This Day in Legal History: Switch in Time that Saved Nine
On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that became known as the “court-packing” plan. Frustrated by the Court striking down key New Deal programs, Roosevelt sought to add up to six new justices, arguing it would make the Court more efficient. His plan allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire. Critics saw this as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and tilt the Court in Roosevelt’s favor. The proposal faced strong bipartisan opposition, including from members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party.
While the plan ultimately failed in the Senate, the political pressure had an effect. Soon after, the Court began ruling in favor of New Deal legislation, a shift sometimes called “the switch in time that saved nine.” This shift preserved Roosevelt’s policies without requiring changes to the Court’s structure. By the early 1940s, Roosevelt had the chance to appoint multiple justices as vacancies naturally occurred. The controversy reinforced the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It also set a precedent that court expansion efforts would be met with significant resistance.
The court-packing episode remains relevant in modern debates over judicial reform. It serves as a historical lesson on the limits of presidential power and the resilience of the judiciary. Roosevelt, despite his immense political influence, could not force structural changes to the Supreme Court. The episode highlights the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches, ensuring no single branch dominates the government.
Pam Bondi was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General in a 54-46 Senate vote, positioning her to lead the Justice Department amid significant shifts under the Trump administration. Bondi, a longtime Trump ally, takes over as the department faces internal upheaval, with interim leadership forcing out officials involved in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. She has pledged to restore what she calls an "equal, fair system of justice" and to end the "partisan weaponization" of the DOJ.
Since Trump took office, the DOJ has realigned its priorities, focusing on immigration enforcement while reducing emphasis on other areas. One of Trump’s first executive orders directed the agency to address alleged "weaponization" of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Bondi supports this effort, vowing to enforce the law vigorously while backing the administration’s policy shifts.
Her tenure is expected to bring further changes, including tensions between the DOJ and the FBI. Recently, the FBI was asked to provide names of employees involved in January 6 investigations, prompting lawsuits from agents concerned about retaliation. Critics warn that the administration’s moves risk politicizing the DOJ and eroding institutional knowledge as career officials depart.
Bondi Confirmed as Trump’s Attorney General to Lead DOJ Shake-Up - Bloomberg
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is suing the Trump administration to stop its voluntary resignation program, "Fork in the Road," arguing it violates federal law. The program allows federal employees who resign by February 6 to continue receiving pay and benefits through September 30, but requires them to waive their right to sue their employer. The union claims this promise is illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from committing funds before Congress approves them.
Congress has only authorized funding for most agencies through March 14, meaning agencies cannot guarantee salaries beyond that date. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is the latest challenge to efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reduce the federal workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) argues that the resignation offer is legal because it does not provide “additional compensation.”
AFGE has received thousands of complaints from employees, saying the program forces staff to work extra hours while raising concerns about whether the government will honor its commitments. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.
Federal Worker Union Sues to Stop Trump's Resignation Offer (1)
Farmers in Curry County, New Mexico, are at a critical juncture in their fight against PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base, with a key court hearing set for February 7. Art and Renee Schaap, once owners of a thriving dairy farm, were forced to slaughter their entire herd after discovering dangerously high levels of PFAS in their water supply. The chemicals, linked to firefighting foam used by the military, rendered their milk unsellable and their land contaminated.
A legal battle over the government’s responsibility is unfolding, with the Schaaps’ case becoming a test for broader national litigation. The Pentagon has requested dismissal of all claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that its use of PFAS-containing foam was discretionary and therefore not subject to lawsuits. The government is also resisting cleanup demands under Superfund laws, which could delay remediation efforts.
If the court allows lawsuits to proceed, affected farmers and businesses may finally receive compensation and quicker environmental cleanup. Meanwhile, concerns over PFAS exposure continue to grow, with nearby cheese processors and residents installing costly water filtration systems to protect against contamination. The Air Force has begun cleanup efforts, including a planned $73 million water treatment facility, but obstacles remain, including regulatory changes and the lack of proven PFAS destruction technologies.
For now, the Schaaps and other local farmers face uncertainty, with their land value in question and their future livelihoods at risk. The case’s outcome could determine whether the military is held accountable for widespread PFAS contamination affecting communities nationwide.
Farmers Ruined by PFAS Face Key Moment in Fight Against
Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips may seem like a win for hospitality workers, but it risks deepening wage inequities and further entrenching the service industry’s reliance on gratuities. While tipped workers might see short-term benefits, the policy would leave out millions of low-wage workers in non-tipped sectors, such as retail or manufacturing, exacerbating disparities. It could also push more workers into precarious, tip-dependent jobs rather than stable, salaried positions.
By making tips tax-free, employers may feel even less incentive to raise wages, worsening income instability for workers who already rely on inconsistent gratuities. The plan also ignores existing discrimination in tipping, which could become even more entrenched in an unregulated tip-based economy. Instead of piecemeal solutions that favor certain workers over others, policymakers should focus on raising the federal minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage exemption.
The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 per hour since 1991, despite inflation reducing its value over time. Phasing it out and aligning it with the federal minimum wage would offer workers more stability, ensuring they earn a livable income independent of customer generosity. A broader increase in the minimum wage is also necessary, as the current $7.25 rate, set in 2009, has failed to keep pace with inflation.
While tax-free tips may sound appealing, they don’t address the root causes of wage insecurity. True reform would prioritize fair pay for all low-wage workers, creating stability and reducing financial precarity across industries.
Trump’s Tax-Free Tips Proposal May Sound Good But Is a Risky Bet
Share this post