This Day in Legal History: First Formal Anti-slavery Resolution in American History
On February 18, 1688, a group of Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, drafted the first formal anti-slavery resolution in American history. Addressed to their local monthly meeting, the document condemned the practice of slavery and argued that it was incompatible with Christian teachings. The authors—Garret Henderich, Derick op de Graeff, Francis Daniel Pastorius, and Abram op de Graeff—compared enslaving Africans to the feared practice of Christian captives being taken by Turkish pirates. They pointed out the hypocrisy of Quakers, who sought religious freedom for themselves while denying liberty to others.
The resolution questioned whether Christians had the moral right to enslave others based on race and emphasized the Golden Rule: treating others as one would want to be treated. It also warned of the possibility that enslaved people might eventually resist their oppression, raising the moral dilemma of whether their masters would then take up arms against them. The document urged Quakers to reconsider their complicity in slavery and to recognize the dignity and humanity of all people. Though the resolution was not immediately adopted by the broader Quaker community, it laid the groundwork for the abolitionist movement within the Society of Friends. Over time, Quakers became some of the most outspoken opponents of slavery in America. The Germantown protest stands as an early and courageous call for justice, foreshadowing the larger struggle for human rights that would unfold in the centuries to come.
The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a judge's order blocking the removal of Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, as litigation over his firing continues. Dellinger, appointed by former President Biden, was informed of his dismissal on February 7, but he sued, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to remove him without cause. Federal law allows the Special Counsel to be dismissed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
On February 12, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a temporary restraining order reinstating Dellinger, stating that his firing violated legal job protections. The Justice Department, calling the ruling an attack on presidential authority, argues that courts should not dictate whom the president retains in his administration. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s appeal, deeming it premature.
This case may set an important precedent for Trump's broader efforts to reshape the federal government by removing independent agency heads. It follows a pattern of dismissals, including Trump’s recent firing of 17 inspectors general without explanation. The Special Counsel’s Office plays a crucial role in protecting whistleblowers and enforcing restrictions on political activity among federal employees.
Trump administration turns to US Supreme Court in bid to fire agency head | Reuters
President Donald Trump announced he will nominate Edward Martin for a full term as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin, currently serving in an interim capacity, has drawn controversy for his past legal work. He previously represented individuals charged in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and recently sought to drop charges against a defendant he once defended.
Martin was also present outside the Capitol during the attack and has criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the prosecutions. His nomination requires Senate approval, and ethical concerns have been raised about his involvement in cases related to former clients. Justice Department rules typically require attorneys to recuse themselves from such cases for at least a year.
Trump, on his first day back in office, granted clemency to nearly all of the 1,600 people charged in connection with the riot. Martin's nomination is expected to face scrutiny due to his past legal advocacy for those involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump to nominate top prosecutor Martin for permanent term as US attorney for DC | Reuters
A former business development manager is suing Reed Smith LLP for at least $50,000 in unpaid overtime, claiming the firm misclassified her as a manager to avoid paying her for excessive work hours. Phoebe Medeiros filed the lawsuit in California state court, alleging she regularly worked 90-hour weeks, sometimes in shifts as long as 36 hours, despite official timesheets reflecting a standard 40-hour workweek.
Medeiros, who transferred to Reed Smith’s Southern California office in 2022, says she primarily worked under the direct instructions of partner Mark Pedretti, preparing business pitch materials and relaying information, rather than functioning as a true manager. Pedretti, who is not named as a defendant, has not commented on the lawsuit.
Reed Smith has not responded to requests for comment, and neither Medeiros nor her attorneys from The Rutten Law Firm have provided statements. Medeiros has since left the firm and now works at Freshfields. The case, Medeiros v. Reed Smith, LLP, is being heard in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.
Reed Smith Sued by Business Development Manager for Overtime Pay
And in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I pitch the idea of tax-abatement bridge loans for office conversions. Post-pandemic, cities like New York, San Francisco, and Washington are struggling to revitalize commercial districts, with tax abatements for office-to-residential conversions proving ineffective because they only apply after project completion. Instead of making developers wait years to benefit, states should allow them to borrow against future tax savings through upfront, low-interest bridge loans—essentially restructuring the incentive rather than creating a new subsidy.
With record-high office vacancies and persistent housing shortages, conversions make obvious policy sense. However, they remain slow due to high costs and the difficulty of securing favorable loans in the current interest rate environment. Existing tax incentives only kick in post-construction, forcing developers to front conversion costs while facing uncertainty about future property tax rates. A bridge loan program secured by future abatements would mitigate this risk by locking in tax savings at financing, providing developers with stable, immediate capital.
The model would work through a public-private partnership: states would calculate future tax savings, commercial banks would underwrite low-interest loans secured by those abatements, and developers would repay the loans using the redirected tax breaks. Because funds would be deployed in phases based on project milestones, states wouldn’t be on the hook for speculative projects that never materialize. Unlike grants or new subsidies, this wouldn’t cost taxpayers beyond existing abatements, which are currently underutilized due to their delayed structure.
This approach should appeal across the political spectrum—expanding housing supply without direct handouts to developers satisfies progressive concerns, while a self-financing mechanism aligns with fiscal conservatism. Similar models have worked elsewhere, such as Wisconsin’s senior housing loan program and widely used tax increment financing districts. Given the scale of the housing crisis, cities can’t afford to wait—tax-backed bridge loans offer a practical fix to a well-documented problem.
Share this post