This Day in Legal History: Fugitive Slave Act
On September 18, 1850, President Millard Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act into law, intensifying the national divide over slavery. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the law mandated that all escaped enslaved individuals, upon capture, be returned to their enslavers and that officials and citizens of free states were legally obligated to cooperate. Federal commissioners were authorized to issue arrest warrants without a jury trial, and those accused had no right to testify in their own defense.
The law also imposed heavy penalties on anyone aiding a fugitive, including fines and imprisonment, which provoked outrage among abolitionists and free Black communities. The act effectively nationalized the institution of slavery, forcing even anti-slavery states to participate in its enforcement. This led to dramatic and sometimes violent resistance, including the formation of vigilance committees and the expansion of the Underground Railroad.
Free Black Americans faced new dangers under the law, as it encouraged bounty hunters and unscrupulous officials to seize and enslave them under false pretenses. Several high-profile cases, such as the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston in 1854, drew mass protests and highlighted the law's harsh impact. The Fugitive Slave Act deepened sectional tensions and hardened Northern opposition to slavery, pushing the nation closer to civil war.
A Chapter 7 trustee for the bankrupt fintech startup GloriFi has filed a $1.7 billion malpractice lawsuit against law firm Winston & Strawn and its Houston managing partner, Michael Blankenship. The suit alleges the firm prioritized the interests of GloriFi’s founder, Texas oil investor Toby Neugebauer, over the company’s, ultimately contributing to its collapse. GloriFi—formally known as With Purpose Inc.—marketed itself as an “anti-woke” financial institution aimed at conservative consumers. The complaint claims Winston & Strawn enabled Neugebauer to engage in self-dealing, manipulate board control, and undermine corporate governance, deterring major investors and derailing a proposed SPAC merger that once valued the company at $1.7 billion.
The trustee accuses the firm of negligence, fiduciary breaches, and aiding fraudulent transfers, alleging its conduct drove investor confidence down and played a key role in the company’s failure. Winston & Strawn denies wrongdoing and promises to contest the "meritless claims." The legal action follows a court-approved settlement earlier this year that allowed GloriFi’s trustee to pursue claims via a separate entity tied to one of the investors. This is one of multiple legal efforts by the trustee, who previously sued Chapman & Cutler LLP over similar allegations related to Neugebauer’s control of the company. High-profile backers of GloriFi included Peter Thiel, Ken Griffin, Vivek Ramaswamy, and an aide to former Vice President Mike Pence.
Winston & Strawn Sued in ‘Anti-Woke’ Bank Startup Bankruptcy (1)
A U.S. immigration judge ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American activist and Columbia University student, to either Algeria or Syria. The ruling is based on allegations that Khalil intentionally misrepresented facts on his green card application. Khalil’s legal team disputes the decision and plans to appeal, citing a separate federal court order that currently prevents his detention or deportation while his civil rights case proceeds.
Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, was previously held for over 100 days by immigration authorities and missed the birth of his child while in custody. He was released in June after a federal judge criticized his prolonged detention over a civil immigration issue as unconstitutional. Khalil claims the government's efforts to remove him are retaliatory, tied to his outspoken pro-Palestinian activism and free speech. He argues that the charges against him are fabricated and politically motivated.
The case has drawn criticism from civil rights organizations concerned about the erosion of due process and free speech rights, especially in the context of recent federal pressure on universities to curtail pro-Palestinian protests. Columbia University, where Khalil studies, was a focal point of such demonstrations in the previous year.
A federal judge ruled that Amazon violated consumer protection laws by collecting billing information for its Prime subscription service before clearly disclosing the full terms, giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a partial win in its case against the company. The FTC alleges Amazon used deceptive practices to enroll tens of millions of users in Prime without proper consent and made cancellations deliberately difficult. The judge found that these actions potentially violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA), and that Amazon cannot argue ROSCA doesn’t apply to Prime signups.
U.S. District Judge John Chun also held that two Amazon executives could be held personally liable if violations are proven at trial. The FTC’s consumer protection chief, Chris Mufarrige, said the ruling confirms Amazon misled consumers. Amazon maintains that neither the company nor the executives acted improperly, and claims it has always prioritized customer experience. The outcome of the upcoming trial could significantly affect how subscription services manage disclosures and cancellations going forward.
Amazon violated online shopper protection law, judge rules ahead of Prime signup trial | Reuters
A federal appeals court has blocked, for now, the Trump administration's sweeping plan to overhaul the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The proposed reorganization, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., included cutting 10,000 jobs, shutting half of HHS’s regional offices, and consolidating key functions across agencies like the CDC and FDA. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction, siding with 19 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that argued the plan would cause immediate harm.
The appellate panel, composed entirely of Biden-appointed judges, found the administration failed to demonstrate why the injunction should be lifted while the case is under appeal. The court cited extensive evidence from state officials showing how the restructuring already disrupted public health services, including disease tracking and early childhood programs like Head Start. In July, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled the administration lacked the authority to unilaterally restructure agencies created by Congress and ordered a halt to the planned cuts at four major agencies.
The administration argued the suit was speculative and claimed employee firings should be handled through internal federal channels. However, the court rejected that reasoning, emphasizing that the states have a direct and tangible interest due to their reliance on federal services. The case remains ongoing, with significant implications for executive authority over federal agencies.
Trump administration cannot proceed with overhaul of US health agencies, court rules | Reuters
Morgan & Morgan, a major U.S. personal injury law firm, has filed a lawsuit against Disney in federal court in Orlando, seeking a ruling that it can use a parody-style ad referencing Steamboat Willie without infringing Disney’s intellectual property rights. Although Disney’s copyright on the 1928 short film—which introduced Mickey and Minnie Mouse—expired last year, the company still holds related trademarks. The lawsuit comes after Disney declined to confirm whether it would object to the ad when contacted by the firm.
The disputed ad, styled in the animation style of Steamboat Willie, shows Minnie Mouse calling Morgan & Morgan after Mickey crashes a boat into her car. The ad contains a disclaimer distancing it from Disney. Citing Disney’s aggressive enforcement history—such as a recent trademark suit over Steamboat Willie jewelry—the firm is asking the court to preemptively declare that its ad does not violate Disney’s IP and to block any potential lawsuit from the company.
Morgan & Morgan argues that the uncertainty created by Disney’s refusal to clarify its position prompted the need for legal action. The firm is known for its extensive advertising efforts, having spent over $218 million on legal services ads in the previous year.
Disney sued by law firm Morgan & Morgan over 'Steamboat Willie' ad | Reuters
