This Day in Legal History: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
On this day in legal history, November 14, 1922, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, a foundational case in American property law. At issue was a Pennsylvania statute—the Kohler Act—that prohibited coal mining beneath certain structures to prevent surface subsidence. The Pennsylvania Coal Company had previously sold the surface rights to a parcel of land but retained the right to mine the coal beneath. When the state blocked their ability to do so, the company sued, arguing that the law had effectively stripped them of valuable property rights without compensation. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the majority opinion.
In his decision, Holmes introduced the now-famous principle that “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” This line marked the birth of the regulatory takings doctrine, which holds that government actions short of full appropriation can still require just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Holmes emphasized that the economic impact of a regulation on the property owner must be weighed, not just the public interest it serves. In this case, the regulation was deemed too burdensome to be considered a mere exercise of police power.
The Court sided with the coal company, holding that the Kohler Act, as applied, amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The dissent, penned by Justice Brandeis, warned against undermining states’ ability to protect public welfare. Despite being a 5–4 decision, Mahon has had lasting influence on land use, zoning, and environmental regulation. It reframed the boundaries between public regulation and private rights, signaling that not all public-interest laws are immune from constitutional scrutiny. Today, Mahon remains a cornerstone case for litigants challenging regulations that significantly diminish property value.
A Texas judge is set to hear arguments on Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request to block Kenvue from issuing a $398 million dividend and from marketing Tylenol as safe during pregnancy. Paxton sued Kenvue in October, accusing the company of hiding risks linked to prenatal Tylenol use, including autism and ADHD—a claim not supported by the broader medical community. The lawsuit follows public comments by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoting the same unproven theory. Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson, which previously owned Tylenol, maintain the drug’s safety and argue the state has no authority to interfere in federal drug regulation or corporate dividends.
The companies also say the dividend will not impair Kenvue’s solvency and warn that Paxton’s effort could undermine both the First Amendment and the credibility of Texas courts. Paxton, however, argues that the public interest justifies intervention, citing potential future liabilities from Tylenol and talc-related lawsuits. He contends that misleading commercial speech can be regulated, and that the dividend should be halted to preserve cash in the face of those risks. The case could have broader implications, particularly for Kimberly-Clark’s $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, announced shortly after the lawsuit. Kenvue has vowed to appeal any injunction.
Judge to weigh if Texas AG can block Kenvue dividend over Tylenol claims | Reuters
Sierra Leone has reached a tentative settlement with U.S. law firm Jenner & Block to resolve a dispute over $8.1 million in unpaid legal fees. The law firm sued the West African nation in 2022, claiming it was still owed money for representing Sierra Leone in a high-stakes case against Gerald International Ltd., which had sought $1.8 billion in damages over an iron ore export ban. Jenner argued the legal work was more extensive than initially expected and said it had only been paid $3.6 million by the end of 2021.
Sierra Leone pushed back, disputing the existence of a valid contract and asserting that no further payments were owed. The country also tried to claim sovereign immunity, but a federal judge rejected those arguments in January, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey announced the settlement in principle last week, although specific terms were not disclosed. Neither party has commented publicly on the resolution.
Sierra Leone, law firm Jenner & Block reach settlement over $8 million legal tab | Reuters
McDermott Will & Emery has become the first major U.S. law firm to publicly confirm that it is considering private equity investment, signaling a potential shift in how Big Law might operate. The firm’s chairman acknowledged preliminary talks with outside investors, a move that stunned the legal industry, where non-lawyer ownership has long been resisted due to ethical and regulatory restrictions. McDermott is reportedly exploring a structure that would separate its legal services from administrative operations by creating a managed service organization (MSO) owned by outside investors, allowing the firm to raise capital without violating professional conduct rules.
This model has gained traction among smaller firms, but McDermott’s adoption could legitimize the MSO approach for large firms. Proponents argue it would free lawyers to focus on client work while upgrading support systems through external funding. Critics caution that it involves relinquishing control of critical firm functions and raises concerns about maintaining ethical standards, particularly regarding fee-sharing with non-lawyers. While still early, industry experts say other firms are beginning to explore similar paths to stay competitive, especially in jurisdictions like Arizona that allow non-lawyer ownership.
McDermott’s Outside Investor Talks Augur Big Law Transformation
The Trump administration has filed suit against California over its recently approved congressional redistricting maps, which were adopted through a ballot initiative known as Proposition 50. The measure, passed by voters last week, allows temporary use of new district lines that could give Democrats up to five additional U.S. House seats. The Justice Department joined a lawsuit initially filed by the California Republican Party and several voters, alleging that the redistricting plan was racially motivated and unconstitutional.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the maps a “brazen power grab,” accusing California of using race to unlawfully boost Hispanic voting power. California Governor Gavin Newsom dismissed the lawsuit, framing it as retaliation for California’s resistance to Trump’s broader political agenda. Newsom also argued that the new maps are a necessary corrective to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts, like those in Texas, where civil rights groups have sued over alleged dilution of minority voting power.
The lawsuit claims California’s map violates the U.S. Constitution by improperly using race in the redistricting process. The outcome could impact the balance of power in the House and add fuel to ongoing legal battles over partisan and racial gerrymandering nationwide.
Trump administration sues California over new redistricting maps | Reuters
This week’s closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.
This week’s closing theme is the first movement of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, a work that balances classical clarity with Beethoven’s unmistakable wit and rhythmic drive. Composed in 1812 during a period of personal turmoil, the Eighth is often described as a cheerful outlier among his symphonies, compact and effervescent despite being written amid deteriorating health and emotional strain. It was premiered in 1814, but it was a revival performance on November 14, 1814, in Vienna that helped solidify its reputation and gave the public a second opportunity to appreciate its lightness and humor in contrast to the more dramatic works surrounding it.
Unlike the grand scale of the Seventh or Ninth, the Eighth is shorter and more classical in form, often drawing comparisons to Haydn in its wit and economy. Yet Beethoven infuses it with his unique voice—syncopations, dynamic extremes, and abrupt harmonic shifts abound, particularly in the first movement. The Allegro vivace e con brio opens with a bold, playful theme, tossing melodic fragments between the orchestra with cheerful assertiveness. It’s less stormy than many of Beethoven’s first movements, but no less commanding.
Critics at the time were puzzled by the symphony’s restraint and humor, expecting more overt heroism from Beethoven. But modern listeners often recognize the Eighth as a masterwork of compression and invention. The first movement in particular plays with rhythmic momentum, frequently disrupting expectations just as they form. There’s a confidence in its restraint, a knowing smile behind the forceful accents and offbeat rhythms. It’s music that’s both technically impressive and viscerally enjoyable, which is perhaps why Beethoven held it in especially high regard.
As we close out the week, we leave you with that November 14 revival spirit—a reminder that even a “little Symphony” can land with enduring force.
Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, enjoy!
