This Day in Legal History: McKinley Assassin Stands Trial
On September 23, 1901, the trial of Leon Czolgosz began for the assassination of President William McKinley. Czolgosz, an anarchist, had shot McKinley on September 6 at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. Despite efforts to save him, McKinley died eight days later from gangrene caused by the bullet wounds. The trial was swift, lasting only eight hours over two days, as Czolgosz had already confessed to the crime. His defense team, appointed by the court, argued that Czolgosz was insane, but he refused to cooperate with his lawyers or plead insanity.
The prosecution presented overwhelming evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and the fact that Czolgosz shot McKinley at point-blank range in a public setting. The jury deliberated for less than 30 minutes before finding him guilty of first-degree murder. Czolgosz was sentenced to death and was executed by electric chair on October 29, 1901. His trial and execution sparked discussions about the influence of anarchism in the U.S. and led to increased efforts to suppress political radicalism in the early 20th century.
From a presidential assassin from history to a would-be modern day presidential assassin, Ryan W. Routh, a 58-year-old suspect accused of attempting to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump, is set to appear in court on Monday. Routh allegedly hid near Trump's Florida golf course on September 15, pointing a rifle through the tree line while Trump played golf. Although he did not fire a shot and lacked a direct line of sight to Trump, who was several hundred yards away, Routh was charged with two gun-related crimes: possession of a firearm as a convicted felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Additional charges may follow.
A Secret Service agent spotted the weapon and fired in Routh’s direction, causing him to flee. He was later arrested on a nearby highway. Prosecutors are expected to argue for his detention, citing public safety concerns. The FBI is investigating the incident as an apparent assassination attempt ahead of the upcoming November presidential election. Authorities have not yet disclosed a motive, though Routh, a convicted felon with a history of supporting Ukraine, previously made statements in a self-published book suggesting that Trump could be a target for assassination. Cellphone data shows Routh may have been in the area for 12 hours before being apprehended.
Trump attempted assassination suspect Ryan Routh to appear in court | Reuters
An appeals court panel recently reviewed procedural issues in Stephen Thaler’s attempt to copyright an AI-generated image, raising concerns that the court may avoid larger questions about AI and copyright law. Thaler argued that his AI, the "Creativity Machine," autonomously created the work in question, but the U.S. Copyright Office rejected his application, and a lower court dismissed his case. The court found that Thaler had waived the argument that he was the author by continuing to claim the machine was the creator.
During the appeal, the judges suggested that Thaler’s argument may be barred since his appellate brief did not challenge the lower court's finding that he had waived his authorship claim. Legal experts fear this focus on procedural flaws could prevent the court from addressing significant issues about the role of human creativity in AI-generated works.
If the court rules that AI-created works cannot be copyrighted, it could have far-reaching effects, leaving AI-generated content like images and text unprotected and placing them in the public domain. The court’s decision may not close the door on AI-assisted works, but it raises questions about where the line is drawn between human and machine-generated creativity. The case highlights ongoing uncertainties about how copyright law will adapt to AI’s growing role in creative industries.Â
The key legal issue here is the court's focus on procedural waiver, which may limit the scope of the ruling and leave broader questions about AI and copyright unresolved.
AI Art Appeal’s Procedural Flaws Put Broader Ruling in Doubt
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—UnitedHealth's Optum, CVS Health's Caremark, and Cigna's Express Scripts—accusing them of inflating insulin prices to gain larger rebates from pharmaceutical companies. The FTC claims that these PBMs steered patients towards higher-priced insulin by excluding cheaper alternatives from coverage, harming those with coinsurance or deductibles who couldn't benefit from the rebate. Together, these three companies control 80% of U.S. prescriptions.
The PBMs denied the allegations, arguing that their practices have lowered insulin costs for businesses and patients. The case represents a significant step in the Biden administration's push to lower drug prices, particularly insulin, which has seen soaring costs over the past decade. FTC Deputy Director Rahul Rao labeled the PBMs as "medication gatekeepers," accusing them of profiting at the expense of diabetic patients.
The lawsuit did not target insulin manufacturers like Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk but criticized their role in the system. The drugmakers supported reforms to lower patient costs and highlighted their programs to cap insulin prices at $35. The FTC’s suit aims to address broader concerns about the U.S. healthcare system's structure and the rising cost of life-saving medications like insulin.
US FTC sues drug 'gatekeepers' over high insulin prices
FTC Sues CVS, Cigna, UnitedHealth Over Rising Insulin Costs (1)
Jackson Walker LLP is facing disciplinary action after a federal judge found the Texas law firm breached its ethical duties by failing to disclose a secret relationship between one of its attorneys, Elizabeth Freeman, and former Houston bankruptcy judge David R. Jones. Judge Marvin Isgur issued a scathing letter on Friday, criticizing the firm for concealing the affair, which he said violated professional responsibilities and "defiled the very temple of justice." Isgur recused himself from cases involving the firm following this recommendation.
The relationship came to light after Freeman, a former partner at Jackson Walker, continued to see Jones despite telling the firm in 2021 that the relationship had ended. Isgur accused the firm of knowingly withholding this information from clients and the court, calling it an "inconceivable" ethical breach. The U.S. Trustee is now attempting to recover up to $18 million in fees earned by Jackson Walker in cases overseen by Jones while he was dating Freeman.
The disciplinary case has been referred to Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, and Jackson Walker faces potential penalties, including disbarment or suspension. The firm denies violating ethical rules and claims Freeman misled them. However, Isgur emphasized that the firm's decision to protect itself at the expense of its clients and professional obligations was "intolerable." A public hearing is expected to follow, giving Jackson Walker a chance to respond to the charges.
Jackson Walker ‘Defiled the Very Temple of Justice,’ Judge Says
Legal News for Mon 9/23 - Ryan Routh in Court, FTC Lawsuit Over Insulin Prices, AI Copyright Appeal, Ethics Breaches at Jackson Walker LLP