This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1960
On May 6, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 into law, marking a cautious but critical step forward in the long legal battle over voting rights in America. The Act was designed to address the persistent and systemic barriers that prevented African Americans, particularly in the South, from registering to vote—barriers that had proven stubbornly resilient despite the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
The 1960 law authorized federal inspection of local voter registration rolls, giving the Department of Justice a tool to challenge discriminatory practices on the ground. It also criminalized interference with court orders regarding school desegregation and established penalties for anyone found obstructing an individual’s attempt to register to vote. These measures were modest by today’s standards but politically bold in an era where states' rights rhetoric often served as a smokescreen for maintaining Jim Crow.
Though limited in scope and enforcement power, the Act signaled growing federal willingness to intervene in what had long been considered local matters. It provided legal infrastructure that civil rights lawyers would use as levers in federal court battles over the next half-decade. More importantly, it laid the legislative foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—two landmark laws that would reshape American democracy.
By signing the Act, Eisenhower reaffirmed the federal government’s role in protecting constitutional rights, even if the law fell short of what civil rights advocates demanded. It represented progress not through sweeping change, but through incremental legal gains—a strategy that would define much of the civil rights movement’s legal approach during the 1960s.
In retrospect, May 6, 1960, stands not as the culmination of voting rights reform, but as a necessary mile marker on the road toward more expansive and enforceable civil rights protections.
Apple is facing a new class action lawsuit from app developers who allege the company defied a federal court order meant to reduce its App Store control and fees. Filed by developer Pure Sweat Basketball in California federal court, the suit follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers that Apple willfully violated a 2021 injunction issued in the Epic Games case. That injunction allowed developers to guide users to alternative, potentially cheaper payment methods outside of Apple’s in-app system.
Instead, Apple allegedly imposed a new 27% fee on such external purchases, effectively undermining the injunction and preserving its App Store revenue stream. Pure Sweat claims Apple’s actions cost developers “hundreds of millions or even billions” of dollars in excessive commissions. The proposed class could include as many as 100,000 developers.
Judge Rogers recently referred Apple and one executive to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt, escalating the stakes. Apple maintains it did not violate the court order and has filed a notice of appeal. The lawsuit argues Apple deliberately ignored the injunction’s intent, continuing to block apps—like Pure Sweat’s workout video platform—that included outside purchase links.
This latest case adds to Apple’s growing legal troubles, including other antitrust suits from consumers and government entities over its App Store and smartphone practices.
Apple hit with app developer class action after US judge’s contempt ruling | Reuters
As reported by Techdirt, Washington is set to become the eighth U.S. state to pass Right to Repair legislation, signaling continued momentum for the consumer-driven movement despite an overall climate of weak enforcement. Two bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: HB 1483, which covers personal electronics and home appliances, and SB 5680, which targets repair access for wheelchairs and mobility devices. Both measures aim to force manufacturers to make spare parts, diagnostic tools, and repair information more accessible to users and independent technicians.
Advocates from consumer rights, disability, and environmental groups played a major role in pushing the bills forward. One supporter, Marsha Cutting, shared how her experience with a malfunctioning wheelchair underscored the stakes of the fight—arguing that, with this law in place, she could have fixed her chair instead of waiting months for a replacement.
Washington’s move highlights the cross-party frustration with corporations that monopolize repairs—especially in sectors like agriculture, where companies like John Deere have drawn scrutiny. Ohio may soon follow suit as the ninth state.
Still, as Techdirt notes, many of the states that passed such laws have yet to enforce them meaningfully. In some cases, like New York, the legislation was weakened after passage. Without enforcement teeth, these bills risk being symbolic victories. And with mounting political and fiscal pressure during Trump’s second term, there’s concern that ambitious consumer protections could quietly fall off the legislative agenda.
Washington The Eighth State To Pass ‘Right To Repair’ Law | Techdirt
My column for Bloomberg Tax this week looks at the resurgence of Republican-backed proposals for a so-called “millionaire tax” and argues that, far from being a step toward fairness, these marginal rate hikes risk cementing the very inequities they claim to address. I contend that celebrating superficial tweaks to the top marginal tax rate—while leaving the broader tax base untouched—burns valuable political momentum and can make real structural reform less likely in the future.
The problem isn’t just that the ultrawealthy pay too little tax—it’s that we’re taxing the wrong things in the wrong ways. A new bracket on reported income doesn’t reach the vast majority of economic income for the ultrawealthy, which comes from unrealized gains, pass-through structures, and other vehicles that avoid ordinary income classification. A serious reform agenda would prioritize taxing that hidden wealth: ending stepped-up basis, closing the carried interest loophole, and addressing partnership opacity.
Superficial changes like a new tax bracket can create the illusion of progress while leaving the architecture of tax avoidance intact. Worse, these symbolic victories often sap the will for deeper, more consequential change. Once lawmakers can declare they’ve “done something,” it becomes harder to make the case that more action is needed. As I argue in the piece, this is how inequality persists—not just through resistance, but through the misdirection of well-intentioned but shallow reform.
Share this post