This Day in Legal History: FDR’s Court Packing Plan

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, better known as the “court-packing plan.” This controversial legislation aimed to expand the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court from nine to as many as fifteen. Roosevelt’s justification was to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, but the underlying motive was widely understood to be frustration with the Court’s consistent invalidation of New Deal legislation. The plan would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70½ who refused to retire.

At the time, the Supreme Court had struck down several key components of Roosevelt’s New Deal, including the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Although Roosevelt had just won re-election in a landslide in 1936, the proposal met immediate and bipartisan resistance in Congress and the press. Critics argued it threatened the separation of powers and judicial independence. Even members of Roosevelt’s own party viewed the move as a dangerous overreach.

Ultimately, the bill failed in the Senate. However, the controversy arguably pressured the Court to adopt a more favorable view of New Deal legislation. Justice Owen Roberts’s shift in support of certain New Deal programs came to be dubbed “the switch in time that saved nine.” While Roosevelt did not get to add new justices through his plan, he eventually appointed eight Supreme Court justices over his long presidency, reshaping the Court over time.

Georgia’s Fulton County has filed a legal challenge over an FBI seizure of 2020 election records, arguing the search was overly broad and requesting the return of the documents. The motion, filed in federal court, also seeks to unseal the affidavit behind the warrant. The FBI searched the Fulton County Election Hub in Union City on January 28 as part of its investigation into President Donald Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud in Georgia during the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden. According to the warrant, agents were authorized to confiscate all physical ballots, tabulator tapes, and voter rolls from multiple voting methods. County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. criticized the process, noting the absence of an inventory or orderly transition of records, which raises concerns about potential document loss or tampering. He expressed skepticism about the value of any returned materials under such circumstances. The raid, perceived by local officials as politically motivated, has sparked fears of federal overreach and interference ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Georgia’s Fulton County challenges seizure of election records | Reuters

Jones Day, a major international law firm, has filed a lawsuit in New York state court against private equity firm Centre Lane Partners and multiple affiliated companies, alleging over $9.6 million in unpaid legal fees. The firm claims it served as Centre Lane’s outside counsel since 2018, providing legal services across litigation, financing, acquisitions, and regulatory matters. Though Centre Lane reportedly had a consistent payment history, Jones Day alleges payments ceased in 2024 despite continued promises. Relying on assurances that payments were forthcoming, Jones Day says it rendered millions more in services, which it now claims were based on false representations.

Notably, more than half of the unpaid fees stem from Jones Day’s defense work in an ongoing antitrust case involving a Pennsylvania glass plant closure and an FTC investigation. As of last month, Jones Day began formally withdrawing from representing Centre Lane in active cases, and the law firm Greenberg Traurig has taken over in the antitrust matter. Among the defendants named are Centre Lane portfolio companies, including Anchor Hocking and Corelle Brands. The case remains unassigned in New York’s Supreme Court, with no counsel yet listed for the defendants.

Law firm Jones Day sues private equity firm, alleging $9.6 million in unpaid fees | Reuters

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified Abbott’s recall of certain glucose monitoring devices as a Class I recall—the most serious level—after the products were linked to seven deaths and 860 serious injuries. The affected devices include specific lots of the FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensors, which have been found to display inaccurately low blood sugar readings. Such faulty readings can lead users to make harmful treatment decisions, such as consuming too many carbohydrates or incorrectly adjusting insulin doses.

Abbott disclosed that the devices may provide incorrect readings over extended periods, increasing the risk of serious medical complications for users who rely on continuous glucose data. The recall and its classification signal heightened concern from federal health regulators due to the potential for severe harm or death. As of early January, these issues had already caused significant patient harm. Abbott has not publicly detailed the total number of units affected or the geographic scope of the recall.

Abbott recalls glucose sensors after seven deaths linked to faulty readings | Reuters

In an exclusive obtained by Bloomberg Law, the U.S. Department of Justice has directed all 93 U.S. attorney’s offices to designate prosecutors for newly formed “emergency jump teams” by February 6. These teams are intended to provide short-term support in jurisdictions experiencing critical events—particularly those involving alleged assaults on or obstruction of law enforcement. The internal memo from DOJ Executive Office Director Francey Hakes outlines the initiative as a rapid-response measure to bolster prosecutorial presence in areas facing urgent demands.

The move follows a wave of resignations in the Minneapolis U.S. attorney’s office amid growing discontent over political targeting and controversial assignments, such as a disputed investigation into the widow of a protester killed by an ICE officer. While the memo does not directly mention Minneapolis, it aligns with Trump administration efforts to maintain aggressive law enforcement in left-leaning jurisdictions facing staff shortages.

Offices previously affected by similar surges, including Chicago, Los Angeles, and D.C., have also suffered attrition, partly due to repeated grand jury refusals to indict protestors. The memo frames the jump teams not as litigators but as support staff to assist in command operations—handling triage, reviewing legal filings, and managing logistics.

The order coincides with overt recruitment of ideologically aligned attorneys, including a public social media call for applicants who support Trump’s anti-crime platform. Additionally, the jump teams will help implement Attorney General Pam Bondi’s December directive to prioritize investigations into leftist groups like antifa.

DOJ Orders Emergency Surge Prosecutors From All US Attorneys (2)

This Day in Legal History: Blockburger

On February 4, 1932, the United States Supreme Court decided Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), a case that established an enduring rule in American criminal law known as the Blockburger test. This test is used to determine whether two offenses are sufficiently distinct to permit multiple punishments or prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In the case, the defendant was charged with multiple violations of the Harrison Narcotics Act for selling morphine on different occasions. The legal question was whether he could be prosecuted separately for each sale and for selling without proper prescription and for selling not in the original stamped package, even if these occurred during the same transaction.

The Court held that each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not. If that’s the case, then they are distinct for double jeopardy purposes. This became the “same elements” test, sometimes called the Blockburger test, and it remains a key tool for analyzing double jeopardy claims today.

Notably, the test doesn’t focus on whether the charges arise from the same conduct or transaction, but on whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.

This legal principle has been cited in thousands of cases, and it continues to shape how prosecutors and courts evaluate overlapping criminal charges.

Ryan W. Routh, convicted of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump weeks before the 2024 presidential election, is scheduled for sentencing on Wednesday. Prosecutors are seeking a life sentence, citing months of planning, the use of disguises and multiple cellphones, and Routh’s readiness to kill others to carry out the plot. He was arrested near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course in September 2024 after fleeing the scene and leaving behind a rifle and gear resembling body armor. At trial, Routh represented himself, making erratic statements and offering little in the way of a legal defense. He was convicted of five charges, including attempted assassination and illegal firearm possession. Routh claims he did not intend to kill Trump and has requested a 27-year sentence along with psychological treatment. The incident was the second assassination attempt on Trump during the campaign season. Prosecutors emphasized that Routh’s actions could have succeeded had it not been for Secret Service intervention. Following the verdict, Routh attempted to stab himself with a pen in court and had to be restrained. Trump praised the conviction, calling Routh “an evil man with an evil intention.”

Man convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump to be sentenced | Reuters

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos faced sharp questioning from U.S. senators over the company’s proposed $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery, a deal that could reshape the streaming and entertainment landscape. At a Senate antitrust hearing led by Republican Mike Lee, lawmakers from both parties expressed concern that the merger could reduce competition, limit job opportunities for entertainment workers, and reduce content diversity. Lee warned the deal might let Netflix dominate streaming and steer major Warner Bros franchises away from theaters or rivals. Sarandos defended Netflix’s position, citing competition from platforms like YouTube, though senators noted YouTube’s ad-based model differs from subscription services.

The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the merger alongside a competing bid from Paramount Skydance. Paramount’s proposal faces financing challenges, and its CEO, David Ellison, has ties to Donald Trump, raising political questions. Democratic Senator Cory Booker questioned Sarandos on whether Trump would influence the deal’s approval, a notion Sarandos said he couldn’t confirm. Sarandos argued that all viewing time on television is in direct competition, but senators remained skeptical of Netflix’s claims that its competition includes ad-supported platforms. The hearing reflects broader unease about consolidation in streaming, and the DOJ’s decision will ultimately shape the industry’s direction.

Netflix co-CEO faces grilling by US Senate panel over Warner Bros deal | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice and a majority of state attorneys general are appealing a major antitrust ruling in the case against Google over its dominance in the online search market. Although a federal judge previously determined that Google held a monopoly, he declined to impose significant structural remedies, such as requiring Google to sell its Chrome browser or stop paying Apple to make Google the default search engine on Apple devices. The government’s appeal is expected to target this leniency.

Google is also appealing the ruling and has requested a delay in compliance with the judge’s order to share certain data with competitors while the appeals process is ongoing. The case, originally filed in 2020, marks one of the most significant antitrust challenges against a tech company in decades. The court noted that newer players like OpenAI have recently emerged, potentially altering the competitive landscape.

The ruling was widely viewed as a partial win for Google, frustrating regulators who had hoped for broader changes to curb the company’s influence in digital advertising and search. The appeal signals continued government efforts to pursue more aggressive antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.

US files appeal in Google search antitrust case | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Fifteenth Amendment Ratified

On February 3, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. The amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Its ratification was the third and final of the Reconstruction Amendments, following the Thirteenth (abolishing slavery) and Fourteenth (guaranteeing equal protection and due process) Amendments.

The Fifteenth Amendment was a direct response to the systemic disenfranchisement of Black Americans in the post-Civil War South. While it granted a legal foundation for Black men’s suffrage, implementation faced immediate resistance. Southern states adopted literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other discriminatory practices to circumvent the amendment and suppress Black political participation.

Despite its passage, the amendment’s guarantees would not be meaningfully enforced until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nearly a century later. The legal battles stemming from the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise have shaped much of the country’s voting rights jurisprudence and continue to echo in current debates about voter ID laws, redistricting, and access to the ballot box.

A U.S. federal judge is set to hear arguments on February 5 regarding Danish company Ørsted’s request to lift the Trump administration’s pause on its offshore Sunrise Wind project near Long Island, New York. Ørsted has asked for a preliminary injunction, warning that without a decision by February 6, it could lose access to a specialized vessel crucial for cable installation, putting the project’s timeline, financial viability, and even survival at risk. The Interior Department halted five offshore wind projects in December, citing newly obtained, classified national security concerns, particularly radar interference. Ørsted’s filing states the company has already committed over $7 billion to the Sunrise Wind project, which is about 45% complete and projected to power nearly 600,000 homes by October.

Judge Royce Lamberth, who previously granted an injunction for Ørsted’s Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island, will preside over the case. Four similar wind developments have already won legal relief allowing construction to continue during litigation. The ongoing delays reflect broader tensions between offshore wind expansion and the Trump administration’s skepticism of the technology, as well as evolving security concerns.

US judge to consider last project challenge to Trump offshore wind pause | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. Pretti was killed during an enforcement operation that has since drawn national outrage and led the Trump administration to alter its tactics in Minnesota. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the FBI is conducting a preliminary review, with potential involvement from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, though he emphasized that the investigation is still in early stages.

Video footage verified by Reuters shows Pretti being tackled by agents while holding a phone, and an officer retrieving a firearm from his body just before shots were fired. The Justice Department said a formal criminal civil rights probe would only proceed if the evidence supports it. Local officials have voiced distrust of the federal response and are conducting their own inquiry. Pretti is the second protester killed by federal agents in Minneapolis this month, and his family, represented by attorney Steve Schleicher, is demanding a transparent and impartial investigation. So far, no similar federal probe has been opened into the earlier shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer.

US Justice Dept opens civil rights probe into Alex Pretti shooting, official says | Reuters

In this week’s column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Volkswagen’s decision to cancel plans for a new Audi plant in the U.S. highlights the limitations of using tariffs as a cornerstone of industrial policy. The assumption underpinning tariff-heavy strategies is that the U.S. market is irresistible enough to force global firms to onshore production, even as tariffs erode that market’s size and appeal. Tariffs have come to function like sin taxes—meant to discourage consumption—but unlike cigarettes or soda, the goal with trade policy is not abstention, but investment and economic engagement. Instead, firms like VW are responding by pulling back, as higher costs reduce consumer demand and make U.S. market share too small to justify large-scale investment. The belief that global manufacturers can swiftly build U.S. capacity ignores the time, cost, and uncertainty involved, especially in capital-intensive sectors. VW’s exit is rational: it doesn’t make financial sense to break ground on a multibillion-dollar plant when the target market is shrinking and returns are questionable.

Policymakers need to move beyond blunt tools and design trade incentives based on real market data, such as U.S. demand and potential return on investment. That means requiring ROI modeling before tariffs are imposed, and asking whether the targeted company has enough exposure to be moved by them. If the answer is no, we risk losing access to competitive products, jobs, and consumer choice—not gaining them. Trade policy should be surgical, not punitive, and should acknowledge that capital follows incentives, not threats.

In a piece I wrote for Forbes late last week, and with apologies for a double dose of me today: I examined California’s long-running flirtation with a mileage-based tax to replace its declining gas tax revenues—and how what began as a test program has quietly become a form of policymaking through delay. In 2014, the state authorized a pilot program to study a “road usage charge,” a per-mile fee designed to keep transportation funding solvent as gas consumption drops. That pilot wrapped up in 2017 and showed the system works: vehicles can be tracked, billing can be simulated, and the technical challenges are manageable. But nearly a decade later, no mileage tax has been implemented, and new legislation—AB 1421—would extend the advisory committee until 2035.

The real issue now isn’t feasibility but political avoidance. The state has drifted into a passive strategy where permanent pilots and advisory boards take the place of real decisions. This kind of inertia has a name: policy drift—when the law remains formally unchanged, but materially obsolete. California’s ongoing study phase has become a way to defer a difficult conversation about revenue and equity in a post-gasoline economy. The technology exists, and other states have already tested it. What’s missing is political will and public engagement.

AB 1421 doesn’t collect revenue or educate voters—it simply extends the status quo under the guise of preparation. From the outside, it looks like planning. In practice, it’s a weather balloon designed to measure political tolerance, not policy readiness.

California Mileage Tax—Pilot Programs And Permanent Policy Inertia

This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

On February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, officially ending the Mexican-American War and significantly altering the legal and territorial landscape of the United States. The treaty ceded vast swaths of land to the U.S., including present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of several other western states—about half of Mexico’s territory at the time. In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed $3.25 million in claims by American citizens against Mexico. Legally, the treaty promised to protect the property rights and civil liberties of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, but these promises were inconsistently honored in practice.

The treaty’s ratification triggered significant legal and constitutional debates about the extension of slavery into new territories, setting the stage for the intensifying sectional conflicts that led to the Civil War. It also marked the beginning of long-standing disputes over land grants and water rights that would shape western property law. Moreover, the treaty’s vague wording left many issues—such as tribal sovereignty and citizenship—unresolved, leading to future litigation and policy struggles.

The treaty was signed in the town of Guadalupe Hidalgo, near Mexico City, and ratified by the U.S. Senate in March 1848. It remains a foundational document in U.S. legal history, frequently cited in discussions of land rights, citizenship, and the limits of treaty enforcement.

Our first story today is a bit off topic.

In today’s digital world, every click, swipe, and login happens under a legal regime you didn’t negotiate—Terms of Service, Privacy Policies, and community guidelines that quietly shape your rights and obligations online. These documents form a system of private lawmaking, where companies act as legislators, drafting rules users must follow, often with little recourse or transparency. You don’t sign them, but courts often treat them as binding contracts. Clauses about arbitration, content ownership, surveillance, and data sharing carry real legal weight. Yet these terms can change overnight, unilaterally, and without notice.

TOSTracker was created to bring transparency to this ecosystem. It’s a non-commercial research tool that tracks and archives the evolution of digital contracts over time. With over 150 companies and nearly 250 historical versions of key documents thus far, TOSTracker offers timestamped, hash-verified, and citable records of how these texts change. It provides full version histories, detects redlines at the word and section level, and supports programmatic access through an API. Whether you’re studying arbitration creep, GDPR compliance, or how moderation rules evolve, TOSTracker gives you the empirical backbone to do it.

All content is normalized and archived via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, with cryptographic hashes ensuring document integrity. Importantly, it doesn’t interpret the law—it captures the text and structure so you can. For legal researchers, privacy advocates, and anyone concerned with digital governance, this is a window into how private law is made, revised, and enforced online. It’s not a product; it’s a dataset, an archive, and a call to look more closely at the legal architecture of everyday tech.

We’re also actively seeking contributors to help expand the archive. If you come across a consumer-facing legal document—like a Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, community guidelines, or EULA—that isn’t already tracked, you can submit it directly through the site. This includes documents behind logins, from smaller platforms, or covering underrepresented industries and regions. Submissions help close coverage gaps, diversify the dataset, and improve the foundation for legal research into how digital rights are defined and redefined over time. Your input directly supports transparency in an area where the law is often invisible.

Check it out at tostracker.app if your research overlaps with digital contracts, user rights, or the evolving boundary between public law and platform governance.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sent warning letters to 42 major law firms over concerns that their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices may be anticompetitive. The FTC emphasized that firm-wide agreements to meet diversity benchmarks—particularly those tied to programs like Diversity Lab’s certification—could unlawfully restrict competition in the legal labor market by influencing hiring, compensation, or promotions. These letters arrive amid a broader rollback of DEI initiatives under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has eliminated related programs in government and targeted private sector efforts.

Firms such as Paul Weiss, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Skadden Arps, and Latham & Watkins—some of which had previously been challenged by Trump-era executive orders—are among those named. Some reached compromises with the White House, offering pro bono legal work in exchange for eased scrutiny, while others fought and won legal challenges against the orders. The FTC’s scrutiny centers on participation in Diversity Lab’s voluntary DEI certification, which encourages firms to ensure at least 30% of leadership candidates are from underrepresented groups. Though previously upheld in court as non-discriminatory, the FTC now frames such collective DEI practices as potentially violating competition law.

US Federal Trade Commission warns law firms about DEI hiring | Reuters

Immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit in Boston challenging a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that allows agents to enter homes without judicial warrants. The suit, brought by the Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center, targets a May 2025 memo—recently revealed via a whistleblower complaint—that permits ICE officers to use administrative warrants instead of warrants signed by a federal judge. These administrative forms, issued internally by the Department of Homeland Security, were previously insufficient for home entries under longstanding practice.

The plaintiffs argue that using such warrants for home arrests violates the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal advocates claim the policy removes a crucial constitutional safeguard just as ICE ramps up enforcement tactics in states like Minnesota, where multiple recent actions have already been deemed unlawful by judges. The lawsuit comes after fatal incidents in Minneapolis during anti-ICE protests, intensifying scrutiny of federal immigration operations.

ICE officials defend the policy, asserting that individuals subject to removal have already received due process. However, the lawsuit challenges that rationale, pointing out that due process does not override constitutional protections against warrantless home intrusions.

Lawsuit challenges ICE ability to enter homes without warrants from US judges | Reuters

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon is facing federal charges over his role in covering a protest at a Minnesota church opposing President Trump’s immigration crackdown. The protest, which disrupted a church service in St. Paul on January 18, was livestreamed by Lemon and targeted the church because one pastor was allegedly also an ICE official. Lemon was arrested by the FBI, spent a night in custody, and appeared in court where he confirmed he plans to plead not guilty. He and six others, including independent journalist Georgia Fort, were indicted under laws prohibiting obstruction of access to houses of worship—a legal framework typically used against abortion clinic protests.

Free press advocates and constitutional lawyers are raising concerns about the charges, framing them as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration targeting critics, including journalists. Lemon’s attorneys argue this is a political prosecution meant to suppress press freedom and distract from ongoing crises. In the archived livestream, Lemon is seen documenting the protest rather than leading it, further fueling First Amendment concerns. The DOJ’s case hinges on a controversial interpretation of laws rarely, if ever, used to prosecute journalists for protest coverage after the fact. Legal experts say there is no clear precedent for the charges, and press freedom groups are warning of escalating threats to constitutional protections.

Ex-CNN journalist Don Lemon faces Minnesota protest charges | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Hitler Appointed Chancellor

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, a moment that marked the beginning of one of the darkest legal and political transformations in modern history. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not seize power in a coup; his rise was accomplished through entirely legal means under the Weimar Constitution. Once in office, the Nazi regime moved swiftly to erode civil liberties, beginning with the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended constitutional protections like freedom of speech, assembly, and due process. This decree, signed by President Hindenburg, gave the government extraordinary powers under the guise of national emergency.

Shortly thereafter, the Enabling Act of March 1933 granted Hitler the authority to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag, including laws that violated the constitution itself. The judiciary, instead of serving as a check on executive overreach, largely complied or cooperated, enabling legal persecution of Jews, political dissidents, and other marginalized groups. Laws were passed systematically to isolate, disenfranchise, and ultimately exterminate entire populations, all with the appearance of legality and bureaucratic order.

What happened in Germany is a stark reminder that authoritarianism often arrives wrapped in the language of law and order. The rule of law is not inherently just—it depends on who writes the laws, how they are enforced, and whether constitutional checks are robust enough to resist consolidation of power. Today, as various democracies grapple with executive overreach, politicized judiciaries, and emergency powers, the legal path taken in 1933 offers a chilling historical parallel. The slow erosion of legal norms, once set in motion, can be devastatingly hard to reverse.

A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living and working in the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority by terminating protections that had been extended under the Biden administration. The court emphasized that, since Congress created TPS 35 years ago, no administration had claimed the power to cancel a country’s designation while it remained in effect. Judges found that the statute’s language clearly limits executive authority and does not permit unilateral termination mid-designation.

Despite the ruling, the decision will not immediately restore protections because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the policy to remain in effect while the case continues on appeal. The court noted that the termination has left hundreds of thousands of migrants in fear of detention, deportation, and family separation, often to countries where they previously faced violence. The ruling also upheld a finding that TPS protections for Haitians were unlawfully ended, though the administration has pursued separate efforts to terminate those protections. One judge wrote separately to argue that the policy was influenced by racist stereotyping, citing public statements by senior officials about Venezuelan and Haitian migrants. Advocacy groups welcomed the ruling but stressed that, because of the Supreme Court’s order, affected migrants remain vulnerable in the meantime.

Trump administration unlawfully ended Venezuelans’ legal status, US court rules | Reuters

A significant wave of attorneys has left the U.S. federal government since Donald Trump returned to office, fueling a major shift in the legal workforce. Between January and November 2025, over 8,500 licensed attorneys exited federal service, leading to a net loss of 6,524—one of the sharpest declines in decades. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was especially affected, with notable departures from its Civil Rights Division and Federal Programs Branch, and the closure of its Tax Division. Some resignations were linked to policy disagreements, while others were the result of force reductions or shifting departmental priorities.

This exodus has dramatically reshaped the hiring market for large law firms. In 2025, top-grossing firms hired over 1,100 lawyers directly from government positions, more than doubling the rate seen in prior years. Recruiters report a flood of interest from government attorneys, many of whom began reaching out even before Trump’s inauguration. However, while high-ranking officials and prosecutors remain in demand, lower-level attorneys without niche skills are facing a tougher private market.

The overall federal workforce, not just lawyers, has contracted significantly under Trump’s renewed efforts to reduce government size. The DOJ alone has seen a net loss of nearly 9,000 employees. While the number of federal lawyers remains close to 2017 levels, the recent surge in departures marks a striking reversal of long-standing hiring trends.

Lawyers leaving US government drive workforce shift | Reuters

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has proposed legislation that would block other states from deploying their National Guard troops into Massachusetts without her approval. The move comes in response to President Donald Trump’s controversial use of the National Guard in 2025, when troops from various states were sent to cities like Chicago and Los Angeles without consent from local governments—breaking with long-standing norms regarding domestic military deployment.

Several states already have similar laws, designed to prevent out-of-state Guard deployments unless coordinated through mutual agreement or in federally controlled situations. However, legal gray areas remain when the federal government asserts control over state troops. Last year, the Trump administration attempted to deploy federalized National Guard units from California and Texas to assist immigration enforcement in Portland, Oregon. That effort was met with lawsuits from state officials, who claimed no valid emergency justified the action; the troops were withdrawn before the legal battle concluded.

Healey’s bill aims to reinforce state sovereignty over such deployments and to guard against federal overreach in the absence of local consent. The National Guard is typically used across state lines only in emergency situations like natural disasters, and even then, usually with approval from affected states.

Massachusetts bill aims to block National Guard deployment from other states | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

This week’s closing theme is the Lacrymosa from Mozart’s Requiem in D minor, a work shrouded in both mystery and mourning. Mozart began composing the Requiem in 1791, the final year of his life, and died before completing it—adding an eerie depth to a piece already suffused with sorrow and transcendence. The Lacrymosa movement in particular is a haunting meditation on grief, built around the Latin text “Lacrimosa dies illa” (“That tearful day”), which describes the final judgment and the weeping of the soul.

The music swells with mourning, yet carries within it an unmistakable dignity—grief not as chaos, but as reckoning. Today, as we reflect on events that echo the legal and moral breakdowns of the past—and resound in the present—the Lacrymosa feels like a fitting elegy. It reminds us that great tragedy often begins under the guise of order, and that mourning is not only for the dead, but for the living systems and values that can perish when unchecked power takes root.

Mozart, though apolitical and far removed from the 20th century, composed music that reaches across time to articulate the emotional weight of collective loss. The unfinished nature of the Requiem also mirrors the historical unfinished business of justice—how societies reckon with their past, or fail to. This piece, suspended between the sacred and the human, between hope and despair, offers a solemn moment of reflection as the week closes.

Without further ado, the Lacrymosa from Mozart’s Requiem in D minor – enjoy.

This Day in Legal History: “Axis of Evil”

On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.

The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq’s supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.

The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.

A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti’s waist before the shooting.

The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn’t comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He’s got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.

U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | Reuters

The U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.

A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.

If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn’t struck.

US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | Reuters

Google has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users’ cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone’s property for one’s own use.

Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.

Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | Reuters

Google to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data Suit

A Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students’ pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district’s pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.

Polk argued that MCPS’s policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students’ gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.

The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.

Christian Teacher Can’t Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss

This Day in Legal History: Monkey Selfie

On January 28, 2016, a federal judge in California dismissed a highly publicized copyright lawsuit that sought to establish whether a monkey could own intellectual property rights. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident in which a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took a series of selfies using wildlife photographer David Slater’s unattended camera in Indonesia. The resulting images, particularly a striking self-portrait of the grinning primate, went viral and sparked widespread debate over authorship and ownership. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto’s behalf, asserting that the monkey was the true author and copyright holder of the images under the Copyright Act.

The case presented novel legal questions about the boundaries of authorship and whether non-human animals have standing to sue in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that animals do not have statutory standing under the Copyright Act, which applies only to human authors. In his opinion, Orrick emphasized that Congress had not intended to grant copyright rights to animals, and that extending such rights would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.

The ruling did not settle the matter completely, as PETA appealed the decision. However, in 2018, PETA and Slater reached a settlement in which Slater agreed to donate a portion of any future revenue from the photos to organizations protecting macaques and their habitats. The case sparked lasting discussion about animal rights, legal personhood, and the reach of copyright law in the digital age. It also underscored how existing legal frameworks may be ill-equipped to address emerging questions posed by technology and non-human agency.

Several Democratic-led U.S. states are advancing legislation to allow individuals to sue federal immigration agents in state courts for alleged civil rights violations. This movement gained momentum after two fatal ICE encounters in Minneapolis and broader concerns over enforcement tactics under President Trump’s immigration policies. Illinois recently became the first state to pass such a law, but the Trump administration quickly filed a legal challenge, citing the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. Other states, including California, New York, and Virginia, are considering similar measures.

Supporters argue these laws would close an accountability gap, as federal agents—unlike state or local officials—are largely shielded from individual civil rights lawsuits. While Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows such suits against state actors in federal court, no equivalent exists for federal officers. The Federal Tort Claims Act permits some claims against the U.S. government but not against agents personally, and it involves complex procedures. Legal experts say these state efforts could spark a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially giving courts a framework to hold federal agents accountable for constitutional violations.

The Department of Homeland Security has defended ICE’s actions and criticized the state proposals. Critics, including legal scholars, warn that parts of the Illinois law—such as those allowing punitive damages—may be unconstitutional. However, others maintain that the core idea of state-level accountability for federal misconduct is both lawful and necessary.

US state lawmakers push to allow lawsuits against ICE agents | Reuters

A Virginia judge blocked an attempt by state Democrats to advance a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to redraw the state’s congressional map in their favor. Judge Jack Hurley, Jr. ruled that the process used to introduce the amendment was procedurally invalid and came too close to the state’s 2025 election. The decision halts a strategy that could have given Democrats control of up to 10 of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six they currently hold.

Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Don Scott, have pledged to appeal the ruling. The blocked amendment was intended to be put before voters in a special election this spring, with a new electoral map released ahead of time for public consideration. With control of the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives at stake in the upcoming midterms, the decision is a significant setback for Democrats, who need only flip three seats to gain a majority.

The dispute is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting, with both parties pursuing aggressive map-drawing strategies in various states. Last year, Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw maps targeting Democratic incumbents, prompting Democratic-led states like California to follow suit in kind.

Judge blocks Virginia lawmakers’ bid for pro-Democratic voting map | Reuters

Top lawyers at U.S. litigation firm Susman Godfrey are now billing up to $4,000 per hour, setting a new high for hourly legal fees in 2026. The rate applies to prominent partners Neal Manne and Bill Carmody, whose hourly fees were already $3,000 last year. While most of their work is done on contingency or flat-fee arrangements, this hourly benchmark reflects growing price trends across elite law firms. Manne joked that their rate-setting process is as secretive as a papal conclave, and the firm has not disclosed how the figures were determined.

Susman Godfrey, based in Houston, is known for high-end litigation on both the plaintiff and defense side and offers above-average compensation, especially to associates. The rise in billing rates is part of a broader trend—major law firms raised their hourly rates by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.

Other top firms are also pushing rate ceilings. Latham & Watkins reached $3,050 per hour for some partners in federal bankruptcy filings, while leading appellate lawyer Neal Katyal billed $3,250 at Milbank. Quinn Emanuel partners were billing at $3,000 an hour last year, according to court records.

As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for top partners | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Paris Peace Accords

On January 27, 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace Accords, effectively marking the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Though primarily a geopolitical and military agreement, the Paris Peace Accords had significant legal dimensions. Negotiated between the U.S., South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong (under the banner of the Provisional Revolutionary Government), the accords represented a complex international legal settlement aimed at restoring peace in Vietnam and Southeast Asia.

The agreement included provisions for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the release of prisoners of war, and the recognition of South Vietnamese sovereignty. Legally, the accords posed a challenge to domestic and international law frameworks, particularly in the way the U.S. executive branch negotiated and signed the agreement without formal Congressional approval. This would later contribute to the debate around the War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, which sought to limit the president’s ability to commit U.S. forces without legislative oversight.

Though hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, the accords failed to bring lasting peace. North Vietnam eventually overran the South in 1975, raising legal questions about treaty enforcement and the durability of international peace agreements brokered without strong enforcement mechanisms.

A U.S. District Court judge in Minnesota is weighing whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement operation in the state, which has come under intense scrutiny following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse. Local officials from Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul argue the federal crackdown involves unlawful tactics, including warrantless home raids and racial profiling, carried out by over 2,800 heavily armed agents—more than the total local police force. The Biden-appointed judge, Katherine Menendez, acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case.

The administration, defending the operation, dismissed the lawsuit as baseless. However, video evidence contradicts the official account of Pretti’s death, showing he was unarmed and holding a phone when agents shot him, despite claims he posed a threat with a firearm. The incident has fueled widespread protests and demands for federal de-escalation from both state leaders and major Minnesota-based companies like Target and 3M.

President Trump has sent border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, though it’s unclear whether this signals an expansion or reassessment of federal actions. Trump says his administration is “reviewing everything” and that immigration agents will eventually withdraw. Tensions have also spilled into Washington, with Senate Democrats vowing to block DHS funding, risking a partial government shutdown. Meanwhile, even some Republicans are questioning the administration’s approach.

US judge to consider pause to Minnesota crackdown as Trump dispatches border czar | Reuters

A federal judge in Boston has blocked the Trump administration from ending legal status for over 8,400 migrants from seven Latin American countries who had been allowed to live in the U.S. under family reunification parole programs. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Department of Homeland Security from terminating the programs, which benefited migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

These programs, created or expanded under President Biden, allowed U.S. citizens and green card holders to sponsor relatives while they awaited visa approval. The Trump administration moved to end the programs, claiming they were inconsistent with current enforcement priorities and enabled people to bypass traditional immigration processes.

Talwani found that the administration failed to justify its decision, noting the government neither provided evidence of fraud nor assessed the real-life consequences for affected migrants. Many had already sold homes or left jobs in their home countries. She ruled that DHS’s policy shift lacked a reasoned explanation and was therefore arbitrary and capricious under administrative law.

The ruling is part of a broader class action brought by immigrant rights advocates challenging Trump’s rollback of temporary protections. Talwani had previously tried to block similar efforts affecting hundreds of thousands of migrants, but those earlier rulings were overturned on appeal or by the Supreme Court.

US judge blocks Trump administration’s push to end legal status of 8,400 migrants | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg this week takes a look at the Empire State’s budget. New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s proposed no-tax-hike budget may appear fiscally cautious, but critics (includin me) argue it lacks the stable, long-term revenue needed to support key social programs like universal childcare. While the state currently enjoys relative revenue stability, the budget relies on temporary fixes, such as decoupling from parts of the federal tax code to generate $1.6 billion, instead of pursuing more durable sources of funding.

My critique centers on Hochul’s refusal to raise the top marginal corporate tax rate—currently 7.25% for large companies—which is lower than neighboring states like New Jersey (11.5%) and Connecticut (8.25%). I suggest raising the rate to at least 8.5% and making the existing corporate tax surcharge permanent. I argue that companies benefiting from New York’s infrastructure and market can afford modest increases, and are unlikely to relocate given regional and national tax landscapes.

Without securing permanent funding, the state risks repeating a familiar pattern: expanding programs in good times and cutting them during downturns. I warn that relying on temporary revenue maneuvers delays tough decisions and increases the likelihood of painful tax hikes or service cuts when the economy falters. In short, now is the time to align recurring revenues with long-term commitments, while conditions are favorable.

This Day in Legal History: Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill

On January 26, 1922, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, a landmark but ultimately thwarted attempt to make lynching a federal crime. Introduced by Missouri Republican Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer, the bill was drafted in response to the widespread and brutal practice of lynching—acts of racial terror largely aimed at Black Americans, often carried out with impunity. The measure sought to impose fines and prison terms on local officials who failed to protect individuals from mob violence, directly challenging the systemic neglect of justice in the Jim Crow South.

Though the House approved the bill by a wide margin, it met a coordinated and racist blockade in the Senate, where Southern Democrats employed the filibuster to prevent a vote. The bill’s failure underscored both the power of white supremacist interests in Congress and the federal government’s unwillingness to confront racial violence. It would take a full century—100 years—for the U.S. to finally enact a federal anti-lynching law.

That moment came in March 2022, when the Emmett Till Antilynching Act was signed into law, making lynching a federal hate crime. The staggering gap between the Dyer Bill’s passage in the House and the eventual success of anti-lynching legislation—exactly 100 years and two months later—is a sobering reminder of how recent, and how halting, legal progress on racial justice has been. From a historical perspective, 1922 is not ancient history; many living Americans had parents or grandparents who witnessed the Dyer Bill’s failure.

The Dyer Bill remains a powerful example of how legal change, even when urgent and necessary, can be obstructed for generations. It also reveals how the law, far from being a neutral instrument, often bends to the political will of those in power. The slow arc toward justice in this case wasn’t just theoretical—it was measured in innocent lives lost and justice denied.

The murder of Minnesota nurse Alex Pretti by ICE agents has sent shockwaves through Congress and thrown federal budget negotiations into chaos just days before a January 30 funding deadline. What had been a carefully arranged plan to pass remaining appropriations bills now faces collapse, raising the real possibility of a partial government shutdown. Senate Democrats, already uneasy about funding the Department of Homeland Security, have hardened their opposition in response to the killing and are demanding investigations and new limits on ICE. Several Democrats who previously helped avert a shutdown now say they will not support any bill that includes ICE funding under these circumstances.

Even lawmakers known for deal‑making, including Sen. Patty Murray, have withdrawn support, arguing that federal agents cannot commit murder without accountability. Republicans warn that blocking DHS funding risks undermining national security, but cracks are appearing within their ranks as well. Sen. Bill Cassidy called the killing “disturbing” and urged a joint federal‑state investigation, a rare public break with the administration. Meanwhile, logistical hurdles—including winter storms and congressional recesses—are shrinking the window for compromise. With both parties dug in and tensions escalating nationwide, the shutdown threat has grown sharper by the day.

Minnesota Shooting Inflames Tensions in Congress, Risks Shutdown

Meta, TikTok, and YouTube are set to face trial this week in Los Angeles County over claims that their platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis by fostering social media addiction. The case centers on a 19-year-old plaintiff, K.G.M., who alleges she became addicted to the apps at a young age, leading to depression and suicidal thoughts. It marks the first time these major tech companies will have to defend their platforms in court, rather than in congressional hearings. The jury will be asked to determine whether the companies were negligent and whether their products were a substantial factor in harming K.G.M.’s mental health.

This trial is seen as a bellwether for dozens of similar cases expected to follow. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel were both expected to testify, though Snap recently settled with the plaintiff. YouTube plans to argue that its platform is fundamentally different from other social media services, distancing itself from TikTok and Instagram. Meanwhile, these companies have been aggressively promoting parental control features and safety programs in schools and youth organizations to shift public perception.

Despite these efforts, critics argue the tech giants are leveraging their influence—legal, financial, and cultural—to avoid accountability. Attorneys representing the companies have experience in other high-profile addiction-related litigation, including the opioid crisis and video game cases. As the trial unfolds, the question of corporate responsibility for digital harm to minors will be tested in court for the first time.

Meta, TikTok, YouTube to stand trial on youth addiction claims | Reuters

The Supreme Court appears unlikely to grant President Trump’s request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook but also seems disinclined to issue a sweeping ruling on the broader constitutional or statutory questions at play. Legal analysts suggest the justices are leaning toward a narrow, procedural decision—one that would preserve a lower court’s injunction against Cook’s removal while sending the case back to trial court for further fact-finding. This approach would allow the Court to sidestep defining what constitutes “cause” for firing a Fed governor or how far presidential removal powers extend, particularly in relation to the Federal Reserve’s legal independence.

The justices expressed concern about the rushed pace of the case and the thin evidentiary record, with Justice Alito questioning whether key documents were even part of the case file. Trump argues that Cook committed mortgage fraud, but Cook and her legal team contend the firing attempt is a pretext for punishing her resistance to his demands for aggressive rate cuts. Several justices highlighted the potential economic fallout of removing a Fed official, with economists warning of recession risks if the court acts hastily.

This case underscores that the Court is never obligated to resolve constitutional issues in broad strokes—it may always choose a minimalist path that focuses on the facts before it. Legal scholars note that even if the Court rules for Cook, it could do so narrowly by emphasizing procedural due process rather than affirming a general principle of Fed independence. The outcome is expected by June but may arrive sooner.

Supreme Court may leave big questions unresolved on Trump bid to fire Fed’s Lisa Cook | Reuters

We launched something new — and it’s for anyone tired of hearing sloppy arguments pass unchallenged.

LSAT Logic Applied is a new short-form podcast hosted by me, Andrew Leahey, the steady (?) voice at the helm of Minimum Competence. Twice a week, we’ll take the tools used in LSAT Logical Reasoning — assumptions, flaws, causation, strengthen/weaken — and apply them to the real world: news stories, political talking points, and ad claims.

You don’t need to be prepping for the LSAT to follow along. The goal is to make better sense of the arguments that flood your feed and shape public opinion — and to see where they break.

In the debut episode, included here just this once as an introduction to the show, we take on a recurring claim from Donald Trump: that tariffs made the United States the richest nation in the world. Fact checkers have pushed back on the economic accuracy, but for LSAT purposes, we’re more interested in the structure of the argument than its fiscal bottom line.

And structurally, there’s a lot to talk about. Causation flaws, hidden assumptions, and post hoc reasoning — it’s a logical mess with political consequences.

Find it wherever you get your finely crafted podcasts.