This Day in Legal History: Sewing Machine Patent
On this day in legal history, September 10, 1846, Elias Howe was granted U.S. Patent No. 3640 for his invention of the lockstitch sewing machine. Though not the first to envision mechanical sewing, Howe’s design was the first to successfully automate stitching in a way that was both efficient and commercially viable. His machine used a needle with the eye at the point and a shuttle beneath the cloth to form a lockstitch—features that would become industry standards. Despite the innovation, Howe initially struggled to find financial backers and spent time in England attempting to sell his invention, with little success.
When he returned to the United States, Howe discovered that other manufacturers had begun producing similar machines. Chief among them was Isaac Singer, who had developed and begun marketing a sewing machine that closely mirrored Howe's patented design. In 1854, Howe sued Singer for patent infringement, launching one of the first high-profile intellectual property battles in American history. The case turned on whether Singer’s improvements to the machine still relied on Howe’s patented mechanism.
The court ultimately ruled in Howe's favor, affirming that Singer’s use of the lockstitch principle did indeed infringe upon Howe’s patent. Howe was awarded substantial royalties from Singer and other manufacturers using similar technology, securing both recognition and financial reward for his invention. This case set a foundational precedent for the enforceability of patent rights and underscored the economic stakes of intellectual property in the Industrial Age. By the time his patent expired, Howe had amassed a considerable fortune and had firmly established the legal and commercial viability of inventorship in a rapidly mechanizing society.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking an early legal defeat for the administration in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the Fed's independence. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration’s justification—allegations of mortgage fraud committed before Cook took office—did not clearly meet the legal standard for removal. The law governing the Federal Reserve allows governors to be removed only “for cause,” a term not explicitly defined, and this is the first time its limits are being tested in court.
Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, has denied all fraud allegations and is suing both Trump and the Fed, arguing the move is politically motivated due to her monetary policy views. Her legal team argues that even if the mortgage claims were accurate, they predate her Senate confirmation and therefore do not constitute grounds for removal. The White House contends that the president has broad authority to dismiss Fed governors and that this issue should not be subject to judicial review.
Judge Cobb’s ruling allows Cook to remain in her position while the case proceeds and emphasized that the claims did not pertain to her conduct as a sitting Board member. The Department of Justice has opened a criminal probe into the mortgage allegations, issuing subpoenas from Georgia and Michigan. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court and may redefine limits on presidential power over the central bank. Legal experts and Fed supporters view the ruling as a significant moment in affirming the institution’s independence from political interference.
US judge temporarily blocks Trump from removing Fed Governor Cook | Reuters
Trump Can’t Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for Now, Judge Says (1)
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the review of the legality of President Trump’s global tariff policies, setting up a pivotal case over the limits of presidential power in trade. The Court will evaluate whether Trump unlawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law traditionally applied to sanction foreign adversaries—to justify tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and pressuring countries over issues like drug trafficking. Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped, arguing that IEEPA doesn’t grant presidents broad tariff authority and that such actions violate the Constitution’s assignment of trade powers to Congress.
The Justice Department, appealing the rulings, claims that stripping Trump of this power would weaken the country’s defenses against economic threats. In contrast, the challengers—including small businesses, a toy company, and 12 Democrat-led states—argue that only Congress can impose tariffs and that Trump’s interpretation of the law is too expansive. The case invokes the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of large economic and political consequence.
Oral arguments are scheduled for early November, with the Court moving unusually quickly to address the matter. Tariffs remain in place during the legal process. The decision could reshape the scope of executive authority over trade policy and have long-term effects on global markets, U.S. trade relationships, and the national economy. With trillions of dollars in duties at stake, the outcome may also impact future uses of emergency economic powers by presidents.
US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump's tariffs | Reuters
A federal appeals court has mostly upheld a California law aimed at limiting social media use by minors, siding with the state over a legal challenge brought by tech industry group NetChoice. The law, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prohibits platforms from offering so-called "addictive feeds" to users under 18 without parental consent. These feeds, powered by algorithms that tailor content to user behavior, are considered by lawmakers to pose mental health risks to children.
NetChoice, whose members include major tech firms like Google, Meta, Netflix, and X (formerly Twitter), argued that the law is overly vague, unconstitutional, and violates companies’ First Amendment rights. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of these claims, saying the law’s applications were not broadly unconstitutional and that the issue of algorithmic expression is fact-dependent.
The court did strike down one provision requiring platforms to default children's accounts to hide likes and comments, finding it was not the least restrictive means of protecting mental health. It also declined to rule on a requirement that platforms verify users’ ages, since that part of the law doesn’t take effect until 2027.
NetChoice expressed disappointment, saying the ruling gives government more control over online speech than parents. The court returned parts of the case to a lower court for further review. The decision represents a significant legal validation of California’s attempt to regulate how minors interact with digital platforms.
California limits on 'addictive' social media feeds for children largely upheld | Reuters
A federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena medical records of transgender minors who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled that the Department of Justice's subpoena was issued in bad faith, stating its true purpose was to intimidate and interfere with Massachusetts' legal protections for gender-affirming care. The subpoena sought a wide range of sensitive data, including identifiable patient records from the past five and a half years.
The DOJ claimed the records were needed to investigate possible healthcare fraud and off-label drug promotion, but the judge found that the scope of the request far exceeded what would be relevant for such an inquiry. Joun pointed to the administration’s broader political stance against gender-affirming care, including President Trump’s executive order just days after taking office and the DOJ’s public commitment to targeting providers of what it called “radical gender experimentation.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in July that over 20 subpoenas had been issued nationwide to clinics treating transgender youth, seeking not only institutional practices but also personal patient data related to puberty blockers and hormone therapies. Boston Children’s Hospital challenged the subpoena, arguing it was a violation of patient privacy and state protections. Judge Joun agreed, emphasizing that Massachusetts' constitution safeguards access to gender-affirming care and that the subpoena amounted to harassment under the guise of a legal investigation.
Judge blocks Trump administration's subpoena of trans kids' medical records from Boston hospital
