This Day in Legal History: Statute of Marlborough
On November 18, 1267, the Statute of Marlborough was enacted during the reign of King Henry III of England. It is the oldest piece of English statute law still partially in force, with four of its original twenty-nine chapters remaining on the books. The statute emerged from a period of intense baronial conflict and civil unrest, notably the Second Barons’ War, and was part of a broader effort to restore royal authority and stabilize governance through legal reform. It reinforced the crown’s prerogatives while addressing grievances raised by rebellious nobles, making it a compromise between royal and feudal powers.
Among its most enduring provisions were regulations on the practice of “distress,” which referred to the seizure of property to compel debt repayment or enforce court judgments. The statute restricted unlawful and excessive distresses, requiring them to occur only with legal justification and in the appropriate jurisdiction. These reforms curtailed private self-help remedies and emphasized formal court processes, laying foundational principles for due process and the centralization of judicial authority. It also addressed issues like wardship, waste of land, and the obligations of tenants—key concerns in the feudal legal structure.
The Statute of Marlborough built upon earlier reforms such as the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster, but had a more lasting legal impact. Its survival into modern times speaks to the durability of certain legal concepts, especially those reinforcing procedural fairness. Some of its language has been modernized, but the essence of its rules remains intact in English law. The statute reflects an early attempt to systematize and limit both public and private power through legal mechanisms. Legal historians often point to it as a stepping stone on the path to the English common law tradition.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the federal government’s authority to limit asylum processing at official U.S.-Mexico border crossings under the now-rescinded “metering” policy. Originally implemented under President Trump and formalized in 2018, metering allowed border agents to stop asylum seekers before they crossed into the U.S. and decline to process their claims, even when they were physically present at ports of entry. The Biden administration repealed the policy in 2021, but Trump’s return to office has revived interest in reestablishing it.
At the core of the case is the legal meaning of the phrase “arrives in the United States,” with the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2024 that it includes people who reach official border entry points—even if still on the Mexican side. That ruling held that federal law requires asylum seekers at ports of entry to be inspected and allowed to apply, regardless of logistical constraints like capacity. The advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which brought the lawsuit in 2017, argues the metering policy illegally circumvented these obligations, leaving vulnerable migrants stranded in dangerous border conditions.
Trump’s Justice Department contends that “arrives in” means actual entry, not mere proximity—using analogies ranging from Normandy to football to make its point. The administration has also signaled that it intends to resume the policy if conditions warrant. The case, which will likely be decided by June, comes amid broader efforts to restrict asylum protections globally and may clarify the limits of executive power over humanitarian migration policy.
Supreme Court to review US government power to limit asylum processing | Reuters
A California judge has blocked a proposed class action lawsuit involving 6,000 Black workers at Tesla’s Fremont factory who alleged systemic racial harassment, marking a significant legal win for the company. Judge Peter Borkon ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action because the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to secure testimony from at least 200 workers—raising doubts about whether the experiences of a smaller group could represent the broader workforce. This reverses a 2024 decision by another judge who had previously allowed the class to move forward.
The original lawsuit, filed in 2017 by former worker Marcus Vaughn, alleged pervasive racism at the facility, including slurs, racist graffiti, and even nooses in work areas. Tesla has denied allowing harassment and said it takes disciplinary action against those who violate company policy. While this ruling narrows the scope of Vaughn’s lawsuit, Tesla still faces other legal challenges, including a similar case from California’s civil rights agency and a separate federal suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tesla has previously settled other race discrimination lawsuits brought by individual employees.
Tesla wins bid to undo race bias class action by Black factory workers | Reuters
Ashurst and Perkins Coie have agreed to merge, forming a global law firm with 3,000 lawyers and $2.7 billion in revenue—placing it among the world’s top 20 legal outfits by size. The merger, expected to close in late 2026 pending partner approval, will create Ashurst Perkins Coie, with 52 offices across 23 countries. The move is part of a broader trend of transatlantic law firm consolidation aimed at scaling up to serve cross-border clients more effectively.
Leadership will be shared between Ashurst’s global CEO Paul Jenkins and Perkins Coie’s managing partner Bill Malley, who emphasized the merger’s value for clients in technology, financial services, and energy. Talks began in early 2025, with both firms framing the deal as a long-term strategic alignment. Perkins Coie recently gained attention for its role in successfully challenging executive orders from President Trump’s administration targeting the firm and others tied to his political adversaries. While the firms say they have no current plans to expand their office footprint, the combination signals a deepening of U.K.-U.S. legal market integration.
Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit | Reuters
My column for Bloomberg this week looks at OpenAI’s effort to expand the CHIPS Act tax credit into a broad-based AI infrastructure subsidy—and what it reveals about the government’s evolving role in underwriting the AI economy. OpenAI has asked the federal government to stretch the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit—originally designed to revive U.S. semiconductor manufacturing—to cover the entire AI stack, from servers to steel. That request arrives as data centers’ energy consumption and land use start imposing real costs on local grids, budgets, and communities, raising the question: who’s actually footing the bill for AI?
I argue that this isn’t a bailout so much as a bid for taxpayer-backed central planning, with a venture-capital gloss. AI infrastructure projects like OpenAI’s Stargate centers already benefit from layers of state and local tax breaks, discounted electricity, and favorable land deals. Adding a 35% federal credit on top creates a subsidy stack that warps local priorities—school districts lose tax revenue, utilities are forced to reroute energy, and residents pay more on their bills. The public impact is mounting, even as the private benefit remains largely proprietary and insulated.
Rather than offering blank checks, Congress should condition federal support on clear benefit-sharing requirements: job thresholds, emissions transparency, energy sourcing obligations, and clawbacks for missed targets. I propose a framework that makes federal aid contingent on upfront impact disclosures, co-investment in the grid, and full accounting of overlapping subsidies. Industrial policy isn’t inherently bad—but without enforceable terms, we’re not funding a public-private partnership. We’re subsidizing a corporate buildout dressed up as a national security imperative.
