This Day in Legal History: Frederick Douglass Escapes Slavery
On this day in legal history, September 3, 1838, Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery, setting in motion a life that would fundamentally reshape American legal and political thought. Disguised as a free Black sailor, Douglass boarded a train in Baltimore and made his way north to freedom, ultimately arriving in New York City. His flight from bondage was not just a personal liberation—it was a direct challenge to the legal regime of American slavery, upheld at the time by both state laws and federal statutes such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Douglass's successful escape, aided by forged documents and the relative leniency of northern vigilance at the time, highlights the tension between laws protecting property in human beings and the moral and constitutional arguments against such laws.
Once free, Douglass became one of the most powerful legal thinkers of the 19th century, though he was never formally trained as a lawyer. Through his speeches, writings, and public advocacy, he shaped legal discourse on citizenship, equal protection, and constitutional interpretation. He directly influenced Reconstruction-era legal developments, including debates over the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. His 1852 speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” offered a searing legal and moral critique of the Constitution’s complicity with slavery, while still asserting its potential as a freedom-promoting document when interpreted through a natural rights lens.
Douglass’s escape, and the career it made possible, also underscored the limits of law in the face of moral justice: in 1838, his very existence in the North was criminal under federal law. That reality would not change until the formal abolition of slavery in 1865. His advocacy helped lay the groundwork for a new legal order that could no longer reconcile itself with the ownership of people. September 3 is not just the anniversary of one man’s flight—it marks a turning point in the long legal struggle to align American law with its professed ideals.
President Donald Trump is prepared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his administration's use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs, including those targeting fentanyl and “reciprocal” trade imbalances. This follows two significant legal defeats, including a 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president sweeping tariff authority. The court held that the statute, enacted in 1977, lacks any reference to tariffs among its regulatory tools, creating a serious challenge to the legal basis for Trump’s actions.
Despite the legal headwinds, Trump's team remains optimistic, noting the conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and the Court's traditional deference in matters of foreign affairs. However, legal scholars suggest the case hinges on the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing executive action with major economic or political impact. This doctrine was previously used to strike down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan in 2023.
Observers expect the Court to address whether IEEPA’s silence on tariffs means such powers were never intended. If the Court rules against Trump, his administration is already eyeing fallback legal authorities, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Act, to keep tariffs in place. Meanwhile, nearly $66 billion in collected duties could be subject to refunds if importers challenge payments. A Supreme Court decision is likely by early 2026, with significant consequences for presidential trade powers.
Trump to ask Supreme Court to save tariffs but faces tough legal questions
A U.S. federal judge ruled that Google can keep its Chrome browser and Android operating system, dealing a blow to antitrust enforcers who had hoped for more aggressive remedies. However, the judge ordered Google to begin sharing key search and advertising data with competitors in an effort to restore competition in online search. This decision follows a five-year legal battle in which Judge Amit Mehta previously found Google to be maintaining an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising. Despite that finding, Mehta declined to force structural changes like breaking up Google, citing recent advances in AI as creating new, organic competition.
The ruling is a partial victory for Google and Apple, as it allows the two tech giants to continue their $20 billion annual deal that makes Google the default search engine on Apple devices. It also permits Google to maintain similar agreements with device makers like Samsung and Motorola, although exclusive contracts are now banned. Google stock jumped over 7% in after-hours trading following the decision.
The court emphasized that AI companies like OpenAI are already better positioned to compete with Google than traditional search competitors have been in decades. The data-sharing order could benefit developers of AI-powered search tools and browsers, but the competitive impact may not be felt immediately. Google, while considering an appeal, expressed concerns that the order could undermine user privacy.
The ruling is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, where Mehta’s restrained approach may stand a better chance of surviving appeal. The case is part of a broader government crackdown on Big Tech, which includes ongoing legal battles involving Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple.
Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust ruling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport a group of Venezuelans he alleged were members of the Tren de Aragua gang. In a 2–1 decision, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the deportations, marking the first appellate ruling to directly address Trump’s invocation of the centuries-old law through a March 14 presidential proclamation.
Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick rejected the administration’s claim that the gang’s presence constituted a "predatory incursion" under the law, which only authorizes deportations during times of declared war or invasions. The court emphasized that neither condition was met. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez joined Southwick, while Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham dissented.
The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration, which had sought to use the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime measure—to conduct swift removals of alleged gang members without traditional due process. The Supreme Court had already intervened in May, halting removals on procedural grounds and criticizing the administration for providing only 24 hours' notice to detainees without clear instructions on how to contest deportation.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Venezuelans, hailed the decision as a vital check on presidential power, warning against executive overreach during peacetime. Legal experts expect the issue to eventually return to the Supreme Court. The administration may first seek a rehearing from the full Fifth Circuit.
US appeals court rejects Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had declared the federal machine gun ban unconstitutional, upholding the long-standing prohibition on such weapons. The case centered on Tamori Morgan, a Kansas man charged with possessing a machine gun and a conversion device known as a "Glock switch." A federal judge in Wichita, appointed by President Donald Trump, had previously dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which required modern gun laws to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The appeals court, however, found that Bruen did not dismantle the existing legal framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which protects weapons “in common use” for lawful self-defense. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Scott Matheson held that machine guns do not meet that standard and are primarily used for unlawful purposes, even if their usage is more widespread than official data suggests.
Congress first regulated machine guns in 1934 and fully banned the possession of newly manufactured ones in 1986. The appellate ruling reinforces the idea that such weapons fall outside the Second Amendment’s protections, despite recent expansions of individual gun rights. The court emphasized that even under Bruen, regulations do not require a perfect historical match—only a relevant analogue, which the machine gun ban has.
US appeals court upholds machine gun ban, reversing trial judge
My column for Bloomberg this week takes a hard look at the newly expanded federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) and asks whether it’s really doing what it claims: reducing child poverty. On the surface, the policy looks like progress. The maximum credit is up to $2,200 and now indexed to inflation—something advocates have long called for. But dig into the mechanics, and a more troubling picture emerges.
Despite the expansion, around 19 million children—28% of all kids in the U.S.—will remain ineligible for the full credit simply because their families don’t earn enough. That’s not a glitch; it’s built into the law. The income phase-in structure means the poorest families, those most in need, get the least. In fact, a family of four has to make $41,500 to qualify for the full benefit—well above the federal poverty line of $32,150.
This flawed design disproportionately affects Black, Latino, and Native American children, as well as kids in single-parent and rural households. And it's a bipartisan failure: Columbia University’s data shows the exclusions cut across red and blue congressional districts almost evenly. That’s part of what makes this so frustrating—lawmakers on both sides get to claim credit for “expanding” the CTC, even as millions of children continue to be left behind.
Meanwhile, states are quietly filling the gap. Since the expiration of the more generous pandemic-era CTC in 2021, about a dozen states have implemented their own refundable credits. The results speak volumes. In Minnesota, for example, a $1,750 per-child credit is projected to lift 13,000 children out of poverty—nearly half the impact of the expanded federal credit in that state. Colorado and Vermont have seen similar success.
The message here is that small, targeted, refundable state credits can work—and are working. Columbia’s numbers prove that these policies are more than symbolic; they’re helping real families. But that momentum could vanish if states assume Washington has solved the problem. The federal version may dominate headlines, but it’s the state-level credits doing the actual heavy lifting.
Tax policy doesn’t usually offer much moral clarity, but this time it does. States have the tools to fight child poverty. The only real question is whether they’ll use them—or wait around for Congress to deliver another “big, beautiful” fix that never arrives.
Trump’s New Child Tax Credit Deems Millions ‘Too Poor’ to Qualify
