This Day in Legal History: National Referendum on Apartheid
On March 17, 1992, South Africa took a decisive step toward dismantling apartheid through a historic national referendum. White South African voters were asked whether they supported the government’s efforts to end apartheid and negotiate a new, democratic constitution. An overwhelming 68.7% voted in favor, signaling broad support for ending over four decades of racial segregation. This referendum provided then-President F.W. de Klerk with the political mandate to continue negotiations with the African National Congress (ANC) and other groups. The result was a major victory for the anti-apartheid movement, which had long fought against the country’s system of institutionalized racial oppression.
The referendum was limited to white voters, who had historically benefited from apartheid, making their approval a crucial moment in South African history. It paved the way for the country’s first multiracial elections in 1994, in which Nelson Mandela was elected president. With this, South Africa officially transitioned from an apartheid state to a democracy, enshrining equal rights for all citizens. The vote also marked the beginning of legal reforms that led to the adoption of a new constitution in 1996. While the end of apartheid did not immediately erase economic and social inequalities, the referendum remains a defining moment in the country’s legal and political history. It demonstrated that legal systems, even when designed to uphold injustice, can be reformed through democratic means.
A federal judge ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) must reinstate probationary employees it had recently terminated. As a result, the agency is bringing back those workers, along with most term employees, and providing them with back pay. However, term employees with more than two years of service were not reinstated. The CFPB had initially fired 70 enforcement attorneys and up to 100 other employees after acting Director Russell Vought took over in February. The judge’s decision is part of a broader legal battle over federal workforce reductions, with similar rulings affecting multiple agencies. Despite this setback, the Trump administration remains committed to deep staffing cuts across federal agencies, with reduction plans already submitted to the Office of Personnel Management. The firings had faced opposition from the National Treasury Employees Union, which reached an agreement with the CFPB to pause additional terminations while another court considers an injunction. The reinstatement process has been messy, with workers unsure of their status and vendor contracts disrupted. However, legally mandated CFPB functions, such as consumer response, are being prioritized for restoration.
CFPB Brings Back Probationary Employees After Judge's Ruling
Trump has escalated his attacks on major law firms, this time targeting Paul Weiss, a firm known for representing top financial institutions and engaging in high-profile pro bono work. His executive order directs federal agencies to cut ties with companies that are Paul Weiss clients and suspend the firm’s lawyers’ security clearances. The move follows similar actions against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling. Paul Weiss has deep ties to Wall Street, with clients including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Apollo Global Management. Some of these corporate leaders have criticized Trump’s tariff policies, potentially influencing his decision to go after the firm.
Trump’s order highlights Paul Weiss’s past work, including its involvement in a lawsuit against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers over the January 6 Capitol riot. The firm has a long history of civil rights advocacy, from Brown v. Board of Education to LGBTQ+ and voting rights cases. Critics argue Trump’s actions are politically motivated, targeting firms with Democratic connections while ignoring their bipartisan donor base. A federal judge previously blocked a similar order against Perkins Coie, and Paul Weiss is expected to mount a strong legal challenge. However, even if the order is overturned, the chilling effect is real—firms risk losing business from clients wary of crossing Trump. Some industry experts believe this could push law firms to unite against political interference, but whether collective action emerges remains uncertain.
Trump Fights Paul Weiss as Wall Street Seeks President's Ear
Trump targets law firm Paul Weiss in order restricting government access | Reuters
The Trump administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants despite a federal judge’s order blocking the move. The deportations targeted alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, whom the administration labeled as “terrorists.” The White House dismissed the court’s authority, arguing that a single judge could not override the president’s powers on immigration and national security. Judge James Boasberg had ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations was unlawful, as the law applies only to conflicts “commensurate to war.” Despite this, flights carrying the migrants landed in El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele publicly mocked the judge’s ruling and confirmed the men were being imprisoned.
Legal experts, including the ACLU, argue the administration is in open defiance of the court and may have violated constitutional checks and balances. The White House claimed that some migrants had already been deported before the judge’s order, but it remains unclear if others were removed afterward. Critics see this as an unprecedented challenge to judicial authority, while Trump defended the deportations, calling the migrants "bad people" and insisting the situation amounted to war. The legal battle over these actions is expected to continue, with calls for the U.S. government to reverse any unlawful removals.
Trump administration deports Venezuelans despite court order, says judge has no authority
The White House is taking an unprecedented role in overseeing the sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations, with Vice President JD Vance leading the process. Instead of a traditional investment bank managing the auction, Vance’s legal team is directly engaging with bidders and advising on their offers. President Trump has emphasized his control over the sale, claiming multiple groups are interested, while also suggesting the U.S. government could take a 50% stake in TikTok’s American assets.
The sale process is highly unusual, lacking a defined valuation or clear asset structure, and ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, has shown minimal engagement. Potential buyers, including investors like Frank McCourt and Kevin O’Leary, face an April 5 deadline to reach a deal. However, Beijing’s involvement and the possibility that ByteDance could simply shut down TikTok in the U.S. add further uncertainty.
While the U.S. government has previously intervened in corporate deals for national security or economic stability reasons, experts question whether TikTok meets such criteria. Trump, who initially sought to ban TikTok, has since acknowledged its role in helping him gain young voters. The app’s sale price remains uncertain, largely depending on whether its valuable recommendation algorithm is included. With intense competition among bidders and political interests shaping the process, the outcome remains unpredictable.
The White House’s unusual role as dealmaker in TikTok sale | Reuters
In a piece I wrote for Forbes this weekend, I lay out what I reckon is the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
The Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate taxes for individuals earning under $150,000 sounds appealing at first but carries severe consequences. Social Security and Medicare rely heavily on payroll taxes, which most workers in this income range pay more than income taxes. If these taxes are removed, the programs will be starved of funding, leading to either massive deficit spending, extreme benefit cuts, or a shift to regressive taxes like sales taxes. The proposal, combined with extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while leaving the middle class to shoulder the remaining tax burden. The TCJA already made corporate tax cuts permanent while setting individual cuts to expire by 2025, favoring the rich. If this new plan moves forward, those earning just above $150,000 could become the last major tax-paying bracket, while state and local taxes would likely rise to compensate. The ultra-wealthy, who benefited the most from previous tax cuts, are unlikely to pick up the slack. Rather than a tax break for workers, the proposal appears to be a backdoor attempt to dismantle entitlement programs. If no one is paying in, no one gets benefits out—a reality Trump’s allies don’t want to admit.
Trump Administration’s No Taxes Under $150k Proposal Is A Disaster
Share this post