This Day in Legal History: Little Rock Nine
On September 23, 1957, nine African American students, later known as the Little Rock Nine, were barred from entering Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, despite a federal court order mandating desegregation. This confrontation became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement and a key test of federal authority to enforce the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the National Guard earlier that month to prevent the students from entering the school, citing concerns about public safety. On September 23, the students attempted to enter the school through a side door. Although they briefly succeeded, a growing and increasingly violent white mob outside forced officials to remove the students for their safety. The local police were unable to contain the mob, highlighting the state's failure to comply with federal law.
The national spotlight turned sharply toward Little Rock, prompting President Dwight D. Eisenhower to intervene. The next day, September 24, he federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the students' right to attend the school, which they did under armed guard on September 25.
This event marked the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were used in the South to enforce civil rights. It underscored the constitutional principle of federal supremacy and the power of the federal government to uphold civil rights against state resistance.
President Trump is set to sign an executive order this week confirming that a proposed deal to restructure TikTok’s U.S. operations will satisfy the 2024 law requiring divestment from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. Under the arrangement, ByteDance would retain less than 20% ownership, while American investors—including Trump-aligned figures like Lachlan Murdoch, Larry Ellison, and Michael Dell—would take control of the U.S. business. The restructuring would install a U.S.-based board with national security credentials, aiming to quell longstanding fears that TikTok user data could be accessed by the Chinese government.
The executive order also pauses enforcement of the divestment mandate for 120 days, buying time to finalize the deal and secure regulatory sign-offs. While the U.S. government will not take a board seat or a “golden share,” it remains unclear whether the final agreement will involve any direct financial benefit to the federal government. Still, Trump’s fingerprints are all over the transaction, from its nationalistic framing to the prominent role of political allies in the investor pool. He’s even credited TikTok with helping him connect to young voters—a not-so-subtle nod to the platform’s political utility heading into 2026.
This deal marks rare progress in U.S.-China economic talks, which have been largely stalled amid broader trade tensions. But it also reflects a larger trend: Trump’s willingness to insert the federal government directly into private sector negotiations, whether by greenlighting chip exports to China or taking equity in major tech firms. Critics argue such moves undermine free-market principles and risk long-term damage to U.S. competitiveness. Supporters, however, see it as strategic economic defense.
In short, Trump’s TikTok solution is part national security play, part corporate reshuffling, and part political theater. Whether it holds up legally—or operationally—may matter less than the narrative: the U.S. regaining control of a culturally dominant platform while sidelining Beijing.
Lachlan Murdoch, Michael Dell, Ellison involved in TikTok deal, Trump says | Reuters
Trump will sign order declaring TikTok deal meets 2024 law requirements | Reuters
K&L Gates is closing its Beijing office, becoming the latest U.S. law firm to retreat from China amid ongoing geopolitical tensions and a sluggish legal market. The Pittsburgh-based firm will consolidate its Beijing operations into its Shanghai office following a leadership review of global strategy and real estate. The move comes under new global managing partner Stacy Ackermann, who took the helm in July.
Though K&L Gates will maintain a presence in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia, its exit from Beijing reflects a broader trend. Over the past two years, major U.S. firms like Wilson Sonsini, Cleary Gottlieb, and Winston & Strawn have also shuttered offices in China due to declining deal flow and increased scrutiny of foreign businesses. While some firms continue to operate in Chinese cities, the heyday of aggressive U.S. legal expansion into China—peaking about a decade ago—appears to be over. The firm's departure underscores the mounting challenges of navigating China’s legal environment in an era of strategic decoupling.
K&L Gates closes Beijing office as US law firms continue China market retreat | Reuters
Zillow is facing a new proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of deceiving homebuyers by steering them toward its own network of affiliated agents rather than the actual listing agents. Filed in Seattle, the suit claims Zillow’s platform misleads users into contacting agents who financially benefit the company—sometimes giving Zillow as much as 40% of their commissions—without disclosing this arrangement to buyers or sellers.
The plaintiff, an Oregon resident, argues that these tactics violate both Washington state consumer protection laws and federal real estate laws by inflating commissions and limiting consumer choice. The suit alleges Zillow’s practices result in higher home prices and a lack of transparency about who truly represents the buyer’s interests. The legal team behind the suit characterizes Zillow’s business model as one that exploits consumers’ need for housing to boost profits.
Zillow has pushed back, calling the lawsuit a misrepresentation of its operations and defending its model as pro-consumer. This case adds to a growing list of legal challenges for the real estate giant, which is already battling other lawsuits over competition and marketing practices, including one from brokerage Compass and another from Homes.com owner CoStar.
New lawsuit accuses Zillow of deceiving home buyers | Reuters
My column for Bloomberg this week argues that as states try to modernize sales tax rules for the digital economy, they should stop framing digital offerings as either “goods” or “services” and start taxing them based on function. The Multistate Tax Commission (MTC) is circulating a proposal to define “automated digital products” as those sold with minimal human intervention. While well-intentioned, this definition is fuzzy and risks creating more confusion than clarity. For example, how do we categorize a chatbot that occasionally escalates to a live agent, or AI tools that require ongoing human training? These gray areas aren’t new—states have spent years litigating whether software is tangible, intangible, or a service, and this could be a repeat of that same cycle.
Instead of defining digital products by how much human effort goes into delivering them, we should define them by what they do. A Netflix subscription is entertainment. QuickBooks is a productivity tool. Therapy on Zoom is health care. Consumers already experience digital services this way, and tax codes should align accordingly. Function-based categories would mirror existing tax practices, like how business deductions or ticket sales are handled, and would be far easier to scale to emerging technologies.
It’s true that a functional model still faces edge cases—ChatGPT, for instance, could be research, productivity, or entertainment depending on use. But these are better problems to have than trying to parse human involvement in the delivery pipeline. If states want to tax digital products sensibly, they need a system that reflects how people actually use these tools, not how they’re coded or deployed.
