This Day in Legal History: Saddam Hussein Sentenced to Death
On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The charges stemmed from the 1982 massacre of 148 Shiite men and boys in the town of Dujail, an act of collective punishment after an assassination attempt on Hussein. The verdict came after a year-long trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal, a special court established to prosecute former members of Saddam’s regime. The proceedings were highly controversial, drawing criticism for their fairness, security lapses, and political interference.
Saddam’s defense team faced threats and attacks, with several lawyers murdered during the trial. International human rights organizations expressed concern over the tribunal’s procedures, noting a lack of due process protections. Despite these criticisms, the court found Hussein guilty and sentenced him to death. His co-defendants, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bandar, also received death sentences. Saddam remained defiant throughout the trial, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the court and accusing it of being a tool of occupation.
The sentence was upheld on appeal and carried out swiftly, with Saddam Hussein executed on December 30, 2006. His execution, filmed and leaked online, sparked outrage and deepened sectarian tensions in Iraq. Many saw the trial and its aftermath as exacerbating divisions rather than promoting justice and reconciliation. The event marked a pivotal moment in Iraq’s post-invasion legal and political reconstruction, highlighting both the possibilities and limits of transitional justice in a conflict-ridden environment.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law not originally intended for such use. The case stems from lawsuits by affected businesses and 12 mostly Democratic-led states, claiming Trump’s application of IEEPA to impose tariffs violated constitutional limits, as Congress—not the president—holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. The law has traditionally been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions during national emergencies, not to regulate routine trade.
Trump’s administration has defended the tariffs as a national security measure and emphasized their economic impact, having generated nearly $90 billion in revenue. The president has pressured the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to uphold his interpretation of IEEPA, warning that overturning the tariffs would leave the nation vulnerable. If struck down, the administration intends to pursue the tariffs through other legal avenues.
Critics argue the case reflects broader concerns about Trump’s expansion of executive power, as IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Federal Circuit Court ruled against Trump, stating that Congress likely did not intend to hand the president such broad trade authority and invoking the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive power absent clear congressional approval. The justices’ decision will test their willingness to check presidential overreach and could reshape the boundaries of executive authority in economic policy.
Supreme Court weighs legality of tariffs in major test of Trump’s power | Reuters
Supreme Court Confronts Trump’s Power to Disrupt World Trade (1)
The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee, Joshua Dunlap, to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, marking a significant shift for the Boston-based court that had, until now, consisted solely of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The confirmation vote was 52-46, largely along party lines. This is Trump’s first successful appointment to the 1st Circuit, long viewed as a legal roadblock to many of his policies due to its liberal composition.
Dunlap, a conservative litigator from Maine, has a background in challenging progressive state laws, including Maine’s ranked-choice voting system and paid family leave policies. He previously interned with the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom and has expressed personal views critical of abortion and same-sex marriage in past public writings. During his confirmation hearing, he maintained that his personal beliefs would not influence his judicial decisions.
The vacancy Dunlap fills opened when Judge William Kayatta, an Obama appointee, assumed senior status in late 2024. President Biden had nominated Julia Lipez for the seat, but her confirmation stalled before the end of his term. With this appointment, Trump gains a foothold in a court that has played a central role in legal challenges against his administration, and which could now shift incrementally rightward.
Senate confirms Trump’s pick to join liberal-majority US appeals court | Reuters
A federal appeals court appeared doubtful of Sam Bankman-Fried’s bid to overturn his fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence tied to the collapse of his FTX cryptocurrency exchange. During oral arguments, judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether the trial judge’s exclusion of certain defense evidence truly compromised the fairness of the proceedings. One judge asked if, by not disputing the strength of the evidence, Bankman-Fried was effectively conceding its sufficiency.
Bankman-Fried’s legal team argued that even if the jury had enough evidence to convict, the judge’s decisions about what evidence to allow still denied him a fair trial. Specifically, they claimed the jury never saw key materials that could have supported Bankman-Fried’s belief that FTX had the funds to honor customer withdrawals.
Prosecutors pushed back, emphasizing that the government’s case was overwhelming. They noted that three insiders testified they conspired with Bankman-Fried to misappropriate customer funds, and documents corroborated their accounts. Bankman-Fried, once a billionaire and crypto industry figurehead, was convicted in 2023 on seven counts, including fraud and conspiracy, for stealing $8 billion from users.
At sentencing, the judge said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted illegally but underestimated the risk of being caught. Though some close to him have reportedly sought a presidential pardon, Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated in a low-security facility in California and is eligible for release in 2044.
Appeals court skeptical of Sam Bankman-Fried’s bid to toss crypto fraud conviction | Reuters
Google and Epic Games announced a settlement in their years-long legal dispute over app distribution and payment systems on Android devices. While the full terms were not made public, the agreement follows a 2023 jury verdict in favor of Epic, which found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by securing exclusivity deals with phone makers and app developers to lock them into its Play Store.
The settlement arrives as Google was already under a court order to restructure aspects of its app store. U.S. District Judge James Donato had previously mandated that Google stop favoring its own services and allow developers more freedom, including steering users to cheaper payment options outside the Play Store. He also required Google to provide app catalog access to rivals to support competition.
Under the new agreement, many of Donato’s requirements remain, but with modifications. Instead of full catalog access, “registered app stores” will now receive equal treatment to the Play Store, and commission fees for off-store purchases are capped at either 9% or 20%, depending on the transaction. Both companies told the court that negotiations involved top executives and were prompted by the court’s pressure.
The settlement also resolves Epic’s related litigation against Samsung. Executives from both companies described the agreement as a step toward greater developer freedom and a more open Android ecosystem. Google emphasized user safety and developer flexibility, while Epic praised the deal as a return to Android’s open platform roots.
Google, Epic Games Settle Yearslong Legal Fight Over App Store
