This Day in Legal History: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

On August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law, reshaping the American welfare system in ways that continue to spark debate. Billed as a way to "end welfare as we know it," the law imposed strict work requirements on recipients and introduced a five-year lifetime limit on federal benefits, regardless of economic conditions. The legislation replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), transforming a federal entitlement into a state-administered block grant system.

Supporters of the reform hailed it as a bipartisan success, encouraging employment and reducing long-term dependency. But critics argue that the law eroded the social safety net and punished the poor, particularly single mothers and children, by prioritizing ideological goals over economic realities. States were given broad discretion in how to allocate funds, leading to uneven access and accountability. Many used their new flexibility not to expand support systems but to restrict eligibility and reduce caseloads, often with little evidence of improved outcomes.

The law also failed to account for structural barriers to employment—such as childcare shortages, low wages, and racial discrimination—leaving many without support when they failed to meet work requirements. Moreover, the block grant’s fixed funding has not kept pace with inflation or need, effectively shrinking welfare over time. While welfare rolls dropped sharply in the years following the reform, poverty did not—suggesting that many were simply pushed out of the system rather than lifted out of hardship. The 1996 law codified a narrative of moral failing over structural inequality, framing poverty as a matter of personal irresponsibility rather than systemic dysfunction.

A federal judge ordered an immediate halt to new construction at the controversial "Alligator Alcatraz" migrant detention center in Florida’s Everglades. The facility, championed by Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, was barred from accepting new detainees and required to dismantle supporting infrastructure—including generators, waste systems, fencing, and lighting—within 60 days. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, sided with environmental groups who argued the project violated federal, state, and local environmental laws.

The detention center, estimated to cost $450 million annually and house up to 5,000 detainees, had drawn backlash for its location in a fragile wetland ecosystem populated by endangered species. Environmental advocates and some local leaders had long criticized the plan, noting it conflicted with decades of political pledges to protect and restore the Everglades. The Department of Homeland Security had tapped FEMA funds to support the project, raising additional controversy over funding priorities.

In her ruling, Judge Williams emphasized that the project ran counter to longstanding legislative commitments to environmental protection. Florida has already filed an appeal, but environmental groups hailed the decision as a critical victory. Despite mounting opposition, Trump dismissed ecological concerns and reaffirmed his intent to replicate the model nationally as part of his broader immigration crackdown.

Judge orders halt to new construction at 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center | Reuters

Alligator Alcatraz Expansion Blocked for Harm to Environment (1)

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a pair of redistricting bills designed to redraw congressional districts in favor of Democrats—part of an aggressive political response to a newly passed gerrymandered map in Texas. Both states are now embroiled in legal and constitutional battles, as Republicans and Democrats seek to lock in partisan advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom also set a special statewide election for November 4, asking voters to approve the new map. If passed, it could flip up to five Republican-held House seats and secure four Democratic-leaning swing districts.

California’s strategy sidesteps its voter-created independent redistricting commission, which has been enshrined in the state constitution since 2010 to prevent political interference. Because of that, lawmakers are now required to get voter approval to implement their plan—creating a high-stakes ballot measure, Proposition 50. Republicans and good-government advocates, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charles Munger Jr., have vowed to fight the plan in court and on the ballot. A pending GOP lawsuit argues the legislature violated the state's 30-day waiting period for new bills, pushing through the redistricting effort without proper transparency.

In Texas, the Republican-controlled legislature approved a new congressional map at the urging of President Trump, hoping to maintain a narrow House majority. Voting rights groups immediately challenged the plan, claiming it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by racially diluting Black and Latino voting power. The case will be heard by a federal three-judge panel in El Paso, with a likely fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Republicans, including Governor Greg Abbott, deny any racial bias and argue the map reflects demographic shifts and Republican gains among minority voters.

This escalating redistricting clash highlights the legal vulnerability of U.S. voting systems when partisan manipulation goes unchecked. Though the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering remains justiciable under the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, California Democrats are relying on voter sentiment—and Trump’s unpopularity in the state—to justify a temporary abandonment of anti-gerrymandering principles.

Explainer: The legal battles over redistricting in Texas and California | Reuters

Newsom Signs California Redistricting Plan to Counter Texas Republicans - The New York Times

A federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, President Trump’s controversial appointee as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, had no legal authority to hold the office after her temporary term expired. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann found that the Trump administration violated federal law by firing Habba’s court-selected successor, Desiree Grace, and then using a series of procedural maneuvers to reinstall Habba. These included appointing her as “special attorney,” then naming her first assistant U.S. attorney to invoke the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Brann concluded that Habba was unlawfully performing the duties of U.S. Attorney as of July 1 and that her actions from that point forward “may be declared void.” The ruling blocks her from overseeing or participating in criminal cases, and it extends to prosecutors operating under her supervision. The judge criticized the administration’s strategy as an attempt to bypass Senate confirmation entirely by exploiting loopholes in temporary appointment rules, warning that this interpretation could let the executive branch install preferred prosecutors indefinitely.

The Trump-appointed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, vowed to appeal, and Brann stayed his ruling pending the outcome. Still, the decision casts a shadow over prosecutions under Habba’s leadership, and some courts in New Jersey have already paused proceedings. Brann also rejected the idea that firing interim appointees before their terms expire could justify continual reappointments without oversight.

Defense attorneys in the case that triggered the ruling argued that the executive branch cannot sidestep a process designed to check prosecutorial power through judicial or Senate involvement. Though the judge refused to throw out defendant Cesar Pina’s indictment—since the investigation began before Habba’s unlawful tenure—the ruling reinforces that prosecutorial authority must be rooted in lawful appointment.

Alina Habba Blocked From Handling Cases in Rebuke to Trump (3)

This week’s closing theme is by Claude Debussy.

This week’s closing theme comes from Debussy, born on August 22, 1862—an apt choice as we mark the anniversary of his birth. Debussy was a revolutionary figure in Western music, often associated with Impressionism, though he rejected the label. He sought to break from the rigid structures of the Germanic tradition, instead favoring color, atmosphere, and suggestion over clear-cut form and resolution. His music evokes shifting light, fluid motion, and emotional ambiguity—more akin to poetry or painting than to classical architecture.

One of his early works, Rêverie, composed in the 1890s, offers a glimpse into the world he would come to define. The title means “daydream,” and the piece unfolds with a gentle, unhurried lyricism that floats outside of time. Though simple in construction, it is harmonically rich and emotionally resonant—hinting at the innovations to come in Clair de Lune, Prélude à l’après-midi d’un faune, and Pelléas et Mélisande.

Rêverie was one of Debussy’s first pieces to gain public attention, though he later dismissed it as “a piece for salon use.” Listeners have disagreed ever since. Its introspective tone and delicate touch make it a lasting favorite among pianists and audiences alike. It feels like a whisper—never urgent, never insistent, always inviting. In that sense, it’s a fitting farewell for the week: contemplative, unresolved, and open to interpretation.

Without further ado, Claude Debussy’s Rêverie enjoy!

This Day in Legal History: ABA Formed

On August 21, 1878, 75 lawyers convened in Saratoga Springs, New York, and formally established the American Bar Association (ABA). Their shared aim was to advance the “science of jurisprudence,” promote uniform legislation, strengthen justice administration, uphold the profession’s honor, and encourage collegial interaction among lawyers. Their organizing document—the original constitution—still shapes the ABA’s mission today.

Over time, the ABA became the premier professional association for attorneys in the U.S., influencing national legal education, ethics, and law reform. It introduced the first national ethics code in 1908 (the Canons of Professional Ethics), which eventually evolved into today’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

While the ABA once counted about 400,000 dues-paying members, by the low‑point of 2019, it had lost approximately 56,000 members—a symptom of shifting professional norms and changing perceptions of organizational value. Membership has continued to decline, with figures dropping as low as 227,000 by 2024. In response, the ABA has implemented membership reforms and reduced dues tiers to attract and re-engage lawyers, especially those early in their careers.

The American Bar Association’s recent actions reflect a mixed record in the face of escalating political pressure—particularly from the Trump administration and its allies. On one hand, the ABA has forcefully resisted efforts to erode legal independence: in 2025, it filed a federal lawsuit accusing the administration of intimidating law firms engaged in politically sensitive representation, and it criticized the DOJ’s move to exclude the ABA from vetting judicial nominees as a blow to transparency and professionalism. It also defended its longstanding role in law school accreditation amid efforts to strip that authority.

On the other hand, the ABA’s decision in August 2025 to eliminate five Board of Governors seats historically reserved for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities marks a notable concession under pressure. The newly adopted policy opens these seats to anyone with a demonstrated commitment to diversity, regardless of their own demographic identity. While proponents framed the shift as a legal safeguard against lawsuits, critics viewed it as a capitulation—especially given the broader political context, including targeted attacks on ABA diversity programs and threats to its accreditation authority. The organization has also paused enforcement of its law school diversity standards until at least 2026.

The Justice Department under the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its investigation into gender-affirming care, targeting the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia with a sweeping subpoena demanding detailed records—including names and Social Security numbers—of patients who received such treatments. This move is part of a broader campaign to prosecute medical providers offering care to transgender youth, following a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to aggressively pursue these cases.

The hospital pushed back against the subpoena, calling it an invasive overreach into a vulnerable population’s privacy. In response, DOJ took the unusual step of asking the court to unseal the litigation, a departure from standard practice in sensitive investigations where proceedings are typically kept sealed to protect investigatory integrity. The judge sided with the DOJ, opening the docket earlier this month.

The subpoena was signed by Brett Shumate, the newly confirmed head of DOJ’s civil division, bypassing career officials who had refused to sign similar subpoenas due to ethical and legal concerns. Internal dissent had already emerged, with former officials warning that collecting such data lacked a strong legal basis, especially since off-label prescriptions like puberty blockers are not illegal under federal law.

Critics say the investigation appears more performative than prosecutorial, designed to chill gender-affirming care through public pressure rather than build viable legal cases. The Trump administration has also directed other agencies, including HHS and the FTC, to scrutinize these practices, while states like Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's actions. The outcome of the Philadelphia case, now in front of a federal judge, could shape how far the administration can go in turning gender-related health care into a legal battleground.

Justice Department Expands Gender Care Probe as Hospital Fights

A recent ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked growing concern among corporate legal teams that the boundaries of attorney-client privilege—especially for in-house counsel—are being narrowed in ways that could harm innovation and compliance. The district court found Apple had improperly claimed privilege over documents that mixed legal advice with business guidance, drawing a sharp rebuke that “adding a lawyer’s name to a document does not create a privilege.”

That finding is now being appealed, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) warning that upholding the decision could upend how legal departments operate—particularly in fast-moving sectors like AI and cybersecurity, where legal and business decisions are tightly intertwined. In-house counsel argue they need the flexibility to weigh legal risks within the real-world context of product development, market pressures, and regulatory uncertainty.

At issue is the standard used to define privilege. The Ninth Circuit has previously backed the “primary purpose” test, which protects dual-purpose communications if a significant purpose was legal. But the district court’s approach appeared more rigid, raising fears that companies will be discouraged from seeking or documenting legal guidance unless they rely on expensive outside counsel.

Legal leaders say this shift would disproportionately impact smaller firms and startups already stretched thin. They also point to a broader ambiguity across federal circuits regarding dual-purpose communications, and argue that only a Supreme Court ruling can definitively resolve the inconsistencies.

Oral arguments in the appeal are set for October 21.

Apple Ruling Raises Business Fear of Legal Privileges Eroding

A federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending deportation protections and work permits for over 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unsigned order permitting the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these groups while legal challenges continue. No legal reasoning was provided in the brief order.

The decision lifts an earlier block by a federal district judge, who had ruled that the move was likely driven by racial animus, violating constitutional protections. The new ruling immediately ends protections for Nepali nationals, with protections for Honduran and Nicaraguan immigrants set to expire by September 8.

The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling as a step toward restoring the immigration system’s integrity, arguing TPS has been misused as a backdoor form of asylum. Immigrant advocates, meanwhile, condemned the lack of explanation from the court and warned of serious humanitarian consequences for those now facing deportation to unstable regions.

The case remains ongoing, but for now, thousands of individuals who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years are left in legal limbo.

Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says | Reuters

Elon Musk must face a lawsuit alleging he and his political action committee, America PAC, ran an illegal election-year lottery disguised as a $1 million-a-day giveaway. A federal judge in Texas ruled that plaintiff Jacqueline McAferty plausibly claimed Musk misled voters—particularly in battleground states—into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering what appeared to be a random chance at a $1 million prize.

McAferty alleges that, in exchange for signing, voters were required to provide personal data—names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails—which she claims was exploited for political targeting. Musk argued that the program was not a lottery because recipients were chosen to “earn” the funds and serve as America PAC spokespeople. But the judge pointed to conflicting language used in promotional materials suggesting the money could be “won,” making it reasonable for voters to think it was a sweepstakes-style contest.

Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, also rejected Musk’s argument that voters suffered no harm, noting that expert testimony could establish the market value of political data collected during the promotion.

The lawsuit, filed on Election Day 2024, underscores growing concerns over the use of high-dollar giveaways in political campaigning and how voter data is gathered and deployed in swing states. Musk and his PAC have not yet commented on the ruling.

Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery | Reuters

And in a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week: the new One Big Beautiful Bill Act revives full expensing for U.S.-based research and development, a policy designed to encourage domestic innovation and hiring. At first glance, it seems like a major win for the tech sector and high-skilled job creation. But the labor market response reveals a deeper issue: you can’t stimulate demand for talent without also addressing supply. With immigration pathways constrained and no meaningful expansion of domestic training infrastructure, the policy has triggered a spike in labor costs rather than a boom in innovation.

In the absence of new talent pipelines, startups and tech firms are now paying steep premiums to hire U.S.-based engineers, effectively converting the R&D tax break into a subsidy for a tight labor market. Meanwhile, immigration policy remains restrictive, and education-focused workforce solutions aren’t being scaled fast enough to meet the moment. The result is a bottleneck: jobs going unfilled, innovation slowing, and companies forced to reconsider hiring or delay projects altogether.

The piece argues that while R&D expensing is smart fiscal policy, it only works as part of a broader strategy that includes visa reform, immigration support for high-skilled workers, and real investments in talent development. Without those pieces in place, we’re left with a politically appealing tax tweak that, in practice, fails to deliver the innovation surge it promises.

Turns Out Research Tax Breaks Alone Can’t Conjure Developers

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity Act

On August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government’s efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson’s "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.

The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.

Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.

Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states’ rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.

By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.

California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom’s redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.

Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.

California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state’s independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.

California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | Reuters

A federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk’s SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president’s authority over the executive branch.

This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB’s structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.

The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.

Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court’s panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.

Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | Reuters

Nevada’s Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware’s Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.

Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission’s work would serve as an interim step.

This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware’s procedures.

Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.

Nevada’s Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court Rules

Investors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.

They’ve asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.

The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.

A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk’s defense in both cases.

Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter lawsuit | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Salem Witchcraft Executions

On August 19, 1692, five individuals—George Burroughs, John Proctor, George Jacobs Sr., John Willard, and Martha Carrier—were executed by hanging in Salem, Massachusetts, after being convicted of witchcraft. These executions occurred during the height of the infamous Salem witch trials, a dark episode in colonial American history fueled by religious fervor, mass hysteria, and deeply flawed legal proceedings. George Burroughs, a former minister, recited the Lord’s Prayer on the gallows—a feat believed to be impossible for a witch—which unsettled some spectators but did not halt the execution. John Proctor, a well-respected farmer, had been openly critical of the trials and was likely targeted for his outspoken skepticism.

Martha Carrier was labeled “the Queen of Hell” by her accusers, a title steeped in misogyny and fear. The trials heavily relied on spectral evidence—claims of visions and dreams—which would later be deemed inadmissible in more rational courts. Governor William Phips halted the trials just two months later, in part because of growing public backlash and the implausibility of the accusations.

These executions mark one of the final mass hangings of the Salem witch trials, which ultimately led to the deaths of 20 people and the imprisonment of many more. Legal scholars have since examined the trials as a case study in the dangers of due process violations, mass panic, and unchecked judicial power. In the centuries that followed, the state of Massachusetts gradually acknowledged the injustice, with the last of the condemned officially exonerated only in 2001. The Salem trials remain a cautionary tale in American legal history, illustrating how fear and ideology can warp legal institutions.

The White House has been sending social media teams to accompany FBI agents during arrests in Washington, D.C., as part of President Donald Trump's recent federal takeover of the city’s policing efforts. According to sources briefed on the situation, the teams are capturing footage to promote the administration’s crackdown on crime, raising serious concerns among legal experts. The move is considered highly unusual and potentially problematic, as it blurs the lines between law enforcement and political messaging, potentially violating Justice Department norms meant to prevent political interference in criminal investigations.

One recent example involved a professionally produced video of FBI agents arresting Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ employee, which was posted to the White House’s social media and has garnered millions of views. Legal experts warn that filming arrests—especially in non-public spaces—could infringe on suspects' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and complicate the legal proceedings by generating prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

The White House has also reportedly embedded personnel within the FBI command post and is tracking arrest statistics, suggesting an unusually direct involvement in federal law enforcement operations. While the administration claims this is part of its transparency initiative, critics see it as political theater designed to favorably shape public perception. Experts argue that such tactics risk undermining public confidence in the FBI’s independence and could erode the bureau’s credibility.

White House sending social media teams with FBI on some arrests in D.C., sources say | Reuters

The Trump administration appointed Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as co-deputy director of the FBI, sharing the post with conservative media personality Dan Bongino. This newly created position signals a shift in leadership at the Bureau, with FBI Director Kash Patel calling Bailey an essential addition to the agency. Bailey, a war veteran and Missouri's attorney general since 2023, will resign his current role effective September 8.

Bailey expressed gratitude for the appointment, emphasizing his commitment to supporting President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi's law enforcement agenda. Bondi, who welcomed Bailey’s appointment, praised his legal and military background. Bailey had previously been mentioned as a potential pick for U.S. attorney general under Trump’s second term but was not ultimately chosen.

Bongino, now Bailey’s co-deputy, recently made headlines for clashing with Bondi over the DOJ’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and had reportedly considered resigning. The appointment, first reported by Fox News Digital, has raised eyebrows given Bongino's media background and the political nature of the move.

Missouri attorney general named as co-deputy director of FBI | Reuters

The American Bar Association (ABA) is attempting to revise and soften a controversial proposal that would double the number of required hands-on learning credits for law students, following strong pushback from many law school deans. The updated plan, released August 15, would raise the experiential learning requirement from six to twelve credits but introduces greater flexibility and delays implementation to at least 2032.

Key changes include allowing students to earn three of those credits in their first year—previously prohibited—and permitting partial credit for traditional courses that incorporate practical elements like simulated client work or drafting exercises. These adjustments aim to address concerns about feasibility, especially for part-time students or programs with limited resources.

Despite these revisions, critics remain skeptical. Many deans argue that the ABA has not shown sufficient evidence that increased experiential credits would improve legal education outcomes, and they warn the rule could increase costs and overburden students and schools. Supporters, including clinical faculty, argue that more hands-on training is essential for preparing practice-ready attorneys and believe the financial concerns are overstated.

Some, like Cornell's Gautam Hans, expressed cautious optimism about the changes, while others, like Northwestern's Daniel Rodriguez, say the revisions don’t go far enough to address core issues, particularly the lack of data supporting the proposed changes.

ABA seeks to salvage law school hands-on learning proposal amid pushback from deans | Reuters

In an exclusive at Bloomberg Law, an SEC whistleblower alleges Paul Weiss and Reed Smith helped conceal $500 million in biotech risk. 

Two top law firms are accused in a whistleblower complaint filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of hiding a legal dispute that could have jeopardized a $500 million biotech merger. The complaint, obtained exclusively by Bloomberg Law, was filed by Joel Cohen—best known for co-writing Toy Story—who claims he and his wife were defrauded out of at least $38 million by Sofie Biosciences Inc.

Cohen alleges Sofie and its lawyers concealed his legal threats from disclosures during the company’s majority-stake sale to private equity firm Trilantic North America. Central to the dispute is Sofie’s use of a $2.5 million appraisal from Kroll LLC to value a cancer-imaging facility acquired in 2019—an amount Cohen claims was intentionally low in order to reduce his and other noteholders’ payout in Series B preferred shares.

The whistleblower complaint accuses Paul Weiss partner Jeffrey Marell and Reed Smith partner Michael Sanders of knowingly excluding Cohen’s legal demands from merger documents, possibly violating federal securities laws. Internal emails cited in the complaint show Sofie executives feared the deal would fall apart if Cohen’s claims became public.

Sofie and its legal team argue Cohen waived his rights through broad releases signed during the merger and that the appraisal complied with contractual terms. However, Cohen and his wife had assigned their claims to a separate LLC, which the whistleblower says was not covered by those waivers.

Two related lawsuits filed in California claim that Reed Smith represented conflicting interests and helped structure the asset financing in a way that disadvantaged noteholders. The firm denies any wrongdoing and says it never represented Cohen or the other lenders. A court ruling is expected soon on whether Cohen can access documents related to the Kroll valuation.

Paul Weiss, Reed Smith Accused of Coverup by SEC Whistleblower

In my column for Bloomberg this week, I talk a bit about state sales tax kickback schemes. Louisiana’s 2012 “procurement processing program” was originally promoted as a way to support research and development, but instead has funneled the vast majority of collected sales tax—over 90% in some years—back to consultants and out-of-state companies. The scheme works by enticing payment processing subsidiaries to reroute sales through Louisiana, allowing the state to collect taxes on transactions that didn’t actually occur within its borders. These taxes were meant to support research institutions, but in practice, virtually none of the funds have reached them. In 2023 alone, $67 million of the $73 million collected was rebated, and 2022 figures were worse.

This program reflects a broader issue across many states: public incentive deals are being handed out with little to no accountability. Unlike private contracts, where each party protects its own interests and can demand repayment when promises aren’t kept, public deals often lack enforceable clawback provisions. Louisiana does include a limited recapture clause in its statute—but it only ensures proper paperwork, not fulfillment of public benefits.

Other states like California have taken modest steps, such as requiring disclosure of such deals, but few have adopted strong clawback mechanisms. Until public incentive agreements require concrete, verifiable results to justify tax rebates—and include provisions to recover funds when promises fall through—they risk becoming little more than tax shelters for private interests.

​​Louisiana’s Tax-Share Problems Prove Clawbacks Must Be Standard

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment Ratified

On August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing women the right to vote and marking a major legal milestone in the struggle for gender equality. The amendment states simply: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged… on account of sex.” Its passage capped off more than 70 years of organized activism, dating back to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Alice Paul played pivotal roles in maintaining momentum across generations, despite fierce opposition.

The road to ratification was grueling. Congress passed the amendment in 1919, but it still required approval from three-fourths of the states—36 at the time. Tennessee became the critical 36th state, narrowly approving the amendment in a dramatic vote where a 24-year-old legislator, Harry T. Burn, changed his vote after receiving a letter from his mother urging him to support suffrage. That moment tipped the scales and enshrined the right to vote for women nationwide.

Before the amendment, several western states had already extended suffrage to women, but many others actively suppressed it. The legal recognition of women's voting rights through constitutional amendment removed any ambiguity and forced all states to comply. The Nineteenth Amendment not only transformed the electorate but also reshaped American democracy by recognizing women as full political participants.

The Trump administration is accusing a federal judge in Boston of undermining the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to block the administration from firing staff in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun had issued an injunction requiring the reinstatement of employees let go in a mass layoff, despite the Supreme Court having recently paused a broader version of that order. The Justice Department has asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene, arguing that Joun’s refusal to lift the narrower injunction contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling and undermines the rule of law.

The judge’s decision stems from a lawsuit challenging Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s plan to lay off over 1,300 department employees, part of President Trump’s broader goal of eliminating the department—something only Congress can authorize. The plaintiffs, including students and advocacy groups, focused specifically on the Office for Civil Rights, which was set to lose half its staff. They argue that lifting the injunction now would effectively reward the administration’s ongoing failure to comply with the court’s order, as the terminated employees have not yet been reinstated.

Judge Joun, appointed by President Biden, criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling as "unreasoned" and pointed to the administration’s continued noncompliance. The 1st Circuit has asked the plaintiffs to respond promptly to the Justice Department’s request, signaling an expedited review.

Trump administration claims judge defied Supreme Court to bar Education Department firings | Reuters

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is preparing for what may be his final speech at the annual Jackson Hole conference, facing a complicated economic picture that challenges his data-driven policy approach. In past years, Powell used the conference to pledge aggressive action against inflation and, later, to support the labor market. Now, with inflation still above target and signs of economic slowdown emerging, Powell must decide whether to prioritize price stability or job preservation.

The Trump administration and many investors expect interest rate cuts at the Fed’s September meeting, but Powell’s messaging—how he frames future actions—may matter more than the decision itself. Internally, Fed officials are split: some want to move quickly to protect jobs, while others want to wait for clearer evidence that inflation won’t rebound. Powell has previously styled himself after past Fed chairs like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, with Volcker’s inflation-fighting resolve and Greenspan’s forward-looking leniency both offering competing models.

Recent economic data has sent mixed signals. Revised job growth numbers were lower than initially reported, supporting arguments for easing monetary policy, but inflation has edged up again. Trump’s tariff policies add further uncertainty, though their economic impact has so far been less severe than feared. With the economy growing slowly and inflation still above the Fed’s 2% target, Powell must decide whether to stay the course, cut rates cautiously, or begin a broader shift.

Powell has used Jackson Hole to battle inflation and buoy jobs; he's now caught between both | Reuters

Novo Nordisk’s shares rose by up to 5% after receiving accelerated U.S. approval for its weight-loss drug Wegovy to treat MASH (metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis), a progressive liver disease that affects about 5% of U.S. adults. This marks the first GLP-1 drug approved for MASH and offers a significant, if temporary, advantage over competitor Eli Lilly, which is still in clinical trials for its own MASH-targeting drug, tirzepatide.

The news was a welcome reversal for Novo, which recently lost over $70 billion in market value following a profit warning and leadership change. The company, once Europe’s most valuable publicly traded firm due to Wegovy’s success, has seen its share price drop sharply over the past year amid intensifying competition in the obesity drug market and the rise of compounded copycat drugs.

Although Novo now holds a short-term lead in the liver disease market, analysts expect that exclusivity will be brief once Eli Lilly gains approval. Novo has also submitted applications in Europe and Japan, signaling its intention to secure broader global use for Wegovy beyond weight loss.

Shares in Novo Nordisk rise after Wegovy gets US nod for liver disease treatment | Reuters

Norton Rose’s ambitious tech partnership with NMBL Technologies has ended in failure and mutual lawsuits, highlighting how difficult it is for Big Law firms to pivot from selling legal services to selling tech products. The firm’s Chicago office, launched in 2022 as an “innovation hub,” aimed to introduce 150 clients to Proxy, a legal workflow tool developed by a new partner, Daniel Farris. But three years later, not a single sale was made. NMBL claims Norton Rose didn’t uphold its end of the deal and stifled the rollout, while the firm says clients weren’t interested and is seeking damages for the investment.

The fallout underscores broader challenges law firms face as they increasingly invest in artificial intelligence and legal tech amid growing demand and rising budgets. Unlike traditional legal work, selling products requires different infrastructure and skills—such as dedicated sales teams—that most law firms lack. Despite producing marketing materials and training resources, NMBL alleges that very few Norton Rose lawyers engaged with the product and that the firm failed to meaningfully promote it.

NMBL is seeking $15 million in damages, accusing the firm of using the deal merely to recruit talent, while Norton Rose wants $250,000, calling the product commercially nonviable. The firm also allegedly created a shell subsidiary, LX, to meet contract terms but never properly funded or activated it. This case illustrates the steep learning curve law firms face in transitioning to tech-based business models and the internal resistance that can derail innovation.

Firm’s Failed Tech Venture Foretells Big Law’s AI Sales Struggle

This Day in Legal History: Starve or Sell

On August 15, 1876, the United States Congress passed a coercive measure aimed at forcing the Sioux Nation to relinquish their sacred lands in the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. Known informally as the "starve or sell" bill, the legislation declared that no further federal appropriations would be made for the Sioux's food or supplies unless they ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. government. This came just two months after the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had defeated General George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a major blow to U.S. military prestige.

The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Sioux in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which recognized their sovereignty over the area. But when gold was discovered there in 1874 during Custer’s expedition, settlers and miners flooded the region, violating the treaty. Rather than remove the intruders, the federal government shifted blame and sought to pressure the Sioux into surrendering the land.

The 1876 bill effectively weaponized hunger by conditioning life-sustaining aid on land cession. This tactic ignored treaty obligations and relied on exploiting the Sioux’s vulnerability after a harsh winter and military setbacks. Despite resistance from many tribal leaders, the U.S. government eventually secured signatures under extreme duress. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Black Hills were taken illegally and ordered compensation—money the Sioux have famously refused, insisting instead on the return of the land.

Russian state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the U.S. federal court system and secretly accessed sealed records for years by exploiting stolen user credentials and a vulnerability in an outdated server. The breach, which remained undisclosed until recently, involved the deliberate targeting of sealed documents tied to sensitive matters like espionage, fraud, money laundering, and foreign agents. These records, normally protected by court order, often include details about confidential informants and active investigations. Investigators believe the hackers were backed by the Russian government, though they haven't been officially named in public disclosures.

The Department of Justice has confirmed that “special measures” are now being taken to protect individuals potentially exposed in the breach. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti said that while technical and procedural safeguards are being implemented broadly, the DOJ is focusing particular attention on cases where sensitive information may have been compromised. He did not provide specifics but acknowledged that the situation demands urgent and tailored responses. Judges across the country were reportedly alerted in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been affected.

This breach follows an earlier major compromise in 2020, also attributed to Russian actors, involving malicious code distributed through SolarWinds software. In response to both incidents, the judiciary has ramped up its cybersecurity efforts, including implementing multifactor authentication and revising policies on how sealed documents are handled. Some courts now require such documents to be filed only in hard copy. However, officials and experts alike have criticized Congress for underfunding judicial cybersecurity infrastructure, leaving it vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated attacks.

The situation raises ongoing concerns about the security of national security cases and the exposure of individuals whose cooperation with law enforcement was meant to remain confidential. Lawmakers have requested classified briefings, and President Trump, who is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acknowledged the breach but downplayed its significance.

Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed Files

US taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack | Reuters

A federal trial in California is testing the legal boundaries of the U.S. military's role in domestic affairs, focusing on President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles during protests in June. California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump, arguing the deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Testimony revealed that troops, including armed units and combat vehicles, were involved in activities like detaining individuals and supporting immigration raids—actions critics argue cross into law enforcement.

The Justice Department defended Trump's actions, asserting that the Constitution permits the president to deploy troops to protect federal property and personnel. They also claimed California lacks the standing to challenge the deployment in civil court, since Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute that can only be enforced through prosecution. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concern about the lack of clear limits on presidential authority in such matters and questioned whether the logic behind the Justice Department’s arguments would allow indefinite military involvement in domestic policing.

Military officials testified that decisions in the field—such as setting up perimeters or detaining people—were made under broad interpretations of what constitutes protecting federal interests. The case took on added urgency when, on the trial’s final day, Trump ordered 800 more National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., citing high crime rates, despite statistical declines. The Justice Department has also invoked the president’s immunity for official acts under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, further complicating California's legal path.

Trial shows fragility of limits on US military's domestic role | Reuters

The U.S. legal sector added jobs for the fifth consecutive month in July, nearing its all-time high of 1.2 million positions set in December 2023, according to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. While this signals positive momentum, long-term growth remains modest; employment is only 1.7% higher than its May 2007 peak, showing how the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic stalled progress. Big law firms, however, have seen major gains: between 1999 and 2021, the top 200 firms nearly doubled their lawyer headcount and saw revenues grow by 172%.

Still, the wider legal job market—including paralegals and administrative staff—hasn’t kept pace. Technological efficiencies and AI have reduced reliance on support staff, and the lawyer-to-staff ratio has declined steadily. Some general counsels are now using AI tools instead of outside firms for tasks like summarizing cases and compiling data, suggesting further disruption is on the horizon. Meanwhile, superstar lawyers at elite firms now earn upward of $10 million a year, driven by rising billing rates and high-demand corporate work.

Broader U.S. job growth lagged in July, with the BLS issuing significant downward revisions for previous months. President Trump responded by firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her without evidence of data manipulation. On the law firm side, Boies Schiller is handling high-profile litigation over Florida's immigration policies, with rates topping $875 an hour for partners. Separately, Eversheds Sutherland reported a 10% jump in global revenue, citing strong performance in its U.S. offices and a new Silicon Valley branch.

US legal jobs are rising again, but gains are mixed | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law requiring social media platforms to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors, while a legal challenge from tech industry group NetChoice moves through the courts. NetChoice, whose members include Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat, argues the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the law is likely unconstitutional, he stated that NetChoice hadn't met the high standard necessary to halt enforcement at this early stage.

The Mississippi law, passed unanimously by the state legislature, requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify age and secure “express consent” from a parent or guardian before allowing minors to create accounts. The state can impose both civil and criminal penalties for violations. NetChoice initially won limited relief in lower court rulings, with a federal judge pausing enforcement against some of its members, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that pause without explanation.

Mississippi officials welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now, calling it a chance for “thoughtful consideration” of the legal issues. Meanwhile, NetChoice sees the order as a procedural setback but remains confident about the eventual outcome, citing Kavanaugh’s statement. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a state social media age-check law. Similar laws in seven other states have already been blocked by courts. Tech companies, facing increasing scrutiny over their platforms' impact on minors, insist they already provide parental controls and moderation tools.

US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.

On this day in 1875, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was born in London to an English mother and a Sierra Leonean father. A composer of striking originality and lyricism, Coleridge-Taylor rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, earning acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Often dubbed the “African Mahler” by American press during his tours of the U.S., he became a symbol of Black excellence in classical music at a time when such recognition was rare. He studied at the Royal College of Music under Charles Villiers Stanford, and by his early twenties, had already composed his most famous work, Hiawatha’s Wedding Feast, which became a staple of British choral repertoire.

Coleridge-Taylor’s music blended Romanticism with rhythmic vitality, often inflected with the spirituals and folk influences he encountered during his visits to the United States. He was deeply inspired by African-American musical traditions and maintained a lifelong interest in promoting racial equality through the arts. His catalogue includes choral works, chamber music, orchestral pieces, and songs—each marked by melodic richness and emotional depth.

This week, we close with the fifth and final movement of his 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5—titled "Dance." Composed when he was just 18, the piece captures the youthful exuberance and technical elegance that would characterize his career. Lively, rhythmically playful, and tinged with charm, “Dance” is a fitting celebration of Coleridge-Taylor’s enduring legacy and a reminder of the brilliance he achieved in his all-too-brief life.

Without further ado, Samuel Coleridge Taylor’s 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5 – enjoy!

This Day in Legal History: Social Security Act

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt’s New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.

The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress’s power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.

A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones’ company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company’s assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.

Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company’s Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee’s approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars’ media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.

Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones’ legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.

Alex Jones’ Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)

A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.

The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.

The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.

US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | Reuters

President Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.

Trump’s administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.

Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB’s workforce.

Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump’s promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.

Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | Reuters

A federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble’s antitrust claims.

Rumble’s lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.

Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble’s legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.

US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | Reuters

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump’s first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government’s main foreign aid agency.

The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.

Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump’s actions violated the Constitution’s separation of powers or Congress’s control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution’s checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.

A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump’s "America First" agenda.

US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: East German Border Sealed

On August 13, 1961, the East German government abruptly sealed the border between East and West Berlin, cutting off one of the last open crossings between the Eastern Bloc and the West. Overnight, streets were blocked, barbed wire unrolled, and armed guards posted, turning neighbors into strangers by force. For years after World War II, Berlin had been a divided city within a divided Germany, but its open border allowed thousands of East Germans to flee to the West. By 1961, East Germany’s leadership, with Soviet backing, viewed the steady exodus as both an economic drain and a political embarrassment. The border closure was quickly followed by the construction of the Berlin Wall — initially a rudimentary barricade, later reinforced into a heavily guarded concrete barrier. Families were split, jobs lost, and daily life in the city transformed, as movement between the two halves became nearly impossible. West Berlin became an isolated enclave of democracy surrounded by a communist state, symbolizing Cold War tensions. The Wall also became a stage for daring escape attempts, some successful, others tragically fatal. Its legal underpinning rested on East Germany’s assertion of sovereignty and border control, which the West rejected as illegitimate. International condemnation followed, but geopolitical realities left the Wall in place for nearly three decades. The border closure and Wall construction intensified the East–West standoff, influencing Cold War diplomacy, military posturing, and propaganda. The Wall finally fell on November 9, 1989, marking the beginning of German reunification. The events of August 13, 1961, remain a stark reminder of how governments can physically enforce political divisions.

The American Bar Association has voted to eliminate its longstanding rule that reserved five Board of Governors seats specifically for women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ members, and people with disabilities — what can only be described as a stunning kowtowing to authoritarianism. Instead, those positions will now be open to anyone who can demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, regardless of personal demographic background. The change was approved by the ABA’s House of Delegates during its annual meeting in Toronto, where members also considered, but rejected, proposals to shrink the size of both the House and the Board. Advocates for the shift argued that broadening eligibility could help the ABA sidestep potential lawsuits, while critics noted it follows years of political pressure from the Trump administration and conservative legal groups. That pressure has included threats to strip the ABA of its law school accreditation role and formal complaints alleging its diversity programs discriminate against non-minorities. The ABA has already paused its law school diversity accreditation requirement until at least 2026. Membership in the association has also sharply declined over the past decade, falling from nearly 400,000 in 2015 to about 227,000 in 2024, with leadership citing the elimination of free and low-cost memberships as one factor. Previously, eligibility for the diversity-designated seats was based strictly on identity, but the new rules rely on factors such as lived experience, involvement in relevant initiatives, and resilience in the face of obstacles. While the ABA did not cite political motives, the timing and surrounding context suggest a strategic retreat in the face of escalating ideological confrontation.

ABA ends diversity requirements for governing board seats | Reuters

AT&T has reached a settlement with Headwater Research, ending a wireless patent infringement lawsuit just days before trial in a Texas federal court. Headwater, founded by scientist Gregory Raleigh, claimed AT&T used its patented technology for reducing data usage and easing network congestion without permission, allegedly copying the inventions after a 2009 meeting with company employees. The suit, filed in 2023, targeted AT&T’s cellular networks and devices, with the telecom giant denying infringement and challenging the patents’ validity. The case was set for trial Thursday, but both parties asked the court to pause proceedings due to the settlement. Headwater has had recent success in the same court, winning $279 million from Samsung and $175 million from Verizon in separate wireless technology disputes earlier this year. Terms of the AT&T settlement were not disclosed.

AT&T settles US wireless patent case before trial | Reuters

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore part of the $584 million in federal grants it recently froze for UCLA, finding the move violated a prior court injunction. Judge Rita Lin, ruling from San Francisco, said the National Science Foundation’s suspension of funds breached her June order that blocked the termination of multiple University of California grants. The decision affects more than a third of the frozen amount, which had been halted amid President Trump’s threats to cut funding to universities over pro-Palestinian campus protests. The administration has accused UCLA and other schools of allowing antisemitism during demonstrations, while protesters — including some Jewish groups — argue the government is conflating criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza with bigotry. The funding freeze comes as UCLA faces a proposed $1 billion settlement demand from the administration, a figure the university says would be financially devastating. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have labeled the offer as extortion, raising broader concerns about free speech and academic freedom. UCLA has already settled a separate antisemitism lawsuit for over $6 million and faces litigation tied to a 2024 mob attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The administration has reached settlements with other universities, including Columbia and Brown, while talks with Harvard continue.

Judge orders Trump administration to restore part of UCLA's suspended funding | Reuters

A federal appeals court has upheld Arkansas’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, reversing a lower court’s ruling that found the law unconstitutional. In an 8-2 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent approval of a similar Tennessee law, concluding that Arkansas’s restrictions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority also rejected claims that the ban infringes on parents’ constitutional rights to seek medical treatment for their children, finding no historical precedent for such a right when the state deems the care inappropriate. The dissent argued the law lacked evidence to support its stated goal of protecting children and would harm transgender youth and their families. Arkansas passed the first statewide ban of its kind in 2021, overriding a veto from then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, and it has since been followed by similar laws in 25 states. The ruling represents a significant victory for Republican-led efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and comes amid a wave of federal and state litigation over such policies.

US appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Japanese PM Convicted of Accepting Bribes

On August 12, 1983, former Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei was convicted of accepting bribes from the American defense contractor Lockheed Corporation in one of Japan’s most notorious political scandals. Tanaka, who served as prime minister from 1972 to 1974, was found guilty of taking approximately $2 million in illicit payments to facilitate the purchase of Lockheed aircraft by Japanese airlines. The scandal, part of a broader international investigation into Lockheed’s bribery of foreign officials, became emblematic of the deep entanglement between corporate influence and political decision-making in postwar Japan.

Tanaka’s conviction marked the culmination of years of investigation, during which he retained significant political clout despite resigning as prime minister in 1974 amid allegations. His sentence included four years in prison and a fine, though he remained free on appeal for years thereafter. The Lockheed scandal not only damaged public trust in Japan’s political establishment but also exposed vulnerabilities in the country’s campaign finance and lobbying regulations.

Tanaka’s political machine, known as the “Etsuzankai,” was legendary for its ability to secure votes and wield influence through personal networks, favors, and targeted public works projects. Even after his resignation and conviction, Tanaka’s allies dominated Japanese politics for much of the 1980s, demonstrating the persistence of patronage systems despite corruption scandals.

Internationally, the case was a warning shot to defense contractors and multinational corporations about the legal risks of engaging in covert payments to secure contracts. For Japan, it became a touchstone in ongoing debates about transparency, accountability, and the need for stronger anti-corruption laws. Tanaka, often called “the paragon of postwar corruption,” remained a polarizing figure—admired by some for his populist economic policies and condemned by others for his abuse of public office.

Federal prosecutors in Maryland have expanded their case against SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein, alleging he used his law firm’s client trust account in 2021 to hide nearly $1 million from the IRS before purchasing a home. The revised indictment, filed August 8, claims Goldstein moved personal funds into his firm’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account to avoid tax collection. It also adds details about earlier allegations that he misrepresented the source of $968,000 seized from him in 2018—telling a border officer it was gambling winnings, then later claiming to the IRS it was a loan, including from a foreign gambler.

Prosecutors further allege Goldstein misled a litigation funder while seeking help with tax debts and a mortgage, and tried to dissuade a former firm manager from cooperating with investigators. The updated charges correct some dates, moving one alleged diversion of client fees from 2021 to 2020, and expand the time frame for certain tax evasion counts to include conduct through March 2021. These changes follow Goldstein’s motion to dismiss several counts as time-barred.

While the client trust account allegation is new, no new counts were added. Goldstein still faces four counts of tax evasion, ten counts of assisting false tax returns, five counts of willful failure to pay taxes, and three counts of false statements on loan applications. He is represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in United States v. Goldstein.

SCOTUSblog’s Goldstein Facing New Allegations in Criminal Case

The American Bar Association’s (ABA) policymaking body has passed a resolution opposing government actions that punish lawyers, firms, or organizations for representing clients or causes the government dislikes. This move comes amid heightened tensions between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has restricted DOJ attorneys from attending ABA events, reduced the ABA’s role in vetting judicial nominees, and threatened its authority to accredit law schools.

The resolution warns that the rule of law is endangered if lawyers or judges face retaliation for doing their jobs. It also denounces threats to impeach judges solely for their rulings. The ABA has an active lawsuit against the administration, alleging a coordinated campaign of intimidation against major law firms—claims the DOJ has asked a court to dismiss, arguing the ABA lacks standing and evidence of harm.

Trump has issued executive orders targeting firms over past clients and hires, prompting some firms to agree to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to avoid further action. Others have sued successfully to block orders that revoked security clearances and restricted access to government work. The ABA contends these tactics have discouraged public interest legal work and harmed the ability of vulnerable clients to secure representation.

American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown | Reuters

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister announced it will merge with Atlanta-based Morris, Manning & Martin on Dec. 31, creating a firm with more than 1,200 lawyers across 25 offices and projected revenues exceeding $1 billion. The deal will add 100 attorneys to Taft’s roster and give the Cincinnati-founded firm its first Atlanta office. Taft’s chair Robert Hicks described the move as part of a broader plan to become a “national middle-market super firm” and said the firm is eyeing future expansions into New York and Texas.

Partners at both firms unanimously approved the merger. Morris Manning’s managing partner, Simon Malko, emphasized that the combination was not driven by necessity, despite the firm recently losing lawyers to Reed Smith and Bradley Arant. Merger talks began in February, with both firms anticipating strong performance in 2025.

This marks Taft’s third merger of the year, following combinations with Denver-based Sherman & Howard in January and Florida litigation firm Mrachek Law in June. It also continues a wave of large law firm consolidations, including recent deals involving McDermott Will & Emery, Schulte Roth & Zabel, Kramer Levin, Herbert Smith Freehills, Shearman & Sterling, and Allen & Overy.

Latest US legal industry merger to create $1 billion firm | Reuters

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that President Donald Trump’s recently enacted tax and spending law will leave 10 million more Americans uninsured over the next decade. The July law, passed without Democratic support, extends earlier Trump-era tax cuts, adds temporary tax breaks, and increases certain spending, but offsets the cost by imposing new restrictions and eligibility requirements on Medicaid. Democrats criticized the measure as benefiting the wealthy at the expense of low-income households.

According to the CBO, the poorest Americans will see annual incomes drop by about $1,200 due to combined tax and benefit changes, while middle-income households will gain $800 to $1,200, and the wealthiest will see increases exceeding $13,000. The agency noted these changes will disproportionately reduce resources for households at the lower end of the income spectrum while boosting those in the middle and upper tiers.

10 million Americans will go uninsured due to Trump tax and spend law, CBO estimates | Reuters

And in my column this week: Washington, DC is close to approving a $4.4 billion public financing package to bring the Washington Commanders back to the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site, framing it as an investment in affordable housing and equity. Critics argue it’s a familiar tax-subsidized stadium deal that guarantees a new stadium by 2030 but leaves housing delivery vague and far in the future. The legislation secures decades of tax breaks, infrastructure bonds, and zoning exemptions for the team, yet affordable housing commitments are relegated to non-binding promises in a separate term sheet. Official projections suggest 6,000 housing units, with 30% affordable, but without enforceable deadlines, construction could lag until 2040—or never materialize.

Job creation claims are similarly underwhelming: 16,000 positions are projected, but 14,000 are temporary construction jobs, leaving only about 2,000 permanent roles for the $4.4 billion investment. The land involved—180 acres of public property—could instead be used for community-led development, housing trusts, or co-ops with built-in affordability requirements. Critics note that the public is bearing all the legal obligations while promised benefits remain aspirational. If the housing isn’t built, the Commanders would only face paying rent on undeveloped parcels, a minimal penalty. Alternative proposals include redirecting funds currently used to pay off Nationals Park bonds toward a housing bond program, which could deliver thousands of affordable units sooner. Advocates argue any stadium approval should include firm, enforceable housing delivery benchmarks and penalties for missed deadlines to ensure public benefits aren’t indefinitely deferred.

One notable legal element here is the absence of binding contractual obligations for affordable housing delivery—a gap that leaves the city with limited legal recourse if the housing targets are missed, despite billions in guaranteed public subsidies. This matters because it highlights how legislative structure can predetermine the enforceability—or lack thereof—of development promises.

Commanders Stadium Deal’s Housing and Job Promises Are a Facade

This Day in Legal History: First SCOTUS Decision

On August 11, 1792, the United States Supreme Court issued its first reported decision in Georgia v. Brailsford. The case arose from the complex aftermath of the Revolutionary War, when questions about debts owed to British creditors came before the new federal judiciary. The State of Georgia had enacted laws seizing debts owed to British subjects, while the 1783 Treaty of Paris required those debts to be honored. The dispute involved a British creditor, Samuel Brailsford, seeking repayment from a Georgia resident. Georgia argued that its confiscation laws extinguished the debt, but the Court was faced with balancing state statutes against treaty obligations. In its decision, the Court reaffirmed that treaties made under the authority of the United States were binding on the states, even when they conflicted with local laws. This early opinion helped cement the principle of federal supremacy in foreign affairs and treaty enforcement. It also demonstrated the Court’s willingness to decide politically sensitive disputes involving state sovereignty. The ruling, authored before the modern opinion-writing style developed, was short and straightforward, focusing narrowly on the facts and legal issue. It set an early precedent for judicial interpretation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Georgia v. Brailsford thus marked the Court’s entry into shaping the balance between state power and federal authority. The case also foreshadowed the judiciary’s role in resolving conflicts between domestic law and international agreements. While not as well-known as later landmark cases, its legacy lies in establishing the Court as a neutral arbiter in disputes implicating both constitutional structure and international commitments.

President Donald Trump is expected to nominate David Rosner, a Democrat currently serving on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as its next chair. The agency oversees decisions on natural gas export facilities and major power infrastructure, making it central to Trump’s energy agenda. Rosner, appointed to FERC by President Joe Biden, previously worked for former Senator Joe Manchin, who was known for supporting coal and gas interests. White House officials say Rosner aligns with Trump’s priorities, despite his party affiliation. FERC was a flashpoint during Trump’s first term, when his appointees attempted—but failed—to push policies favoring fossil fuel power generation. Today, surging energy demand from data centers has renewed attention on expanding cheap power sources. In July, the country’s largest electric grid saw record power auction revenues of $16.1 billion, highlighting the strain on supply. Rosner’s promotion would follow the departure of Republican Mark Christie as chair, signaling a bipartisan leadership shift at the influential regulator.

Trump to Tap Democrat to Lead US Agency Overseeing Gas, Power

A closely watched trial began today in San Francisco over President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to assist immigration raids and manage protests in Los Angeles. California argues the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. The dispute centers on Trump’s June order sending 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard members to the city after mass immigration raids sparked unrest. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim about 2,000 Guard members are still aiding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in raids and restricting civilian movement. The administration denies the troops engaged in law enforcement, saying they were protecting federal property and ICE personnel. The three-day, non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could set limits on Trump’s authority to deploy the military in U.S. cities. California is also seeking to regain control of its National Guard from federal command. A ruling against the administration could have lasting implications for the president’s power to use military forces domestically.

Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role | Reuters

U.S. law firms saw stronger-than-expected business in the second quarter of 2025, with overall demand rising 1.6% from the same period last year and billing rates climbing 7.4%, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Clients sought legal guidance on shifting tariffs, regulatory changes, and an unsteady economy, partly fueled by President Trump’s trade policies. The growth was uneven—top 100 firms experienced a 0.6% drop in demand, while the next-largest 100 grew 2.6% and midsized firms rose 3.5%, suggesting clients may be opting for lower-cost or more specialized services. Practice area results also varied: litigation demand rose 2%, corporate work 1.3%, mergers and acquisitions 0.3%, while intellectual property fell 1.4%. The industry’s Financial Index score hit 55, up four points from Q1, but the report warned of risks ahead as overhead costs climb, collections dip, and productivity lags 1.3% year-over-year. Unpaid bills and write-downs could create further financial pressure if trends persist. 

Law firms stayed busy in second quarter but uncertainty looms - report | Reuters

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to terminate its labor contract with the union representing 8,000 of its employees, according to the union’s president. The action is part of President Trump’s broader push to limit collective bargaining rights across federal agencies. Trump’s March executive order seeks to remove such rights at more than 30 agencies, including the EPA, and is being challenged in court by unions that argue it violates free speech and bargaining obligations. The EPA says it is acting in compliance with the order, which would make it easier for agencies to discipline or dismiss workers. The move comes as the EPA plans to reduce its workforce by at least 23% and close its scientific research office as part of broader federal downsizing. Unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, are suing to stop the effort, but a recent federal appeals court decision allowed the administration to proceed with exempting some agencies from negotiating with unions. The union representing EPA employees has pledged a legal response.

Trump's environment agency terminates contract with unionized employees | Reuters