This Day in Legal History: George Wallace Calls out the Alabama National Guard
On September 2, 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace once again attempted to defy federal court orders mandating school integration, this time at Tuskegee High School. Just months after his infamous “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to block Black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama, Wallace ordered the Alabama National Guard to surround Tuskegee High in an effort to prevent the enrollment of thirteen Black students. The integration was ordered by a federal court in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a pivotal case that would eventually lead to sweeping desegregation across Alabama's public school system.
Wallace’s use of the state Guard was a direct challenge to federal authority and part of his broader campaign to maintain segregation under the banner of “states’ rights.” In response, President John F. Kennedy swiftly invoked his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief and federalized the Alabama National Guard. Once under federal control, the troops were ordered to stand down and return to their barracks, removing the immediate threat of military-enforced segregation.
The confrontation at Tuskegee High marked another flashpoint in the broader struggle between federal civil rights enforcement and Southern resistance. Wallace’s actions highlighted the lengths to which segregationist officials would go to preserve Jim Crow, even in the face of binding federal court orders. The federal response signaled a growing willingness by the Kennedy administration to use executive power to enforce civil rights rulings on the ground. The Lee v. Macon litigation would go on to become one of the most significant desegregation cases in the post-Brown era, eventually placing all Alabama schools under court supervision. This incident at Tuskegee underscored both the volatility of the era and the legal system's central role in dismantling systemic segregation.
Legal technology companies are facing increasing pressure to distinguish themselves from general-purpose AI models like ChatGPT and Claude, which continue to improve in accuracy, usability, and affordability. A recent MIT report highlighted a corporate lawyer who preferred using ChatGPT over a $50,000 specialized contract analysis tool, underlining the dilemma: why pay more for tools that may not perform better? While legal tech startups have attracted about $2.2 billion in investment since 2024—80% of it going to AI-focused ventures—they risk being outpaced unless they can offer superior user experience and domain-specific functionality.
Specialized tools often rely on the same large foundation models that power general AI, making differentiation more difficult. However, legal tech firms argue their value lies not in the raw language models but in how they tailor those tools for legal workflows. For example, IP CoPilot identifies patentable ideas—a complex task not easily replicated by general AI. Some legal AI systems, such as Harvey (used by DLA Piper), have gained traction among attorneys, though many still favor ChatGPT.
Studies comparing general and legal-specific tools show mixed results: while general models sometimes outperform on clarity or accuracy, niche tools often prove more valuable in daily legal work. Legal tech companies aim to stay ahead by integrating ethical compliance, user-centered design, and security into their offerings. Unlike general models, they can be customized to reflect a law firm’s risk appetite or case strategy. Some legal AI tools also incorporate retrieval-augmented generation or are trained solely on legal data, increasing their relevance and precision.
Legal Tech Battles to Set Itself Apart From General AI Models
As Congress returns from its August recess on September 2, lawmakers face an urgent deadline to fund the government before the current funding expires on September 30. Among the contentious issues is the fate of the IRS budget. House Republicans are pushing to cut $2.8 billion from the agency, particularly targeting funding for tax compliance and blocking resources for the IRS’s Direct File tool, which allows free online tax filing. Democrats, meanwhile, are opposing the cuts, citing recent staff layoffs and the need to rebuild the agency's capacity. A temporary funding measure could delay decisions but would disrupt preparations for the next tax season.
The Senate has yet to offer a formal counterproposal but has a history of softening House spending cuts, thanks in part to the chamber’s 60-vote legislative threshold. Democrats are expected to advocate for continued funding, especially for auditing high-income taxpayers and improving customer service. IRS employees and their union are calling on Congress to fully fund the agency to strengthen enforcement and reduce the deficit.
Complicating matters further, several leadership vacancies emerged over the summer, including the IRS chief and a top Treasury post. Nominations are moving slowly, with some being blocked by political disputes, such as over clean energy tax credits. At the same time, Republicans are already considering another tax bill, possibly to amend or expand provisions from the July tax law signed by President Trump. This includes industry-backed changes like increased deductions for pass-through entities and revisiting limits on gambling loss deductions. Expiring tax credits—such as ACA health insurance subsidies—could also trigger legislative action, particularly as midterm elections approach.
IRS Funding on Tap as Congress Returns From Summer Recess
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb halted two Trump administration policies that sought to expand fast-track deportations across the country. These policies, enacted in January, allowed immigration authorities to deport non-citizens found anywhere in the U.S. without a court hearing if they couldn’t prove two years of continuous residence. Traditionally, expedited removal applied only to migrants caught near the border shortly after entry, but the expansion would have affected millions more already living within the country.
Judge Cobb ruled that this broadened approach violated the Fifth Amendment's due process protections, emphasizing that people who had settled in the U.S. had a stronger liberty interest in remaining and were entitled to more than a rushed removal process. She criticized the government for not adapting procedural safeguards for this larger and more established group of immigrants, calling the existing process “skimpy” and likely to result in wrongful deportations.
The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy, claiming Trump had legal authority to enforce deportations. However, Cobb refused to delay her ruling pending appeal, effectively stopping the expanded deportation plan immediately. The lawsuit was brought by Make the Road New York, represented by the ACLU. Earlier in the month, Cobb had also blocked another Trump deportation policy targeting immigrants paroled into the U.S. under Biden’s humanitarian programs.
US judge halts Trump effort to expand fast-track deportations | Reuters
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of President Trump’s tariffs are illegal, significantly weakening a cornerstone of his second-term economic policy. The 7–4 decision found that Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which he used to justify new tariffs in April and February. The court emphasized that IEEPA does not grant the president explicit authority to impose taxes or tariffs, only to regulate or restrict imports during national emergencies.
The ruling does not affect tariffs issued under other laws, such as those on steel and aluminum. However, it casts serious doubt on Trump’s broader use of tariffs as leverage in foreign policy and trade negotiations. The decision stems from lawsuits brought by small businesses and Democratic-led states arguing that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs, and that any delegation of this power must be narrowly defined.
The appeals court allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14 to give the administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump criticized the decision as partisan but predicted a reversal. Experts believe the administration was anticipating the ruling and may try to shift its legal strategy. This case now sets the stage for a major Supreme Court confrontation, especially as Trump also challenges the Federal Reserve’s independence.
Most Trump tariffs are not legal, US appeals court rules | Reuters
