This Day in Legal History: Social Security Amendments
On November 10, 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at addressing a looming fiscal crisis in the Social Security system. At the time, the program was projected to run out of funds within months, threatening benefits for millions of retirees. The bipartisan effort, led by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, produced a package of reforms that fundamentally altered the structure of Social Security and continue to shape its operation today. One of the most significant changes was the gradual increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67, a shift that reflected growing life expectancies and was designed to reduce long-term benefit payouts.
Another major provision subjected Social Security benefits to federal income tax for higher-income recipients, marking a departure from the program’s previously tax-exempt status. These changes helped restore solvency to the system and underscored the evolving view of Social Security not merely as a safety net, but as part of a broader fiscal policy framework. The amendments also mandated that federal employees begin paying into Social Security and included temporary payroll tax increases.
The 1983 reforms were notable for their rare bipartisan consensus, forged between a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled House. The political compromise demonstrated that major structural entitlement reform was possible when both parties shared a sense of urgency and responsibility. The law’s legacy is complex—it shored up the system for decades but left future generations facing similar solvency questions. Legal scholars and policymakers still reference the 1983 amendments as a model of negotiated reform, even as the political climate has become more polarized. The taxation of benefits and the higher retirement age remain central to debates about equity and sustainability within the program.
The Social Security Amendments of 1983 exemplify how statutory changes can recalibrate entitlement programs to respond to demographic and economic pressures, while raising ongoing questions about intergenerational fairness and fiscal responsibility.
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to rely solely on $4.65 billion in contingency funds, which would have resulted in reduced aid, but the court found this inadequate. The Rhode Island judge had ordered the USDA to tap into a separate $23.35 billion fund intended for child nutrition programs to cover the $4 billion shortfall and avoid widespread harm to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.
While the 1st Circuit declined to stay the lower court’s ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order, creating ongoing uncertainty about benefit distribution. The USDA has since directed states to reverse any moves to issue full benefits made before the pause, warning of potential financial penalties. The administration argued that it couldn’t be forced to reallocate funds during a shutdown, blaming Congress for the funding crisis. However, the appeals court emphasized the urgent need to prevent food insecurity during the winter. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by cities, nonprofits, a union, and a food retailer seeking full benefit payments.
Trump administration cannot withhold full funding for food aid, US appeals court rules | Reuters
Large and midsized U.S. law firms experienced a strong increase in client demand during the third quarter of 2025, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Demand rose 3.9% year-over-year—marking one of the largest quarterly gains in two decades and the highest outside the 2021 post-pandemic rebound. Transactional practices drove much of this growth, particularly among midsized firms, with M&A work rising 6.7%, corporate work up 4.4%, and real estate and tax also showing solid gains.
Litigation demand increased 4.9%, while labor and employment rose 4%. Bankruptcy, however, dipped slightly by 0.4%. Demand for countercyclical practices—those that tend to rise in downturns—was more modest, with larger firms seeing smaller gains compared to firms ranked 101–200. Midsized firms also saw a 3.9% rise in these areas. Analysts attribute part of the shift to corporate clients seeking cost control by reallocating work to more affordable firms.
Billing rates were also up 7.4%, contributing to greater profitability despite a 7.5% increase in overhead expenses driven by tech investments. While current trends point to a strong 2025, the report warned of continued global economic and geopolitical instability that could reverse gains quickly.
US law firms saw demand surge in third quarter - report | Reuters
Democrats ended a record-long government shutdown without securing their primary goal: the extension of health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Despite initial unity, eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans to advance a bill reopening the government on its 40th day, omitting the sought-after healthcare provisions. In return, they received only a vague promise of a future vote on the subsidies, a concession many in the party, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and leaders in the House, criticized as a strategic failure.
The decision has sparked internal party conflict, especially after Democrats had recently seen electoral gains tied to their affordability messaging. Some Democrats believed holding out longer might have forced Republican concessions, but others, like Senator Jeanne Shaheen, argued prolonging the shutdown would only harm the public. The failed push is reminiscent of past shutdowns, including Trump’s 2018-19 border wall standoff, where policy goals were ultimately abandoned after prolonged disruption.
Air travel chaos and delayed food aid added pressure to end the shutdown, with more than 10,000 flights affected and warnings of a near-complete travel halt ahead of Thanksgiving. While public opinion largely blamed Republicans for the impasse, Democrats now hope to leverage the upcoming healthcare vote in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms. The fate of the tax credits—and potentially rising premiums for 24 million Americans—will likely become a defining campaign issue. The shutdown technically continues as the Senate and House still need to finalize and pass the bill before President Trump can sign it.
Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in Hand
President Donald Trump has issued pardons to at least 77 individuals connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and other close allies. The pardons, outlined in a proclamation dated Friday, were framed by Trump as an attempt to end a “grave national injustice” and promote “national reconciliation.” These actions come amid ongoing investigations into the fake elector scheme that aimed to keep Trump in power after his 2020 loss to Joe Biden—a plan Trump and his allies continued to promote until his 2024 re-election.
While Trump himself had been federally indicted in connection with the elector plot, that case was dismissed after his re-election, citing the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The pardons only apply to federal charges and do not shield recipients from state-level prosecutions, which remain active in some jurisdictions. The White House has not publicly commented on the latest round of pardons, many of which were not formally announced.
Included in the list of recipients are legal and political figures such as John Eastman, Christina Bobb, and Boris Epshteyn, all of whom played public roles in contesting the 2020 results. The full number of individuals pardoned could be even higher, as the list may include unnamed individuals.
Trump pardons Giuliani and dozens of others accused of seeking to overturn his 2020 defeat | Reuters
