This Day in Legal History: Reagan Fires Air Traffic Controllers
On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan followed through on a warning to striking air traffic controllers by initiating the dismissal of over 11,000 of them. The controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), had walked off the job on August 3, demanding better wages, shorter hours, and improved working conditions. Reagan responded firmly, citing the fact that federal employees had taken an oath not to strike against the government. In a speech delivered the same day the strike began, he gave them 48 hours to return to work or face termination. When the deadline passed without compliance, the administration acted swiftly, beginning the process of mass firings. The move marked a defining moment in Reagan’s presidency and had lasting effects on labor relations in the public sector. It also effectively broke PATCO as a union, with the government decertifying it shortly afterward. The decision underscored Reagan’s commitment to law and order as well as his hardline stance against labor disruptions that affected national infrastructure. It sent a powerful signal to other unions and shifted the political climate around collective bargaining. The Federal Aviation Administration eventually rebuilt the workforce, but full staffing and operations took years to stabilize.
A federal judge in San Diego has ruled that Duane Morris LLP must face most of the claims in a proposed class action accusing the firm of misclassifying certain employees as "partners" to shift tax and benefit costs onto them while denying them a share of the firm's profits. The case was brought by Meagan Garland, a former employment law partner at the firm, who alleges that Duane Morris used the "non-equity partner" designation to avoid paying payroll taxes and employee benefits like health and disability insurance.
Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo rejected Duane Morris' motion to dismiss the majority of Garland’s claims, though she allowed two dismissed claims to be amended. Garland also claims the firm engaged in discriminatory pay practices, alleging that women and minorities were paid less than white male colleagues. Duane Morris, founded in Philadelphia, denies any wrongdoing and contends that Garland was properly treated as a partner under the law. The lawsuit spotlights the broader issue of how law firms use partnership titles that may not reflect actual ownership or control.
US law firm Duane Morris must face lawsuit over alleged partner pay scheme | Reuters
The U.S. Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, is reportedly convening a grand jury to investigate claims that officials from former President Barack Obama’s administration fabricated intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation stems from assertions by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has alleged the intelligence community was politically weaponized. The DOJ recently formed a strike force to assess those claims, though it has not commented on the reported grand jury.
President Donald Trump has amplified Gabbard’s accusations, calling them vindication and reiterating his unsubstantiated claim that Obama committed treason by trying to link him to Russia. Gabbard, who declassified certain documents, claimed they reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” to sabotage Trump’s campaign. Democrats have dismissed the allegations as false and politically driven.
The 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to harm Hillary Clinton and help Trump, primarily through cyber operations and disinformation. However, it found no conclusive evidence that the efforts changed the outcome. Russia has consistently denied any involvement.
US DOJ to open grand jury to investigate Obama officials, source says | Reuters
A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Devin Nunes—former congressman and current CEO of Trump Media—against NBCUniversal over statements made by Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show. The case centered on Maddow’s 2021 claim that Nunes failed to turn over a package he received from Ukrainian legislator Andrii Derkach, who was sanctioned by the U.S. as a Russian agent. Nunes argued that Maddow knowingly misrepresented the situation, since the package had, in fact, been given to the FBI.
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel ruled that Nunes failed to show Maddow acted with "actual malice," a legal requirement for defamation claims brought by public figures. Castel said there was no evidence Maddow knew her statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. He also found no indication that her political bias drove her to fabricate the claim. Maddow and her team had relied on other sources, and weren’t even named as defendants in the suit—NBCUniversal was.
The judge noted that Nunes couldn't prove Maddow was aware of a Politico article stating the FBI had the package. Derkach, the sender of the package, was later charged in an unrelated money laundering case and remains at large. The lawsuit’s dismissal underscores the high bar public figures face when attempting to prove defamation.
Trump Media CEO Nunes loses defamation lawsuit over Rachel Maddow show | Reuters
A federal judge in Mississippi, Henry Wingate, has declined to explain a prior ruling that was riddled with serious factual and procedural errors in a high-profile civil rights case. The original July 20 decision, which temporarily blocked Mississippi’s ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools and universities, mistakenly named incorrect parties, included inaccurate facts, and cited material that may not exist. Wingate replaced the flawed ruling with a corrected version but refused the state’s request for clarification or to preserve the original decision in the public record.
In a brief order, Wingate acknowledged the mistakes as “clerical errors” and asserted that judges have the authority to correct such issues without further explanation. The state’s attorneys haven’t publicly suggested a cause for the mistakes, which surfaced the same week a judge in New Jersey retracted a separate opinion after it was found to contain fake citations likely generated by artificial intelligence. That incident reportedly involved a temporary assistant using AI without adequate oversight.
The Mississippi ruling's errors have raised broader concerns about accuracy and accountability in the judiciary, especially amid increasing scrutiny over AI use in legal writing. Legal ethics experts, including Indiana University professor Charles Geyh, noted the scale of the errors in both cases as unusually severe for federal courts.
US judge says he won't explain error-ridden ruling in Mississippi civil rights case | Reuters
My column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS needs to modernize its understanding of what qualifies as a charitable purpose, especially in the context of open-source software. I focus on the agency’s recent decision to deny 501(c)(3) status to an open-source organization, even though its software was free, publicly licensed, and designed for use by nonprofits, schools, and public entities. The problem, I suggest, is that the IRS still relies on outdated frameworks that fail to see intangible digital goods—like code—as valid public benefits, even when they clearly serve civic or educational ends.
I draw comparisons to other nonphysical outputs the IRS has deemed charitable, such as legal covenants used in historic preservation or freely distributed textbooks. If those are eligible, why not code? The IRS’s reasoning—that open accessibility negates exclusivity of charitable purpose—misunderstands how open-source licensing already limits private benefit. Licenses like the GNU GPL are specifically structured to ensure that the software remains free and publicly useful, even when reused or modified.
I also point out that open-source tools power major government systems, including those of the IRS itself. Recognizing code as a charitable output wouldn’t require creating new law—just applying existing standards more consistently. If architectural plans or legal documents can qualify, so should code that educates, streamlines public services, or saves nonprofits from buying costly proprietary tools.
Open-Source Coders Who Benefit the Public Should Be Tax-Exempt
Share this post