This Day in Legal History: Night of the Long Knives Ends
On July 2, 1934, the Night of the Long Knives officially ended, marking one of the most chilling examples of how legal systems can be manipulated to legitimize authoritarian violence. Over the course of several days, Adolf Hitler ordered a purge within his own Nazi Party, targeting the Sturmabteilung (SA) and its leader Ernst Röhm, whom he saw as a threat to his consolidation of power. The executions, carried out primarily by the SS, claimed over 150 lives—many without trial or due process. While it was essentially a mass political assassination campaign, Hitler framed the violence as a necessary defense of the German state.
What made the purge particularly sinister was how it was later codified. On July 3, 1934, the Nazi-controlled cabinet passed a law retroactively legalizing the murders, declaring them acts of state necessity. This not only provided immunity for the perpetrators but also cloaked state violence in the veneer of legality. The judiciary, already aligned with or cowed by the Nazi regime, did not challenge the legality of the purge. Instead, they accepted the new norm that the Führer's word had the force of law.
The Night of the Long Knives exemplifies a central danger in legal history: when the rule of law is subordinated to the rule of one. Under Nazi rule, laws were not instruments of justice, but tools for enforcing ideological purity and eliminating dissent. This episode remains a stark warning of how legal frameworks can be bent—or entirely rewritten—to serve totalitarian ends.
A federal judge in Brooklyn blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 521,000 Haitian immigrants before the program’s scheduled expiration in February 2026. The Department of Homeland Security had moved to terminate the protections early, citing an August 3 end date later revised to September 2. However, Judge Brian Cogan ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted unlawfully by bypassing statutory procedures and lacking the authority to partially vacate Haiti’s TPS designation. He emphasized that the interests of Haitian immigrants in maintaining lawful status and employment in the U.S. far outweighed any claimed governmental harm. The ruling noted that the administration remains free to end TPS, but only in accordance with congressional mandates. The plaintiffs, including Haitian TPS holders, churches, and a labor union, argued that Noem’s actions were both procedurally flawed and racially motivated. Haiti’s ongoing crisis—marked by extreme gang violence and instability—was a central factor in the court’s decision. DHS responded by defending the decision to terminate TPS, stating it was never meant to function as de facto asylum, and pledged to appeal. The case underscores the legal limits on executive authority in immigration policy and reflects broader resistance to Trump’s hardline stance, including similar efforts to rescind TPS for other nationalities.
US judge blocks Trump from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians | Reuters
In a shameful capitulation to the Trump administration, the University of Pennsylvania has agreed to disavow its past adherence to NCAA rules allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports. As part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Education under Title IX, Penn will publicly apologize for permitting swimmer Lia Thomas and others to compete and will retroactively erase records and titles won by transgender athletes. The university, under federal investigation since April, has also committed to reaffirming support for Trump-era executive orders that narrowly define sex in women’s athletics. Penn President J. Larry Jameson attempted to deflect responsibility, noting that the school had simply followed then-valid national athletic regulations, but still conceded that some students may have been "disadvantaged." The Education Department’s announcement, echoing transphobic language, framed the agreement as a victory for “protecting women” from “gender ideology extremism.” While Penn did not confirm, the deal appears tied to the reinstatement of $175 million in federal funding Trump had suspended in March. This decision, cheered by some as protecting competitive fairness, is seen by LGBTQ advocates as a rollback of rights and a politically motivated attack on a small and vulnerable population.
A federal judge has ruled that judges are public officials for the purposes of defamation law, meaning they must meet the higher "actual malice" standard to successfully sue for reputational harm. U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Florida dismissed a lawsuit filed by fellow federal judge Frederic Block, who had accused former members of his Florida condo association's board of defaming him by implying he was a computer hacker. The case centered on a 2020 email that warned residents about privacy and security issues after Block sent a mass message criticizing renovation delays. Block claimed the email suggested he had engaged in criminal conduct, but Altman found no evidence the board acted with actual malice or knowingly spread false information. Altman acknowledged this was likely the first court decision directly applying the "public official" defamation standard to appointed federal judges, but reasoned that the role’s public influence and responsibilities justify such a designation. The ruling effectively ends Block’s suit, reinforcing the principle that public officials—judges included—must tolerate broader public criticism under the First Amendment.
Federal judges are public officials for defamation purposes, judge rules | Reuters
Nearly half a million graduate students could lose access to significant federal financial aid if President Trump’s proposed tax-and-spending bill becomes law. The measure would eliminate the Grad PLUS loan program, which since 2006 has allowed grad students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance beyond other aid. The average loan through this program last year was about $32,000, and its removal would hit low-income and minority students hardest, many of whom attend minority-serving institutions. While proponents argue the move would curb tuition inflation and reduce federal spending—saving an estimated $40.6 billion by 2034—critics say it would force students to turn to private lenders, many of whom impose higher interest rates and stricter borrowing requirements. The bill passed the Senate 51–50 with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote, and is now back in the House. Under the plan, current users of Grad PLUS loans would retain limited access until 2029 or until they finish their programs. The bill would also impose new aggregate limits on other federal graduate loans—$100,000 for master’s students and $200,000 for professional students like those in law or medicine—raising concerns that many will be priced out of advanced degrees.
Grad Students Face Loss of Major Loan Under ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
Share this post