This Day in Legal History: Squeaky Fromme Convicted
On this day in 1975, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a devoted follower of cult leader Charles Manson, was found guilty by a federal jury in Sacramento, California, for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford. The incident occurred on September 5, 1975, in Sacramento’s Capitol Park, where Fromme aimed a Colt .45 handgun at Ford as he greeted the public. Though the weapon did not discharge—later found to lack a bullet in the firing chamber—the act was a chilling reminder of the volatile political atmosphere of the 1970s. Fromme claimed she wanted to draw attention to environmental issues and the plight of California redwoods, framing her actions as a desperate bid to make her concerns heard.
The trial was marked by Fromme’s erratic behavior, including disruptions and self-represented courtroom antics that reflected her unwavering loyalty to Manson and his apocalyptic worldview. Prosecutors argued that Fromme’s actions posed a genuine threat to the president’s life, even though the gun had not fired. The jury deliberated for just over a day before convicting her of attempted assassination under federal law, a crime that carried a potential life sentence.
The case underscored the rising threats to public officials during a turbulent era in American history, following closely on the heels of other high-profile political attacks. Sentenced to life imprisonment, Fromme served 34 years before being paroled in 2009. Her conviction remains a stark reminder of the enduring dangers posed by extremist ideologies and the individuals who act upon them.
The Biden administration has proposed a rule to expand Medicare and Medicaid coverage to include weight-loss drugs, potentially providing access to millions of Americans with obesity while significantly increasing government healthcare costs. Medicare currently covers related medications like Ozempic and Mounjaro for diabetes but excludes obesity drugs such as Wegovy and Zepbound. Only 13 state Medicaid programs cover these high-cost treatments, which can exceed $1,000 monthly. The proposed rule could reduce patient out-of-pocket costs by up to 95% and offset expenses through lowered rates of obesity-linked diseases, including diabetes and heart conditions.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the expanded Medicare coverage could cost $35 billion over nine years. However, these costs might decrease after 2025 when semaglutide, the active ingredient in several weight-loss drugs, becomes subject to government price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act. Drugmakers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly stand to benefit from this policy, as the global market for obesity drugs is projected to reach $130 billion by 2030.
The proposal is seen as a win for patients and physicians advocating for broader access, but it also poses challenges to efforts to reduce government spending. Some, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., argue that healthier food initiatives could address obesity more affordably. Novo and Lilly have been working to demonstrate additional health benefits of these medications, aiming to expand insurance coverage and increase acceptance among policymakers. The proposed rule must undergo a formal review process before implementation.
Biden Proposes Medicare, Medicaid Coverage of Obesity Drugs (1)
Donald Trump’s incoming administration faces a rapidly evolving cybersecurity landscape with increased cyber threats, growing system vulnerabilities, and challenges from generative AI. Balancing national security with deregulation goals adds uncertainty to its approach, particularly as it inherits initiatives from the Biden era. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), established during Trump’s first term, remains pivotal for safeguarding critical infrastructure but faces scrutiny from Republicans over its efforts to counter election misinformation. Proposed rule changes under the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), which require entities to report cyber incidents, await finalization amid industry pushback.
The Biden administration emphasized industry-specific cybersecurity rules, such as water system safeguards, aviation security standards, and transportation cyber risk requirements, but these have faced challenges, including legal and political opposition. Trump’s administration may prioritize oversight while easing regulatory burdens, potentially reducing the influence of agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in cybersecurity enforcement.
CISA’s future is uncertain, with calls to shift it under the Transportation Security Administration, which could impact its authority. Jen Easterly, CISA’s current director, will step down on Inauguration Day, leaving leadership decisions to Trump. A possible reduction in enforcement, especially targeting executives, may be welcomed by companies in the cybersecurity space, which have faced intense scrutiny in recent years. The administration’s ultimate stance on these policies remains unclear, signaling a potential shift away from the Biden administration’s regulatory approach.
Trump's Cybersecurity Faces Biden's Legacy, Rising Threats Ahead
Disney has agreed to pay $43.3 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its female employees in California earned significantly less than male colleagues over an eight-year span. Filed in 2019 by LaRonda Rasmussen, the lawsuit claimed disparities of up to $20,000 annually for women holding the same job titles as men, including those with less experience. The case eventually grew to represent 9,000 current and former female employees.
As part of the settlement, Disney will employ a labor economist for three years to assess and address pay equity among full-time, non-union California employees below the vice president level. An analysis of Disney’s HR data, conducted by a University of California professor, found that women were paid approximately 2% less than men during the analyzed period.
Although Disney denied wrongdoing, a spokesperson emphasized the company’s commitment to fair pay. The settlement agreement, filed in California state court, awaits judicial approval.
Disney settles suit over women's pay for $43 million | Reuters
President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to use the military in deportation efforts breaks with U.S. norms against deploying troops domestically but may avoid legal challenges if confined to support roles, such as building detention camps or transporting migrants. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars the military from law enforcement activities, but exceptions, such as the Insurrection Act and National Guard deployments under state control, create legal ambiguity. Trump’s proposal to increase deportation capacity by 20 times would require extensive use of these exceptions and could lead to conflicts with state governors.
Critics argue that this approach undermines constitutional norms, with legal scholars highlighting the potential for overreach. Governors refusing to deploy their National Guard could force Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, historically used for civil rights and law enforcement emergencies, though courts typically defer to presidential authority in national security matters. Experts warn that expanded military roles could open avenues for legal challenges, especially if funding or state jurisdiction issues arise.
This plan raises significant concerns about its impact on democratic principles. Using the military for mass deportations would set a troubling precedent for civilian governance and law enforcement. While legally feasible in limited roles, the proposal’s broad ambitions risk undermining constitutional traditions and provoking legal and political pushback.
Trump plan to use military in deportations should stand up in court | Reuters
Share this post