This Day in Legal History: Liberation of Guam
On July 21, 1944, U.S. forces began the liberation of Guam, a pivotal campaign in the Pacific Theater during World War II. The island, a U.S. territory since 1898, had been under Japanese occupation since December 1941. The American recapture of Guam not only had military significance but also triggered major legal and jurisdictional consequences. With the island’s return to U.S. control, questions arose concerning the legal status of the local Chamorro population, many of whom had been subject to forced labor and harsh wartime treatment. The reestablishment of American civil authority required legal reconstruction, including the reinstatement of U.S. territorial law and the resolution of property disputes created by the occupation.
One of the key legal developments post-liberation involved the prosecution of Japanese officers for war crimes committed on Guam. These prosecutions were among the early instances of U.S.-led military tribunals, predating the more famous Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. Charges included execution without trial, torture, and mistreatment of civilians and prisoners of war. These tribunals contributed to the evolution of international humanitarian law by applying emerging principles of command responsibility and individual accountability.
Another legal consequence of the landings was the reinforcement of U.S. sovereignty over Guam, a status that remains complex to this day. In the following years, Congress passed legislation such as the Guam Organic Act of 1950, which granted U.S. citizenship to Chamorros and established a civilian government. However, full political rights, such as voting representation in Congress or participation in presidential elections, remain limited. The events of July 21, 1944, thus mark a significant turning point not only in military history but in the legal and political trajectory of Guam and its people.
Harvard University is set to ask a federal judge to reinstate $2.5 billion in federal research funding the Trump administration canceled, claiming the cuts are unlawful retaliation for the school’s refusal to comply with government demands. The hearing, scheduled for Monday in Boston, highlights a growing standoff between the university and the White House, which has accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and promoting what it calls radical left ideologies.
The administration’s pressure campaign began with the cancellation of research grants, citing insufficient response to alleged harassment of Jewish students. It later included threats to Harvard's accreditation, exclusion of international students, and a steep hike in the federal tax on income from its $53 billion endowment. The White House has demanded that Harvard restructure its governance and change hiring and admissions practices to ensure ideological balance—conditions Harvard says infringe on its constitutional rights.
President Alan Garber warned that federal actions could cost the university up to $1 billion annually, threatening staff layoffs and halts to vital research. While Harvard has acknowledged past failures in protecting Jewish students, it maintains that the administration’s broader demands represent unconstitutional overreach and an attempt to control academic freedom. The university argues that cutting research funds in response to these disagreements violates First Amendment protections. The administration claims the court lacks jurisdiction, citing grant terms that allow funding to be revoked if projects stray from federal objectives.
Harvard, Trump administration to face off in court over canceled funding | Reuters
A federal judge has blocked enforcement of a Trump executive order that threatened economic and travel sanctions against individuals assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The order, issued in February, sought to penalize anyone—particularly U.S. citizens—who provided services to ICC investigations involving the United States or its allies, such as Israel.
The challenge to the order was brought by two human rights advocates who argued it infringed on their First Amendment rights. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen agreed, stating the order unlawfully restricted constitutionally protected speech. She noted that it broadly barred speech-based services to the ICC, regardless of whether those services were tied to investigations of the U.S. or its allies.
Among those targeted by the order was ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who was personally sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury. The judge found that these sanctions imposed undue penalties on Americans for engaging in advocacy or legal support—activities typically protected under the First Amendment. The ruling marks a significant setback for efforts by the Trump administration to undermine the ICC’s authority and shield U.S. and allied officials from international accountability.
Federal judge blocks enforcement of Trump's order on ICC
And a piece I wrote for Forbes over the weekend:
When governments propose raising taxes on the wealthy, it often sparks a predictable media and political spectacle—wealthy individuals threaten to leave for lower-tax jurisdictions. My piece explores how, despite this recurring narrative, the data consistently shows these threats are mostly performative. The latest example comes from the U.K., where a centuries-old “non-dom” tax loophole allowing wealthy foreigners to avoid taxes on offshore income was finally closed. Predictably, estate agents and tabloids warned of a mass exodus, echoing similar claims made during a 2017 reform. But back then, just 2% of affected individuals actually left, while the rest paid more in taxes.
In the U.S., similar drama unfolded in New York when Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani proposed a millionaire’s tax. Business leaders and political opponents warned of an elite flight to Florida, despite historical precedent suggesting otherwise. After California raised taxes on high earners in 2010, the number of millionaires there actually grew. In truth, millionaires move less than the general population—only 2.4% change states annually.
The myth of the departing millionaire persists because it serves political ends, not economic truths. It allows opponents of tax reform to claim fiscal responsibility while protecting wealthy donors. Anecdotes—like a billionaire moving to Dubai—make for compelling headlines, but they mask the broader reality: most high-net-worth individuals stay put due to deep social, professional, and institutional ties. The image of the wealthy nomad is more myth than fact, yet it remains politically expedient and media-friendly.
Share this post