250 stations nationwide, raising concerns about pricing power, reduced competition, and the future of local news coverage.

Nexstar-Tegna Deal Blocked Amid DirecTV, AGs’ Challenge - Law360

My column for Bloomberg this week argues that states rushing to tax prediction markets are trying to regulate something they haven’t yet clearly defined. That uncertainty creates a real risk: policymakers could end up taxing the wrong base entirely. Until there is clarity about what these platforms actually are, restraint is the more defensible approach.

Prediction markets have grown rapidly, with trading volume skyrocketing in just a few years. That growth has drawn attention from lawmakers at both the state and federal levels, but the central question remains unresolved. If these platforms are gambling, then state sports betting frameworks might apply. If they function more like financial instruments, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And if they are neither, forcing them into an existing category may create more confusion than clarity.

I explain that the case for treating them like gambling platforms is understandable, since users are effectively betting on real-world outcomes. But the comparison breaks down when you look at how these platforms operate. Unlike sportsbooks, they don’t act as “the house” or take on risk. Instead, they function more like exchanges, matching users who take opposite sides of a contract and earning revenue through transaction fees rather than betting outcomes.

This distinction matters for tax policy. Sportsbooks are typically taxed on gross gaming revenue, which reflects the house’s winnings after payouts. That model assumes operators profit from users losing bets. Prediction markets don’t fit that structure, because they don’t generate meaningful gaming revenue in the traditional sense. Treating trading volume as taxable revenue risks overstating the size of the tax base.

At the same time, the CFTC has asserted federal authority and begun challenging state efforts in court. As these disputes move through the judiciary, there is a growing possibility of conflicting rulings that could ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if states succeed in the short term, their tax systems could rest on shaky legal ground.

I also emphasize that prediction markets are inherently borderless digital platforms, which makes fragmented state-by-state regulation difficult to sustain. If they are closer to financial exchanges than local gambling operations, a coherent federal framework may be more appropriate.

A more durable solution would be a federal system that taxes platform fees rather than mischaracterized gaming revenue. But that approach would require policymakers to explain why prediction markets deserve distinct treatment from other financial intermediaries. Once the gambling analogy is set aside, that justification becomes harder.

None of this eliminates a role for states, particularly in areas like consumer protection and fraud enforcement. But the core questions—what prediction markets are, how they generate income, and how they should be taxed—are national in scope and should be treated that way.

This Day in Legal History: Columbine Shooting

On April 20, 1999, a mass shooting at Columbine High School became one of the most consequential events in modern American legal history. Two students carried out a planned attack that resulted in the deaths of 13 people and injured many others, shocking the nation and prompting immediate legal scrutiny. In the aftermath, victims’ families filed multiple lawsuits against the Jefferson County School District, arguing that officials failed to act on warning signs and threats. These claims raised difficult questions about foreseeability and the extent of a school’s duty to protect students from third-party violence. Courts examining these cases often had to balance negligence standards against doctrines like governmental immunity, which can shield public entities from liability.

The tragedy also intensified national debate over gun control laws, particularly regarding background checks and access to firearms by minors. Legal discussions extended to the role of parents, as some lawsuits attempted to hold the shooters’ families accountable for failing to secure weapons. Additionally, Columbine influenced how courts and policymakers viewed threats made by students, contributing to stricter enforcement and zero-tolerance policies in schools. The event led to expanded use of security measures such as surveillance, school resource officers, and emergency preparedness protocols.

Columbine’s legal legacy can be seen in later case law addressing school liability and student safety, where courts often referenced the limits of institutional responsibility. It also shaped legislative efforts at both the state and federal levels aimed at preventing school violence. The case highlighted the challenges of proving causation in negligence claims involving unpredictable criminal acts. Over time, it became a foundational example in discussions of tort law, particularly in cases involving public institutions and risk prevention.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider the scope of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to seek “disgorgement,” a remedy that forces wrongdoers to give up profits obtained through illegal conduct. The case arises from a challenge by Ongkaruck Sripetch, who was ordered to repay more than $3 million tied to a fraudulent stock scheme. Although the SEC’s general ability to pursue disgorgement is well established and supported by Congress, the dispute focuses on whether the agency must prove that investors suffered actual financial harm before recovering those profits.

Sripetch argues that the SEC failed to show his actions caused investors measurable losses, and therefore should not be entitled to the repayment order. The federal government, defending the SEC, maintains that disgorgement is meant to strip unlawful gains from violators rather than compensate victims, making proof of financial harm unnecessary. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sided with the SEC’s broader interpretation of its authority. However, other appellate courts have disagreed, creating a legal split that prompted Supreme Court review.

The case highlights the significance of disgorgement as one of the SEC’s primary enforcement tools, with billions of dollars recovered in recent years under different administrations. The outcome could clarify the limits of the agency’s power and reshape how securities fraud penalties are pursued, particularly in cases where direct financial harm to victims is difficult to quantify.

US Supreme Court to consider SEC’s ‘disgorgement’ power | Reuters

American Airlines publicly denied reports that it is considering a merger with United Airlines, stating that no discussions are taking place and that it has no interest in pursuing such a deal. The denial followed speculation that United’s CEO had raised the idea during a recent meeting with federal officials. American emphasized that a merger between the two major carriers would likely harm competition and consumers, signaling concerns about antitrust implications in an already concentrated airline market.

The company also suggested that such a combination would conflict with broader regulatory principles aimed at preserving competition. Instead of pursuing a merger, American stated it will remain focused on its own long-term strategy and operations. United did not comment on the reports.

While a deal between the two largest airlines appears off the table, smaller industry transactions are still moving forward. Allegiant Travel Company is proceeding with its acquisition of Sun Country Airlines after receiving regulatory approval to operate both carriers separately under shared ownership. Similarly, Alaska Airlines previously completed its purchase of Hawaiian Airlines in 2024 with government approval. These developments highlight that, despite scrutiny of large mergers, regulators are still permitting consolidation among smaller airlines under certain conditions.

American Airlines Shuts Down United Merger Rumors - Law360

Lawyers for Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service are negotiating a potential settlement in Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit over the leak of his tax returns. The parties have asked a federal court to pause the case for 90 days to allow negotiations, suggesting a resolution could avoid extended litigation. The lawsuit stems from disclosures made by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, who leaked Trump’s tax information and data on other wealthy individuals to media outlets.

Trump and co-plaintiffs, including his business entities and family members, claim the leak caused financial damage and reputational harm. Littlejohn pleaded guilty to unlawful disclosure and was sentenced to prison, establishing the underlying misconduct. A settlement could raise complex issues because Trump, as president, is effectively suing a federal agency within the executive branch, creating potential conflicts for government lawyers representing the IRS.

The case also carries financial implications, as any settlement payout would likely come from public funds. Beyond this dispute, Trump has pursued several other high-value lawsuits against media organizations, reflecting a broader legal strategy tied to alleged reputational and political harm.

Trump, IRS in talks to settle US president’s $10 billion lawsuit | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Bay of Pigs

April 17 has marked several important moments in legal history, particularly in the development of constitutional law, civil rights, and international justice. One notable event occurred in 1961, when the Bay of Pigs Invasion began, raising serious legal debates about executive war powers in the United States. Although primarily a military operation, it prompted scrutiny over presidential authority to engage in covert foreign interventions without explicit congressional approval. The failed invasion quickly became a focal point for constitutional scholars questioning the limits of executive power. At the time, the U.S. Constitution granted Congress the authority to declare war, yet presidents increasingly relied on covert or limited military actions without formal declarations. This tension highlighted a growing gap between constitutional text and modern geopolitical practice.

Legal analysts began to examine whether such actions fell within the president’s role as Commander in Chief or exceeded constitutional boundaries. The episode also contributed to broader concerns about secrecy and accountability within the executive branch. In the years that followed, these concerns helped shape legislative responses aimed at reasserting congressional authority. Most notably, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit unilateral military engagements by the president. The law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and limits the duration of such deployments without approval. While debated and sometimes contested, it reflects an ongoing effort to balance executive flexibility with legislative oversight.

The legal legacy of April 17, 1961, therefore lies not only in the event itself but in the constitutional questions it intensified. These debates continue to influence how courts, lawmakers, and scholars interpret the separation of powers in matters of war and foreign policy.

The head of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, Daniel Aronowitz, faced extended questioning from House Democrats during an oversight hearing focused on both agency policy and leadership conduct. Lawmakers pressed him about allegations involving Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, including reports of an inspector general investigation into alleged workplace misconduct and claims of a hostile work environment. Representative Mark Takano challenged Aronowitz on his awareness of these reports, but Aronowitz stated he was unfamiliar with them and defended the secretary’s professionalism.

Democrats also questioned the department’s recent shift in enforcing mental health parity requirements for employer-sponsored health plans. Representative Donald Norcross asked why the agency appeared to step back from stricter enforcement under the current administration. Aronowitz responded by emphasizing his personal experience with insurance denials for mental health treatment, arguing that the agency remains committed to removing barriers to care. He noted, however, that he could not discuss certain regulatory details due to ongoing litigation.

Aronowitz further explained that the agency has elevated mental health access as a top priority, even as it reevaluates specific enforcement strategies. His remarks drew support from Representative Mark DeSaulnier, who praised his openness about personal experiences with behavioral health issues.

DOL Benefits Chief Pressed On Labor Secretary’s Conduct - Law360

Hundreds of legal academics, students, and professional organizations are urging the American Bar Association to keep its law school diversity requirement as it considers eliminating the rule. During a public comment period, the ABA received dozens of submissions supporting the standard and only a small number favoring its repeal. The rule requires accredited law schools to show a commitment to diversity in areas like admissions, hiring, and student programs.

Supporters argue the requirement is important for improving representation in the legal profession, which remains less diverse than the broader U.S. population. They also contend the rule does not mandate unlawful discrimination but instead promotes inclusion. Some critics, however, claim the standard encourages improper consideration of race and detracts from other priorities, such as academic preparation.

The debate comes amid broader political pressure, including actions by the Trump administration challenging diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. An executive order has even called into question the ABA’s role as the official accreditor of U.S. law schools.

The ABA had already suspended the diversity rule earlier in 2025, citing legal uncertainty at both state and federal levels. Its governing council is expected to decide whether to permanently eliminate the requirement at an upcoming meeting.

Law professors defend ABA’s law school diversity rule ahead of elimination vote | Reuters

QVC Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Texas with a prepackaged restructuring plan aimed at reducing about 80% of its $6.6 billion debt. The company expects to cut its debt down to roughly $1.3 billion and emerge from bankruptcy within about 90 days. The filing includes more than 70 affiliated entities, though most international operations are excluded.

The restructuring follows ongoing financial struggles driven by declining cable television viewership, weak consumer demand, and external pressures like tariffs. Despite efforts to modernize—such as launching live shopping on social media platforms and targeting new customer demographics—the company has been unable to return to sustained growth.

Historically, QVC and its subsidiary HSN were pioneers in televised retail, but shifting consumer habits toward e-commerce have eroded their traditional business model. In recent years, the company has taken cost-cutting steps, including layoffs affecting over 1,000 employees and consolidating operations.

Financial strain intensified as revenue continued to decline and credit ratings dropped deeper into non-investment-grade territory. With billions in outstanding obligations, including loans nearing maturity, the company pursued a restructuring agreement with lenders to stabilize its finances.

Under the Chapter 11 plan, creditors will exchange existing debt for new debt or equity, while vendors and suppliers are expected to be paid in full to maintain operations. The company also plans to continue business as usual during the restructuring process, supported by over $1 billion in available cash.

QVC Hits Ch. 11 With Prepackaged Plan To Slash $6.6B Debt - Law360

This Day in Legal History: Texas City Disaster

On April 16, 1947, a catastrophic industrial disaster struck Texas City, Texas, when a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate exploded, killing nearly 600 people and injuring thousands more. The blast devastated the surrounding area, leveling buildings and igniting fires that burned for days. In the aftermath, victims and their families turned to the courts, seeking accountability from the federal government for its role in overseeing the shipment and handling of the hazardous material. Their claims were brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a relatively new law at the time that allowed private citizens to sue the government for certain negligent acts.

The resulting litigation eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Dalehite v. United States, a case that would shape the boundaries of government liability for decades. Plaintiffs argued that federal officials had been negligent in the planning and execution of the fertilizer export program that led to the explosion. The government, however, maintained that its actions involved policy decisions protected from liability. In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court sided with the government, holding that the challenged conduct fell within the “discretionary function” exception of the statute. This exception shields the government from lawsuits based on decisions grounded in public policy considerations.

The Court’s ruling effectively barred recovery for many victims, drawing criticism for limiting access to remedies in cases of large-scale harm. At the same time, the decision established an enduring legal principle: not all government actions, even if harmful, are subject to judicial review through tort claims. The case has since been cited frequently in disputes involving regulatory decisions, disaster response, and federal oversight. Its legacy continues to influence how courts distinguish between operational negligence and protected policy judgment.

A Manhattan federal jury found that Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the concert ticketing market. Jurors concluded that the companies controlled primary ticketing services for major venues and used exclusionary tactics to limit competition. One key finding was that Live Nation tied access to its large amphitheaters to the use of its promotional services, restricting competitors. The jury also determined that this conduct harmed competition across dozens of states and led to measurable overcharges for some consumers.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states and originally included the U.S. Department of Justice, which settled during the trial. That settlement proposed structural changes, including making Ticketmaster’s technology available to rivals and limiting certain exclusive venue agreements. It also included a financial component, though many states rejected the deal and continued litigating. The jury ultimately found violations of multiple state laws and confirmed anticompetitive effects in the live entertainment industry.

Despite the verdict, key issues remain unresolved, including how much damages the companies will owe and whether structural remedies—such as forcing a sale of Ticketmaster—will be imposed. Live Nation has indicated it will challenge the ruling and pursue post-trial motions and appeals. The case is significant because it addresses how vertical integration across ticketing, promotion, and venues can influence market power.

Jury Finds Live Nation Monopolized Concert Ticketing - Law360

Freedom Forever, a California-based home solar installer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware with more than $500 million in debt. The company reported liabilities between $500 million and $1 billion, compared to assets estimated between $100 million and $500 million. Among its largest creditors are affiliates of Mosaic, which are owed about $114 million in unsecured claims.

Founded in 2011, Freedom Forever has completed over 150,000 residential solar installations across 32 states and employs roughly 3,000 workers. Its bankruptcy comes amid broader financial strain in the home solar industry, where several companies have recently filed for Chapter 11. Industry-wide challenges include declining demand driven by higher interest rates, which make financing solar projects more expensive, and the expiration of a key federal tax credit for residential solar installations.

Other major solar companies, including SunPower and Sunnova, have also faced financial distress in recent years. The case highlights ongoing instability in the residential solar sector as companies struggle with shifting economic conditions.

Solar Co. Freedom Forever Hits Ch. 11 With Over $500M Debt - Law360

John Eastman, a former lawyer for Donald Trump, was disbarred by the California Supreme Court for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The decision followed earlier findings by the State Bar of California that he violated professional ethics rules by making false statements and misleading courts. Although the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it upheld conclusions that his legal arguments lacked factual and legal support.

Eastman had promoted theories that then–Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify certain electoral votes, a position Pence rejected as unconstitutional. He also filed unsuccessful litigation seeking to invalidate election results in multiple states and spoke at the rally preceding the January 6 Capitol attack. These actions were central to the findings that he breached his duty of honesty and undermined the legal system.

Eastman plans to appeal the disbarment to the U.S. Supreme Court and has pleaded not guilty to related criminal charges in Arizona and Georgia, some of which have since been dropped. The ruling underscores that attorneys can face severe professional consequences for advancing unsupported legal claims, particularly in matters affecting democratic processes. At the same time, disbarment is a professional penalty rather than a criminal one, meaning Eastman is facing significantly less severe consequences than individuals in past attempts to overturn the government—such as participants in the Confederacy—who were met with far harsher legal and historical repercussions.

Trump ally John Eastman is disbarred over bid to overturn 2020 election | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: McDonald’s Franchise Opening

On this day in 1955, Ray Kroc opened his first franchise location for McDonald’s in Des Plaines, Illinois, marking a turning point in American business and legal history. Although franchising existed before this moment, Kroc’s model introduced a new level of uniformity and control that reshaped how franchise systems operate. He required strict adherence to standardized procedures, branding, and product quality, which became central features of modern franchise agreements. These agreements are legally binding contracts that define the relationship between franchisors and franchisees, including fees, territorial rights, and operational obligations. As McDonald’s expanded rapidly, it exposed gaps in existing business laws governing franchising practices. This growth led to increased scrutiny over issues such as disclosure requirements and fairness in contract terms.

By the 1970s, concerns about deceptive practices and unequal bargaining power prompted regulatory responses, including the Federal Trade Commission’s Franchise Rule. This rule requires franchisors to provide detailed disclosures to prospective franchisees, improving transparency and reducing fraud. Kroc’s model also raised legal questions about liability, particularly whether franchisors could be held responsible for the actions of independently owned franchise locations. Courts have since developed tests to determine the level of control necessary to establish such liability. Additionally, franchise law has evolved to address disputes over termination rights and non-compete clauses. The McDonald’s system became a case study in how private contracts can shape an entire industry’s legal framework. Today, franchising remains a major part of the global economy, with legal standards that can be traced back to the system Kroc helped popularize.

The NAACP filed a lawsuit against xAI in federal court in Mississippi, alleging that the company violated environmental laws while operating a gas-powered plant tied to its data center near Memphis. The complaint claims xAI built and ran the plant without obtaining required permits under the Clean Air Act. According to the NAACP, the plant emits harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and formaldehyde, which are linked to serious health risks including asthma, heart conditions, and cancer. The organization argues that these emissions disproportionately affect nearby communities with large Black populations.

The lawsuit also alleges that xAI deliberately avoided regulatory oversight by skipping the permitting process, which would have required pollution controls and environmental review. The plant is described as a major regional source of smog-forming emissions, potentially releasing large quantities of pollutants into the air. The NAACP is seeking court orders to halt operations until proper permits are obtained, require emission controls, and impose financial penalties for violations. The case reflects broader concerns about environmental justice, corporate compliance, and the rapid expansion of infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence technologies.

NAACP Sues Musk’s XAI Over Data Center Pollution In Miss. - Law360

Albertsons has agreed in principle to pay $773 million to resolve claims brought by several states, local governments, and Native American tribes over its alleged role in the opioid crisis. The agreement involves attorneys general from states including California, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, though some terms—such as requirements for future conduct—are still being negotiated. The states claim the company contributed to the public health crisis through its pharmacy operations, while Albertsons maintains the settlement does not admit wrongdoing.

This deal is part of a broader wave of opioid-related litigation targeting companies across the pharmaceutical supply chain. Governments have accused pharmacies, distributors, and manufacturers of contributing to widespread addiction through improper practices. Other major settlements, including those involving Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, have pushed total payouts in opioid cases beyond $50 billion nationwide.

Funds from the Albertsons settlement are expected to support addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery programs, with allocation plans already in place in some states. Officials emphasized that these settlements aim to both address past harm and fund ongoing efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.

State AGs, Albertsons Chain Reach $773M Opioid Deal - Law360

Amazon has agreed to acquire Globalstar for about $11.6 billion as part of its push into satellite-based internet services. The deal will give Amazon access to Globalstar’s satellite network, spectrum rights, and infrastructure, helping expand its low Earth orbit (LEO) system aimed at providing global connectivity without relying on traditional cell towers.

Under the agreement, Globalstar shareholders can receive either cash or Amazon stock, with the total deal value capped at $90 per share. A majority of Globalstar shareholders have already approved the transaction, but it still requires regulatory clearance and fulfillment of certain operational conditions before closing, which is slotted for 2027.

The acquisition positions Amazon to compete more directly in the growing satellite internet market, where companies like SpaceX’s Starlink currently dominate. Globalstar’s existing technology and planned satellite upgrades are expected to strengthen Amazon’s ability to deliver direct-to-device connectivity worldwide. The deal also ties into Amazon’s partnership with Apple, supporting satellite features on devices like iPhones and Apple Watches.

Paul Weiss, Skadden Lead Amazon’s $11.6B Globalstar Deal - Law360

A law student at Texas Tech University has filed a federal lawsuit claiming the school violated her First Amendment rights by disciplining her over comments about the killing of Charlie Kirk. The student, Ellen Fisher, alleges she was unfairly singled out for punishment while other students who discussed the same topic were not disciplined. She received a written reprimand, which she argues could negatively affect her ability to become a licensed attorney.

Fisher maintains that her statements were part of normal academic discussion and did not celebrate Kirk’s death, despite claims from at least one witness. She also argues the university’s investigation was flawed because it ignored testimony supporting her version of events. The university concluded her remarks could have been perceived as celebratory and violated professional conduct standards.

The lawsuit seeks to block the disciplinary action, obtain damages, and secure a ruling that the university infringed on her constitutional free speech rights. The case comes amid broader national debates over campus speech and how universities respond to controversial or sensitive political discussions.

Texas law student sues to stop sanctions over Charlie Kirk comments | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln is Shot at Ford’s Theatre

On April 14, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford’s Theatre by John Wilkes Booth, an act that would alter the trajectory of Reconstruction and American legal history. Lincoln’s life story makes the moment even more striking: born in poverty in a Kentucky log cabin, largely self-educated, and rising through persistence rather than privilege, he embodied a form of democratic possibility rare among world leaders. Over time, his legal and political thinking evolved in meaningful ways, particularly on questions of equality and civil rights. While early in his career he held more limited views, the Civil War years reshaped his outlook, pushing him toward support for Black suffrage and, by some accounts, openness to broader enfranchisement, including for women.

Frederick Douglass, who met with Lincoln during the war, captured this complexity well, noting that Lincoln was “preeminently the white man’s President,” yet also “the first to show any respect for the rights of the black man.” Douglass emphasized that Lincoln’s greatness lay not in perfection, but in growth—his capacity to move, under pressure and moral reflection, toward justice. By April 1865, Lincoln was publicly advocating limited Black voting rights, particularly for Black soldiers and educated men, a position that suggested further expansion might follow in his second term.

That possibility was cut short on the night of April 14, when Booth entered the presidential box during a performance and fired a single shot at close range. Lincoln died the following morning, and with him vanished a moderating but increasingly progressive force in Reconstruction policy. In the years that followed, many of the shortcomings we associate with Reconstruction—including the narrowing of federal protections seen in cases like United States v. Cruikshank—took hold in a political environment Lincoln never had the chance to shape. His assassination opened the door to a more fractured and often less protective approach to civil rights enforcement.

A little-known but striking footnote to this story involves Edwin Booth, the brother of Lincoln’s assassin, who months earlier had unknowingly saved the life of the president’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln. At a crowded train platform in Jersey City, Robert slipped and fell between the train and the platform just as the car began to move. Edwin Booth, standing nearby, quickly grabbed him by the collar and pulled him to safety, preventing what could have been a fatal accident. The two men did not recognize each other at the time, and Booth only later learned whose life he had saved. The incident has since taken on a symbolic quality in legal and historical writing, illustrating the strange intersections of fate surrounding the Lincoln family in the days leading up to April 1865.

Legally and historically, April 14 stands as a hinge moment: not only the loss of a president, but the loss of a developing constitutional vision. Lincoln’s trajectory suggests that Reconstruction might have unfolded differently under his continued leadership, particularly on voting rights and federal protection of equality. Douglass later reflected that Lincoln’s legacy should be judged not by where he began, but by how far he traveled. That journey—from humble origins to an evolving commitment to equality—remains central to understanding both the promise and the unfinished work of American law.

After his death, Abraham Lincoln’s body was carried on a funeral train that retraced, in reverse, the route he had taken to Washington as president-elect in 1861, passing through many of the same stations and drawing massive crowds at every stop. The train’s journey from Washington, D.C. to Springfield became a rolling national mourning, with citizens lining the tracks to pay their respects to the fallen leader. In a deeply symbolic sense, the trip marked the completion of Lincoln’s final journey—returning him to the place where his political life had taken root, even as the nation he led struggled to carry forward the work he unwittingly left unfinished.

President Donald Trump announced plans to nominate Matthew Schwartz, his personal lawyer in the New York hush money case, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Schwartz is a longtime partner at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and joined Trump’s legal team in 2025 to handle the appeal after prior attorneys moved into government roles. Trump praised Schwartz as a strong opponent of government overreach and highlighted his experience in high-level federal and state litigation. In addition to the criminal appeal, Schwartz is also representing Trump in a civil fraud case brought by Letitia James, where his team recently urged the state’s highest court to dismiss the claims as politically motivated. Schwartz previously clerked for Samuel Alito and worked at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, and he is a graduate of Columbia Law School.

Trump Taps Personal Attorney for Second Circuit

An Illinois jury in Cook County added $17 million in punitive damages to an earlier $53 million award against Abbott Laboratories in a case brought by four mothers whose premature infants developed necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed the company’s formula. The jury previously found in favor of the plaintiffs on claims including failure to warn, negligence, and product defect, awarding individual damages based on the harm suffered by each child, all of whom survived but face lasting health complications.

Plaintiffs argued they were not informed of the risks associated with the formula and would have made different feeding decisions had they known. Abbott disputed liability, maintaining that its products are safe and that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between its formula and the condition, and said it plans to appeal. The trial judge allowed punitive damages after finding evidence the company may have withheld risk information, and also criticized testimony suggesting mothers should not be told about such risks. The case is part of broader, ongoing litigation over infant formula, with mixed outcomes in courts across the country.

Ill. Jury Adds $17M Punitive Award To Baby Formula Verdict - Law360

In my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that new IRS guidance on opportunity zones largely revives the original program from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without addressing its core flaws—and may even worsen them. While the framework still aims to direct private capital into distressed communities through tax incentives, the updated rules expand where zones can be drawn and lower investment thresholds, particularly in rural areas. In practice, that means more projects will qualify, but fewer are likely to deliver the kind of transformative impact the policy was designed to achieve.

The first iteration showed that investment tended to flow toward already developing areas with stronger returns, not the communities most in need, and the new guidance does little to change that incentive structure. Governors retain broad discretion in selecting zones, a feature that previously led to politically influenced designations rather than data-driven ones. By easing standards like the “substantial improvement” requirement, the revised rules make it easier for incremental upgrades—not meaningful redevelopment—to receive tax benefits. As a result, the program risks continuing to function more as a subsidy for already viable projects than as a tool for economic revitalization. I suggest that a more effective approach would tie both zone designation and tax benefits to measurable outcomes like housing growth, job creation, or business investment, while reducing discretionary selection in favor of objective economic criteria.

This Day in Legal History: Colfax Massacre

On April 13, 1873, one of the most violent and legally significant event of the Reconstruction era unfolded in Louisiana with the Colfax Massacre. The conflict arose from a disputed gubernatorial election, as competing groups claimed control of local government in Grant Parish. Black citizens, many of them formerly enslaved, gathered at the courthouse in Colfax to defend the Republican-backed election outcome. White supremacist militias, determined to overturn Reconstruction governments, attacked the courthouse with overwhelming force. By the end of the confrontation, dozens of Black men had been killed, many after surrendering, making it one of the deadliest incidents of racial violence during Reconstruction.

In the aftermath, federal prosecutors sought to hold members of the attacking group accountable under the Enforcement Acts, which were designed to protect the civil rights of newly freed citizens. These prosecutions led to the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Cruikshank. The Court ultimately overturned the convictions, ruling that the federal government’s authority to prosecute such crimes was limited. It held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state actions, not the conduct of private individuals. This interpretation sharply narrowed the scope of federal power to intervene in cases of racial violence and civil rights violations.

The decision effectively left Black citizens in the South vulnerable to attacks by private groups, as state authorities were often unwilling to prosecute perpetrators. It also signaled a broader retreat from Reconstruction policies, undermining efforts to enforce equality through federal law. For decades, this ruling stood as a major barrier to civil rights enforcement, shaping the legal landscape well into the twentieth century. The legacy of Colfax and Cruikshank illustrates how judicial interpretation can either strengthen or weaken constitutional protections, particularly during periods of social and political upheaval.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has launched a new initiative aimed at investigating so-called “birth tourism” networks. These are groups that allegedly help pregnant foreign nationals enter the United States on temporary visas with the goal of giving birth so their children obtain U.S. citizenship. The effort is part of a broader immigration crackdown under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has emphasized stricter controls on both legal and illegal immigration.

An internal ICE directive instructs agents to identify fraud and organized operations that may be facilitating these activities. While giving birth in the U.S. is not illegal, authorities are focusing on potential misuse of visas and false statements in applications. A 2020 regulation already bars individuals from using tourist visas primarily for the purpose of securing citizenship for a child, meaning violations could lead to fraud charges.

The administration has also used birth tourism as a justification for attempting to limit birthright citizenship, a right grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump issued an executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, but multiple courts have blocked the policy, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court. Government lawyers argue that birthright citizenship has encouraged an industry built around these practices, though data suggests such cases represent only a small fraction of total U.S. births.

ICE’s initiative will focus on uncovering fraud and dismantling organized networks, similar to past prosecutions involving “birth houses” that catered to foreign clients. However, the overall scale of birth tourism remains unclear, and officials have not indicated how many cases they expect to pursue.

Exclusive: ICE launches new effort to uncover US ‘birth tourism schemes’ | Reuters

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Meta Platforms must face a lawsuit brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. The lawsuit claims that Instagram was intentionally designed to be addictive for children and teenagers. This decision is significant because it is the first time a state high court has addressed whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act can shield a company from claims focused on platform design rather than user-generated content.

The court unanimously found that the case can proceed because it targets Meta’s own conduct, not the content posted by users. Specifically, the lawsuit argues that Instagram’s features—such as notifications, “likes,” and endless scrolling—exploit young users’ psychological vulnerabilities. It also alleges that Meta misled the public about the platform’s safety and ignored internal research showing harm to teenagers.

Meta disagrees with the ruling and maintains that the distinction between content and design is flawed, expressing confidence it will ultimately prevail. Meanwhile, the decision is part of a broader wave of litigation across the United States, with multiple states and plaintiffs accusing social media companies of contributing to a youth mental health crisis. Some recent cases have already resulted in significant financial penalties and verdicts against Meta and similar companies.

Meta must face youth addiction lawsuit by Massachusetts, court rules | Reuters

You’re getting a double dose of Meta today, with a second development tied to the growing wave of social media addiction litigation.

Meta Platforms announced it will remove advertisements on Facebook and Instagram that were being used by law firms to recruit plaintiffs for lawsuits alleging its platforms are addictive to young users. The company said it is actively defending itself in thousands of ongoing cases and does not want attorneys using its services to find clients while simultaneously arguing those platforms are harmful. This move comes shortly after major courtroom setbacks, including jury verdicts that ordered Meta to pay millions in damages tied to alleged harms from youth social media use.

The broader litigation landscape is large and still expanding. Thousands of cases are pending in both state and federal courts, many involving claims that platforms like Instagram were designed to encourage compulsive use and contributed to mental health issues among minors. Plaintiffs include individuals as well as public entities like school districts and states, which argue they have had to spend resources addressing the effects of social media on young people. Meta and other tech companies deny these allegations and maintain they have taken steps to improve user safety.

The ads at issue are part of a common practice in mass tort litigation, where law firms seek out large numbers of plaintiffs to build cases. These firms often work on contingency, meaning they only get paid if they win or settle, which creates an incentive to recruit clients through widespread advertising. Some attorneys criticized Meta’s decision, arguing that blocking ads could make it harder for potential victims to learn about their legal options.

Meta pulls ads aimed at recruiting plaintiffs for social media addiction lawsuits | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Jackie Robinson Signs with Dodgers

On April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson’s signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.

Robinson’s entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.

The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson’s breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.

Robinson’s signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.

A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic’s earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.

Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google’s idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.

The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google’s billing system. After Epic’s win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.

Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.

‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,’ Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.

Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.

The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL’s longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.

US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | Reuters

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists’ access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department’s revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists’ ability to seek information from government sources.

Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government’s argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court’s ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.

The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters’ physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government’s security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.

Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.

‘Mark Of Autocracy’: Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360

US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | Reuters

A U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump’s 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.

The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.

US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866

On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.

The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.

In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.

A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.

Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.

Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.

At the center of the case is whether Mehta’s termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.

Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong’ - Law360

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.

The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency’s workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.

Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.

The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency’s actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.

HHS Must Face States’ Suit Over RFK’s ‘Dramatic Overhaul’ - Law360

John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.

The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.

In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company’s control over the repair market.

The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.

John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers’ Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth Amendment Ratified

On April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became part of the Constitution after receiving the necessary number of state ratifications. This amendment fundamentally changed the method of selecting U.S. senators, shifting the power from state legislatures directly to voters. Prior to its adoption, senators were chosen by state lawmakers, a process that had increasingly drawn criticism for corruption and political deadlock. Reformers argued that legislative selection allowed special interests to exert undue influence over Senate seats. The amendment emerged during the Progressive Era, a period marked by widespread efforts to make government more democratic and transparent. By mandating direct elections, it aimed to increase accountability and restore public trust in the federal government. The change also reduced the frequency of vacancies caused by legislative gridlock in the states. Supporters viewed the amendment as a necessary correction to a system that had strayed from democratic principles. Critics, however, warned that it weakened the role of states within the federal structure. The ratification process itself reflected strong public pressure for reform across many states. Over time, the amendment reshaped the political dynamics of the Senate, making senators more responsive to public opinion. It also aligned the Senate more closely with the House of Representatives in terms of democratic legitimacy. Today, the Seventeenth Amendment remains a cornerstone of how Americans participate in federal elections, illustrating the enduring impact of Progressive Era reforms.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that Donald Trump has both the right and responsibility to influence federal investigations, including those involving people Trump views as adversaries. Speaking publicly for the first time since taking the role, Blanche rejected claims that the Justice Department was improperly targeting Trump’s opponents. He argued that a president is expected to guide national priorities, even when that includes investigations tied to personal or political conflicts.

The Justice Department has recently pursued multiple investigations involving individuals connected to past inquiries into Trump, as well as political opponents and donors. Some of these efforts have faced resistance in court, with judges and grand juries limiting or dismissing certain cases. Blanche pointed to past prosecutions against Trump as justification, saying the president is seeking accountability for what he views as misuse of the legal system.

Blanche’s appointment followed Trump’s firing of former Attorney General Pam Bondi, reportedly due to frustration over the pace and results of investigations. Blanche did not say whether he wants to remain in the role permanently, emphasizing that the decision rests with Trump. He also indicated he would step aside if asked, expressing loyalty to the president.

Acting DOJ chief Blanche says Trump has ‘right’ to influence investigations | Reuters

Yale Law School lost its long-held No. 1 position in the latest U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, marking the first time in 36 years it has not topped the list. Stanford Law School now holds the sole No. 1 spot, while Yale is tied for second with University of Chicago Law School. A slight drop in Yale’s employment rate for graduates appears to have contributed to the shift, though other metrics like bar passage and LSAT scores remained stable.

The rankings also saw broader changes among the traditionally top 14 law schools, known as the “T-14.” University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Georgetown University Law Center both fell out of that group, while Cornell Law School and Vanderbilt University Law School moved up in the rankings. Other schools, including University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and University of Virginia School of Law, saw smaller gains, while Harvard Law School remained steady.

These fluctuations reflect changes in the ranking methodology introduced in recent years after several top schools, including Yale and Berkeley, criticized the system. The updated approach relies more heavily on data reported to the American Bar Association, making small differences in employment and bar passage rates more influential.

Yale loses longtime No. 1 spot on latest US law school ranking | Reuters

AI startups are increasingly targeting law students as part of a broader effort to capture the legal services market. Companies like Harvey AI and Legora are offering free access and training at top law schools, hoping students will continue using their tools once they enter law firms and corporate legal roles. This strategy comes as the legal AI sector expands rapidly, fueled by advances in generative AI since the rise of ChatGPT.

These startups compete with established providers like LexisNexis and Westlaw, which have long dominated legal research and are now integrating AI into their platforms. While legacy companies rely on proprietary legal databases, newer entrants build tools on large language models and focus on tasks like drafting, research, and litigation preparation. Some partnerships have even emerged between startups and traditional providers to combine strengths.

Law students are already using these tools for exam preparation, memo writing, and simulating legal arguments. Schools and companies also view this exposure as a way to teach both the benefits and risks of AI, including issues like inaccurate or “hallucinated” outputs. The broader goal is to create familiarity early, making future lawyers more likely to adopt these tools in practice.

Other legal tech companies, including Clio and Spellbook, are pursuing similar partnerships, expanding access across hundreds of law schools. As competition grows, early access and training are becoming key battlegrounds for shaping the next generation of legal professionals.

AI startups court law students in fight for lawyer market | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: WHO Established

On April 7, 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was officially established when its constitution entered into force, marking a pivotal moment in the development of international law. The creation of the WHO reflected a growing recognition among nations that public health challenges transcend borders and require coordinated legal and institutional responses. Its constitution set out a broad definition of health as a fundamental human right, helping to shape future legal frameworks and policy discussions worldwide. By joining the organization, member states accepted binding obligations, particularly in the areas of disease surveillance, reporting, and cooperation. These obligations were designed to promote transparency and rapid response to emerging health threats, which had historically spread unchecked due to limited coordination.

The WHO’s legal framework also empowered the organization to issue regulations and recommendations, including what would later become the International Health Regulations, a key tool in managing global health emergencies. This marked an important shift toward formalized international governance in public health, moving beyond informal cooperation to structured legal commitments. The constitution further established the World Health Assembly, giving member states a forum to negotiate and adopt health-related policies with legal and political significance. Over time, the WHO has played a central role in shaping international responses to pandemics, vaccination efforts, and health equity initiatives. Its authority, while not absolute, carries significant influence in both legal and diplomatic contexts.

A group of YouTube creators has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the company improperly used their copyrighted videos to train its AI video-generation tool, Nova Reel. The plaintiffs claim Amazon bypassed YouTube’s technological safeguards to access and download large amounts of video content without permission. According to the complaint, Amazon used automated scraping tools and techniques like rotating IP addresses to avoid detection while extracting videos at scale. The creators argue that this conduct violated both YouTube’s terms of service and federal copyright law.

The lawsuit specifically alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, focusing on Amazon’s alleged circumvention of technological protection measures designed to safeguard content. Plaintiffs claim their videos were then used for Amazon’s commercial benefit in developing its AI system, without compensation or consent. They also argue that once content is used to train AI models, it cannot be effectively removed, causing lasting harm to creators. The complaint challenges Amazon’s characterization of its training data as “publicly available,” arguing that availability does not equal lawful use.

The creators seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose content may have been similarly used. They are asking for damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Amazon’s actions were willful. The case highlights broader tensions between content creators and AI developers over data sourcing practices. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other AI companies, reflecting a growing wave of litigation in this area.

YouTube Creators Say Amazon Scrapes Videos To Train AI - Law360

The Supreme Court of the United States has sent a long-running lawsuit over alleged FBI surveillance of Muslims in Southern California back to a lower court for reconsideration. The case, brought by several individuals including Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, claims the FBI unlawfully monitored their community using an informant after 9/11. The justices did not rule on the merits but instead instructed the lower courts to revisit the case in light of new factual developments and the government’s motion to dismiss.

At the center of the dispute is the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that allows the government to block litigation if it risks exposing national security information. The FBI has argued that continuing the case could reveal sensitive intelligence methods and weaken this protection. Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed parts of the lawsuit to move forward, reasoning that courts should not dismiss claims too early without fully examining whether secret evidence is truly necessary. The appellate court suggested possible ways to proceed while protecting classified information, such as limited judicial review of sensitive materials.

The Supreme Court’s earlier 2022 decision confirmed that the state secrets privilege applies but left open how it should be used in this case. The Ninth Circuit later revived some claims, while still dismissing others against individual agents. The government challenged that ruling, arguing it forces courts to rely on protected information in ways that undermine the privilege. Plaintiffs, however, maintain their case can proceed using non-classified evidence and that the subject matter itself is not a state secret.

The remand keeps the case alive but unresolved, requiring the lower courts to reassess whether it can proceed without endangering national security. The outcome could shape how courts handle similar conflicts between civil rights claims and government secrecy.

Justices Remand State Secrets Dispute In FBI Spying Case - Law360

In my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine how a major IRS modernization effort fell short—not simply because of execution issues, but because of chronic underfunding. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that funds from the Inflation Reduction Act that were intended for modernization were largely redirected to cover basic operations. Instead of transforming systems and rebuilding long-term capacity, the IRS used much of the money to sustain staffing and maintain existing IT infrastructure. In my view, this outcome was predictable given the agency’s longstanding resource constraints.

I explain how budget cuts and workforce reductions undermined the modernization initiative from the start. Even with new funding, the IRS still had to meet its core obligation of processing hundreds of millions of tax returns each year. Faced with those pressures, it prioritized immediate operational needs over long-term upgrades, including spending significant sums on routine IT maintenance. I also point out that contractor spending surged, reflecting a growing reliance on outside support rather than investment in internal expertise.

The report highlights inefficiencies as well, including canceled or reworked contracts that consumed large amounts of funding without delivering meaningful results. At the same time, labor costs remained elevated due to the complexities of downsizing, creating a situation where the IRS was both shrinking its workforce and paying contractors to compensate for lost capacity. I argue that this pattern is better understood as institutional outsourcing rather than modernization.

Ultimately, I contend that real modernization cannot occur without stable baseline funding for core operations. Without that foundation, any new investment will continue to be diverted toward keeping the agency running. My conclusion is that Congress attempted to modernize the IRS without first ensuring its institutional stability, making the outcome not just disappointing, but largely inevitable.

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1968

On April 6, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, marking a major expansion of federal civil rights protections. Commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation aimed to eliminate discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. It prohibited unequal treatment based on race, religion, and national origin, later expanding to include sex and other protected characteristics. The law emerged during a period of national unrest, passed just days after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. King had long advocated for fair housing as a central component of racial equality, particularly in Northern cities.

The Act addressed systemic practices such as redlining, steering, and discriminatory lending that had historically segregated communities. It gave the federal government authority to enforce fair housing standards, though early enforcement mechanisms were relatively weak. Over time, amendments strengthened the law, adding protections for people with disabilities and families with children. The statute also allowed individuals to file complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or pursue private lawsuits. Courts have since played a key role in interpreting the scope of the Act, especially in recognizing claims based on disparate impact.

A central legal concept tied to the Fair Housing Act is disparate impact, which refers to policies that appear neutral but disproportionately harm protected groups. Unlike intentional discrimination, disparate impact does not require proof of discriminatory intent, only that a practice has an unequal effect. This theory became firmly established in housing law through later litigation and was upheld by the Supreme Court in cases interpreting the Act. It remains a critical tool for challenging structural inequality in housing markets.

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 represented both a response to national tragedy and a continuation of the broader civil rights movement’s legislative achievements.

A federal judge refused to reverse his earlier decision blocking subpoenas targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, effectively pausing a criminal investigation and setting up a likely appeal. Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that prosecutors failed to show any valid basis for suspecting wrongdoing and criticized the lack of evidence supporting fraud allegations. He had previously found that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose, suggesting they were meant to pressure Powell to lower interest rates or step down.

The subpoenas, issued by prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, sought information about cost overruns at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters and Powell’s prior congressional testimony. However, the court found no good-faith basis for believing a crime had occurred. Prosecutors argued the judge applied too strict a standard and misread the timeline of the investigation, but the court rejected those claims. Pirro’s office has said it will appeal the ruling, a move supported by Justice Department leadership.

The dispute reflects broader tensions between Powell and allies of President Donald Trump, with Powell arguing the investigation is an attempt to influence Federal Reserve policy. The appeal could delay efforts to confirm Kevin Warsh as a replacement for Powell, as some lawmakers have pledged to block the nomination while the case continues. Powell has said he will remain in his role until the legal challenge is resolved.

US judge upholds block on subpoenas to Fed’s Powell, teeing up likely appeal | Reuters

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring public universities in 17 states to provide extensive admissions data related to race and sex. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction after state attorneys general challenged the policy, arguing it was imposed too quickly and created legal risks for schools. The data request came from the Department of Education, which sought seven years of information to evaluate whether colleges were complying with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that ended affirmative action in higher education.

The states argued that the reporting requirement was confusing and could expose universities to penalties for accidental errors. The court agreed that the rollout was “rushed and chaotic,” noting that officials failed to properly consider concerns raised by universities. At the same time, the judge acknowledged that the Department of Education does have legal authority to collect such data in general. The issue, he emphasized, was how the policy was implemented, not necessarily the underlying power itself.

The ruling also pointed to practical problems, including staffing shortages within the agency after workforce reductions, which made it harder to manage the data collection process. Officials in states like New York and California supported the decision, saying schools should not be forced to produce large amounts of sensitive information under unclear requirements.

Trump administration can’t make colleges provide race-related data, judge rules | Reuters

The Trump administration filed an emergency motion asking an appeals court to allow construction to resume on a planned White House ballroom after a judge ordered the project paused. The administration argued that stopping the work creates serious security risks, claiming the site has been left vulnerable and could endanger the president, staff, and the building itself. The pause was ordered by Judge Richard Leon, who halted construction while a legal challenge moves forward.

The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that President Donald Trumpexceeded his authority by demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning a $400 million replacement project without congressional approval. In response, the administration claims the lawsuit is legally flawed and that the president has full authority to renovate the White House. It also argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, meaning they do not have a sufficient legal stake to bring the case.

Judge Leon temporarily paused his own order for 14 days to give the administration time to appeal, and the new emergency motion asks the appellate court to lift the construction halt entirely. The administration further contends that the lower court should not have heard the case at all, characterizing the claims as based on subjective concerns rather than legal injury.

Trump administration files emergency motion to resume ballroom work, citing security issues | Reuters