This Day in Legal History: Lee Harvey Oswald Shot

On November 24, 1963, two days after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the nation watched in shock as Lee Harvey Oswald—the alleged assassin—was gunned down on live television. The shooter, Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, entered the basement of the Dallas police headquarters and fatally shot Oswald as he was being transferred to the county jail. The killing unfolded in front of journalists, cameras, and law enforcement, searing itself into the American consciousness and further fueling public distrust in official accounts of the assassination.

Though Ruby claimed his act was motivated by grief and a desire to spare Jacqueline Kennedy the ordeal of a trial, his actions raised immediate concerns about the adequacy of security in high-profile cases. Oswald’s death eliminated any opportunity for a public trial, which would have offered a transparent legal accounting of the events in Dallas. Ruby was later convicted of murder, though his conviction was overturned on appeal before he died of cancer in 1967.

The legal ramifications of Oswald’s televised murder were broad and lasting. It led to reforms in detainee protection, prompted scrutiny over media access in sensitive law enforcement operations, and spotlighted the vulnerability of chain of custody and judicial process in emotionally charged cases. The event also highlighted the need for careful separation between law enforcement procedures and the media spectacle surrounding them. Ruby’s case prompted legal scholars to revisit the balance between a defendant’s right to a fair trial and the public’s right to observe proceedings.

This legal flashpoint helped set the stage for subsequent debates about pretrial publicity, venue changes, and judicial instructions to mitigate media influence on juries. It also foreshadowed a new era where courtroom access and high-profile criminal justice collided in an age of mass media.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a press freedom case between the Associated Press (AP) and President Donald Trump’s administration. The case centers on whether the White House violated constitutional protections by restricting AP’s access to presidential events after the agency refused to adopt Trump’s preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of the long-recognized “Gulf of Mexico.”

In April, a federal judge—appointed by Trump—granted a preliminary injunction in AP’s favor, requiring the administration to restore the agency’s full access. However, the appeals court later paused that ruling while it considers the government’s challenge. The Trump administration argues that news organizations do not have a constitutional right to “special access” to areas like the Oval Office.

AP’s lawsuit, filed in February, claims the restrictions are retaliatory and violate the First and Fifth Amendments. The case has drawn attention for its potential implications beyond journalism, touching on the broader question of whether the government can punish speech that conflicts with its messaging. The administration has defended its actions as part of a general press policy rather than targeted retaliation.

The conflict escalated after Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf, which AP chose not to adopt due to its editorial standards. The White House then limited the agency’s access and removed AP and Reuters from the regular press pool. AP has framed the case as critical to preventing government coercion of the press.

US appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office | Reuters

Newly unsealed court filings allege that Meta Platforms shut down internal research after discovering evidence that Facebook use caused measurable harm to users’ mental health. In a 2020 internal study, dubbed “Project Mercury,” Meta partnered with Nielsen to examine the effects of Facebook deactivation. Users who left the platform for a week reported lower levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison—results the company allegedly found troubling enough to halt further study and dismiss as tainted by public bias.

Despite internal acknowledgment that the findings were valid, Meta did not publish the results and later told Congress it could not quantify harm from its products. The lawsuit—filed by U.S. school districts against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google—claims the platforms concealed known risks from users, parents, and educators. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta’s safety features were deliberately underdeveloped, and that high thresholds for user removal allowed exploitative behavior to persist unchecked.

Among the more serious accusations: Meta allegedly deprioritized child safety concerns in favor of platform growth, suppressed internal safety testing, and allowed human trafficking accounts to remain active until repeated violations were flagged—up to 17 times. Plaintiffs say Meta and other companies also tried to buy favorable public positioning by sponsoring child advocacy groups, such as TikTok’s internal brag about its influence over the National PTA.

Meta has denied the allegations, calling them misleading and based on selective quotes. The company says it has robust teen safety measures and that accounts involved in trafficking are now removed upon first report. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for January in federal court.

Meta buried ‘causal’ evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege | Reuters

The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and relocate its functions across six other federal agencies, including Labor and Health and Human Services. According to multiple sources familiar with the effort, senior officials and department directors have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), an uncommon move for a civilian agency without a national security mandate. These agreements are reportedly being used to limit information sharing as the reorganization proceeds behind closed doors.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the restructuring this week, framing it as a way to “end federal micromanagement” while still supporting education through other agencies. Some staff have already transitioned to new posts, and more are expected to relocate by January. However, specifics on the timeline and scope of the overhaul remain vague, even to congressional oversight committees and education advocates.

Critics argue the administration is sidelining Congress and the public in what they call an opaque and potentially destabilizing shift. Senator Patty Murray called the effort “sabotage,” citing the lack of transparency and collaboration. Meanwhile, McMahon has reportedly met with lawmakers and urged Congress to formalize the changes through legislation, though no formal bill has yet been introduced.

US Education Department requiring non-disclosure agreements in Trump reorganization, sources say | Reuters

In a deep-dive investigation, FOIAball uncovered how UCLA Athletics appears to have routed large sums of money intended for football player NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals through a tax-exempt charity—Shelter 37, run by the co-founder of the school’s official NIL collective, Bruins for Life. This maneuver may have allowed donors to receive tax deductions for contributions that ultimately compensated athletes, despite recent IRS rulings stating such collectives do not qualify for charitable status.

Emails obtained through public records show that UCLA development staff actively coached donors to send checks to Shelter 37 while explicitly designating those funds for Bruins for Life, the school’s NIL program. These emails often discussed timing, amounts, and communication with the charity’s leadership to ensure the money was redirected as intended. In several cases, UCLA staff reassured donors that contributions through donor-advised funds (DAFs)—normally restricted from supporting private benefit—could be routed to Shelter 37 and still benefit athletes.

After the IRS began denying charitable status to NIL collectives in 2023 due to private benefit concerns, most programs shifted to non-deductible donations. But UCLA’s workaround relied on Shelter 37’s 501(c)(3) status to continue offering donors deductions, despite Shelter 37’s own filings showing the vast majority of its funds in 2024—$3.6 million of $4.8 million—were raised for UCLA football NIL purposes. By contrast, it spent only $200 on scholarships for at-risk youth, its purported mission.

Legal experts, including yours truly, told FOIAball that this could constitute fraudulent behavior, noting that charities must exercise control over their funds and serve the public interest—not act as pass-throughs for private benefit. UCLA officials, when asked for comment, did not address the specifics. Meanwhile, Shelter 37’s president denied improper coordination but acknowledged the charity paid players to appear at events, an arrangement experts say still violates nonprofit law if the real intent is athlete compensation.

How UCLA used a friendly charity to get tax-free NIL money

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi Burning

On November 21, 1964, a federal grand jury convened in Meridian, Mississippi, and indicted 19 men in connection with the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner—three civil rights workers abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan during Freedom Summer. The brutal killings had shocked the nation, but Mississippi officials refused to pursue murder charges, prompting the federal government to step in. Lacking jurisdiction over homicide, federal prosecutors turned to a rarely used provision of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1870, charging the defendants with conspiracy to violate the victims’ civil rights.

This legal maneuver led to United States v. Price (1967), a pivotal Supreme Court case that affirmed the federal government’s authority to prosecute state actors and private citizens working in concert to deprive others of constitutional rights. The Court unanimously held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could be enforced through criminal prosecution when state officials or their proxies engaged in unlawful conduct.

At trial, seven of the defendants, including a deputy sheriff, were convicted—though none received more than ten years in prison. Several of the most notorious perpetrators, including Edgar Ray Killen, evaded justice for decades. Still, the case marked one of the first successful federal efforts to hold white supremacists accountable for racial violence in the Jim Crow South.

The Mississippi Burning case revealed both the limits of federal power—since murder charges were off-limits—and its emerging role as a necessary backstop when local justice systems failed. It signaled a new willingness by the Department of Justice to engage in civil rights enforcement, even in the face of deep local hostility. The grand jury’s action on this day helped set legal and moral precedent for future federal interventions in civil rights cases.

Google is making a final argument in federal court to avoid a forced breakup of its advertising technology business, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wraps up its antitrust case. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema already ruled in April that Google maintains two illegal monopolies in the ad tech space. Now the court is weighing remedies, with the DOJ and several states pushing for the sale of Google’s AdX exchange, a key platform where digital ads are auctioned in real time.

During an 11-day trial that began in September, the DOJ argued that only a forced divestiture would effectively curb Google’s anticompetitive conduct. In response, Google contended that breaking up its ad business would be technically disruptive and harmful to customers. The company also emphasized that it would comply with less drastic remedies.

The trial represents one of the most serious legal threats to Google’s ad empire to date. While Google has largely avoided major penalties in previous antitrust actions, this case—and others still pending against Meta, Amazon, and Apple—could mark a turning point in federal enforcement against Big Tech.

Google has pledged to appeal any adverse ruling, including Judge Brinkema’s earlier decision and a separate finding in Washington that declared Google’s dominance in online search and advertising unlawful. In that case, Google was not forced to sell its Chrome browser but was ordered to share more data with competitors.

The outcome of this trial could have lasting implications for the structure of the digital ad industry and the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech sector.

Google aims to dodge breakup of ad business as antitrust trial wraps | Reuters

As the federal government considers limiting state regulation of artificial intelligence, many U.S. states are moving in the opposite direction—introducing legislation to curb algorithmic pricing practices that may be inflating costs for consumers. These laws target the growing use of software that sets prices based on personal data, such as location, browsing history, and past purchases. Critics argue this enables businesses to charge consumers what they’re perceived to be willing to pay, not a fair market rate.

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, now advising New York City’s incoming administration, is helping shape efforts to leverage state authority to combat such practices. Laws already passed in New York and California prohibit algorithmic collusion in rental markets, and 19 other states are considering similar bills to restrict price-setting based on competitor data.

The issue has attracted bipartisan concern. Utah Republican Tyler Clancy plans to introduce legislation aimed at giving consumers more control over the data companies collect and use to personalize prices. Advocacy groups like Consumer Reports warn that AI-driven pricing risks exacerbating inequality, allowing companies to charge different prices based on who they think the buyer is—effectively punishing certain groups of consumers.

Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly considering an executive order that would block state-level AI rules, escalating the tension between federal deregulation efforts and state-led consumer protection initiatives.

US states take aim at data-driven pricing to ease consumer pain | Reuters

In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has become the first high court in the U.S. to ban prosecutors from introducing expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the internal injuries typically attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The 6–1 ruling came in two separate child abuse cases involving fathers accused of harming their infant sons. The court held that the state failed to show sufficient scientific consensus across relevant fields, particularly from biomechanical engineering, to justify presenting SBS as a reliable diagnosis in the absence of external trauma.

While SBS has long been used to explain serious injuries like brain swelling and internal bleeding in infants—forming the basis for thousands of abuse prosecutions—the court emphasized that scientific evidence must be broadly accepted and reliable, not speculative or limited to select disciplines. Pediatricians and neurologists largely support the SBS diagnosis, but the court noted that the foundational research stemmed from a 1968 whiplash study, and the biomechanics field has not confirmed that shaking alone, without head impact, can produce the injuries.

One of the defendants, Darryl Nieves, had his case dismissed, while the other, Michael Cifelli, remains charged but plans to seek dismissal based on the ruling. The decision opens the door for challenges in past SBS convictions and may limit future prosecutions relying solely on SBS testimony.

Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis wrote that the door isn’t permanently closed—if future research can establish consensus, such testimony may be admitted. But for now, the ruling significantly raises the bar for the use of SBS in court. Justice Rachel Wainer Apter dissented, warning that the majority gave too much weight to a single scientific field over others.

New Jersey high court first in US to ban Shaken Baby Syndrome testimony | Reuters

A piece I wrote for Forbes this week examined how Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) reporting enforcement has evolved into a penalty system wildly out of sync with the actual harm caused. I opened with the United States v. Saydam decision, where a dual citizen was hit with a $437,000 civil penalty for failing to file FBAR forms—even though the government’s tax loss was only about $29,000. There was no fraud, no evasion, and no criminal behavior, yet the punishment looked like something reserved for offshore tax schemers. I argued that this case shows how FBAR has drifted far from its original purpose under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was aimed at serious financial crime, not routine reporting lapses.

In the article, I explained how the concept of “willfulness” has morphed into something elastic enough to include recklessness or even simple inattention, giving the IRS license to impose penalties of up to 50% of an account’s highest balance per year. That structure means the punishment often bears no relation to any underlying tax obligation. Saydam’s case illustrates this perfectly—the government simply took his highest‑balance year, sliced it in half, spread it across the years he didn’t file, and ended up with a crushing figure.

I also emphasized that the people being hit hardest aren’t drug traffickers or money‑launderers; they’re ordinary taxpayers with overseas ties—dual citizens, immigrants, retirees—whose “wrongdoing” is usually limited to missing a form. The court’s acknowledgment that FBAR penalties are indeed “fines” under the Eighth Amendment should have prompted a stronger proportionality analysis, but instead it set a very forgiving standard for the government, effectively blessing massive penalties for paperwork lapses.

In my view, when penalties exceed the actual tax loss by a factor of fifteen, we’re no longer talking about a compliance tool—we’re talking about a punitive revenue mechanism. The system now incentivizes extracting large sums from people who pose no threat to the tax base. Saydam didn’t hide money or lie about his income; he just didn’t file a disclosure. Yet he now faces nearly half a million dollars in liability. As I wrote, if this is the precedent, FBAR has stopped being a transparency measure and has become a blunt instrument aimed at immigrant taxpayers.

The Rise And Proliferation Of Excessive FBAR Penalties

This week’s closing theme is by Henry Purcell.

This week’s closing theme comes from Purcell, the brilliant English Baroque composer often called “the Orpheus Britannicus” for the beauty and depth of his music. Born in 1659 and active during the late 17th century, Purcell’s work bridged the gap between Renaissance polyphony and the emerging Baroque style, blending French elegance, Italian expressiveness, and a distinctly English sensibility. Though he died young at just 36, his influence on British music would echo for centuries.

While his “Ode to Saint Cecilia”—written for the patron saint of music—is his most direct connection to November 22, the official feast day of Saint Cecilia, Purcell’s music is appropriate listening for this week. His compositions often graced the St. Cecilia Day festivals held annually in London, celebrating music itself as a divine art.

The Overture in G minor, which closes our episode today, is not among his ceremonial odes but showcases many of his signature strengths: tight contrapuntal writing, a dark, dignified mood, and striking harmonic shifts that feel centuries ahead of their time. The overture begins with a slow, solemn introduction before launching into a more vigorous section, where rhythmic vitality meets melodic restraint.

It’s a concise, powerful piece that reflects Purcell’s talent for writing music that is both emotionally direct and structurally refined. Though originally composed for a larger suite or theatrical context, it stands on its own as a miniature masterwork. As the week draws to a close and Saint Cecilia’s Day approaches, Purcell’s music reminds us that even in constraint—of time, of scale, of form—there can be grandeur.

And with that, enjoy Purcell’s Overture in G minor!

This Day in Legal History: Ratification of the Bill of Rights by New Jersey

On November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, a landmark moment in American constitutional history. Just months after the U.S. Constitution went into effect, debate over its lack of explicit protections for individual liberties sparked calls for amendments. Responding to this concern, James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments in the First Congress in June 1789, aiming to ease Anti-Federalist fears and solidify support for the new federal government. Congress approved twelve amendments on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states for ratification.

New Jersey acted swiftly, ratifying eleven of the twelve proposed amendments less than two months later. The state rejected the first proposed amendment, which concerned congressional representation, and accepted the rest, including protections for freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey’s early endorsement gave momentum to the broader ratification effort, which required approval by three-fourths of the states.

By December 15, 1791, ten of the amendments had been ratified by the necessary eleven states and became known as the Bill of Rights. These provisions would become foundational to American legal doctrine, judicial interpretation, and civil liberties jurisprudence. New Jersey’s rapid ratification also signaled the willingness of smaller states to embrace a constitutional framework that better balanced federal power with individual protections.

The ratification process itself reflected the structural legal mechanism required to alter the Constitution—Article V mandates both congressional proposal and state approval. This episode demonstrates how early American legal institutions navigated public pressure and political compromise to create durable legal norms. The Bill of Rights remains central to constitutional interpretation today, frequently invoked in court cases involving speech, privacy, and due process.

A group of senior judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently influenced several rulings on politically sensitive cases, softening the conservative tone of one of the nation’s most right-leaning appellate courts. These judges, many appointed decades ago by presidents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, were part of three-judge panels that struck down or allowed challenges to laws involving religion in schools, drag shows on campus, and firearm signage. However, these decisions are now set for reconsideration by the court’s full active bench in January, as part of a growing trend of en banc rehearings.

The Fifth Circuit includes 17 active judges and seven senior judges. While senior judges can still hear cases and author opinions, their influence is ultimately limited because active judges control en banc reviews, which can overturn panel rulings. Most of these upcoming en banc cases saw dissents from Trump-appointed judges at the panel level. Some senior judges, like Edith Brown Clement, are conservative and remain highly active, while others like James Dennis and Patrick Higginbotham are known for their moderate or liberal views and are key voices in current and upcoming decisions.

Legal experts say senior judges’ experience and moderation often make them more willing to adhere to precedent rather than pursue ideological shifts. Their dissents and opinions can also help signal to the U.S. Supreme Court that a case warrants review. With an increase in ideologically charged cases on topics like immigration and free speech, the Fifth Circuit’s internal dynamics reflect a broader national tension between judicial restraint and a more activist, conservative legal agenda.

Full Fifth Circuit Overrides Moderate Senior Judges’ Rulings

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic harassment. The EEOC’s request was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and stems from a charge initiated in December 2023 by Republican-appointed Chair Andrea Lucas. The agency is seeking documents and information identifying victims and witnesses to reported religious-based harassment affecting faculty and staff.

The investigation centers on claims that the university failed to adequately respond to internal complaints of antisemitism. The EEOC under Lucas—particularly during and after the first Trump administration—has prioritized enforcement actions related to religious discrimination, with higher education institutions facing increased scrutiny. Penn has not yet issued a public response regarding the subpoena or the broader investigation.

EEOC Seeks UPenn Information Disclosure in Antisemitism Probe

Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken announced that it has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States. The move positions Kraken among several digital asset firms seeking to go public amid renewed investor interest in the crypto sector. Other companies like Circle and Gemini have also made progress toward U.S. listings this year.

Kraken recently reported a $20 billion valuation in its latest fundraising round, marking a 33% increase over the past two months. While the company did not disclose specific details about the IPO structure or timeline, the filing indicates growing momentum for digital finance firms in public markets.

Crypto exchange Kraken confidentially files for US IPO | Reuters

The U.S. government has loaned Constellation Energy $1 billion to restart a nuclear reactor at the former Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania. The project, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center, involves reviving an 835-megawatt reactor that was shut down in 2019. Constellation entered a partnership with Microsoft in 2024 to help offset the tech company’s energy use, especially for power-intensive data centers. The reactor’s restart reflects rising energy demand tied to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.

The Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) issued the loan to help lower financing costs and encourage private investment. Officials emphasized that nuclear energy offers stable, carbon-free baseload power critical for both grid reliability and climate goals. While Constellation is financially strong enough to obtain private funding, the administration said public support signals a national commitment to clean and dependable energy infrastructure.

The plant still needs regulatory approvals, including from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Constellation has already begun hiring workers, inspecting systems, and ordering essential equipment. The company now expects the reactor to come online by 2027, a year ahead of the original timeline due to an accelerated grid connection review.

US loans Constellation $1 billion for Three Mile Island reactor reboot | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Gettysburg Address

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, months after the blood-soaked Civil War battle that left over 50,000 dead or wounded. The speech nearly didn’t make it—Lincoln’s draft was reportedly misplaced during the train ride to Gettysburg, and he completed the final version just the night before the ceremony. The headliner that day was Edward Everett, a famed orator who delivered a two-hour address rich in historical detail and classical references. Lincoln followed with a two-minute speech of just 271 words.

Drawing inspiration from Pericles’ Funeral Oration in ancient Athens, Lincoln sought to elevate the sacrifices of Union soldiers into a reaffirmation of democratic ideals. He framed the war as a test of whether a nation “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could endure. In his address, Lincoln humbly suggested that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” asserting that the deeds of the fallen, not words, would be remembered by future generations.

Afterward, Lincoln reportedly told his bodyguard, “that speech won’t scour,” using a Midwestern farming phrase to express doubt about its impact. But Everett, recognizing its brilliance, wrote to Lincoln the next day to say that the president had accomplished in two minutes what he had failed to do in two hours. Indeed, Everett himself is now most famous for his connection to Lincoln’s words. Though met with mixed reviews at the time, the speech has since eclipsed the Battle of Gettysburg itself in cultural memory and certainly legal significance.

Lincoln’s words at Gettysburg echoed something he had written five years earlier, after his defeat in the 1858 Illinois Senate race to Stephen Douglas. Reflecting on what seemed like the end of his political career, Lincoln wrote, “and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.” These words, penned just two years before he became president, speak to Lincoln’s deep conviction that principles—not personal success—leave the most enduring legacy. The Gettysburg Address ultimately became one of those “marks,” still telling for the cause of civil liberty over 160 years later.

The Gettysburg Address endures not just as a piece of oratory but as a touchstone of American constitutional values, echoing through the Fourteenth Amendment and generations of civil rights jurisprudence.

A federal judge in Virginia will hear arguments from former FBI Director James Comey’s legal team seeking dismissal of criminal charges against him, alleging the case was politically motivated by President Donald Trump’s long-standing animosity. Comey’s lawyers argue the prosecution is a form of “vindictive” retaliation for his public criticism of Trump, who has often called for Comey’s prosecution since firing him in 2017. Comey, charged in September with making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation, has pleaded not guilty and is pursuing multiple avenues to have the case thrown out before trial.

The hearing will also examine the controversial role of Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal lawyer with no prosecutorial background, appointed as interim U.S. Attorney overseeing the case. A separate judge is reviewing whether Halligan’s appointment was lawful, while a magistrate judge recently flagged serious procedural concerns with how she handled the grand jury that indicted Comey. Prosecutors maintain that Trump’s public statements and criticism of Comey do not meet the legal threshold for a vindictive prosecution claim and argue the charges are legitimate.

Comey’s case is part of a broader pattern, with other Trump critics, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former national security adviser John Bolton, also facing charges following Trump’s calls for retribution. Legal observers are closely watching whether courts will allow such prosecutions to proceed given the appearance of political targeting.

US judge to weigh Trump’s influence over case against ex-FBI chief Comey | Reuters

Cravath, Swaine & Moore has kicked off the 2025 year-end bonus season for major U.S. law firms by announcing associate bonuses of up to $140,000. According to an internal memo, standard year-end bonuses will range from $15,000 for first-year associates (on a pro-rated basis) to $115,000 for the most senior associates. Additionally, the firm will issue special bonuses between $6,000 and $25,000, aligning with bonus levels previously set by competitor Milbank.

Cravath, long viewed as a market-setter in associate compensation, made the announcement on Tuesday, prompting at least one other major firm—Paul Hastings—to follow suit with matching payouts. These bonuses mirror those issued last year, maintaining pressure on peer firms to remain competitive in compensation.

Currently, associates at top U.S. firms earn base salaries ranging from $225,000 to $435,000 depending on seniority. Firms often wait for Cravath to act before making their own compensation decisions. The announcement comes amid strong financial performance across the legal sector, with a surge in client demand—especially for transactional work—reported in the third quarter. Analysts suggest this demand positions firms for a profitable close to 2025.

Cravath sets pace for US law firm bonuses, promising associates up to $140K | Reuters

Cravath Doles Out Associate Bonuses Ranging Up to $140,000 (2)

The U.S. Senate is set to question Michael Selig, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), with a focus on his views on cryptocurrency regulation and election betting markets. Selig, currently the chief counsel for the SEC’s crypto task force and an adviser to Republican SEC chair Paul Atkins, has been an outspoken supporter of pro-crypto policies. In a recent social media post, he pledged to help make the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World.”

Trump’s administration has embraced the crypto sector, rolling back enforcement efforts and enacting a regulatory framework for stablecoins. The CFTC could gain expanded oversight powers under the proposed CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July and is now being reviewed by the Senate. That legislation aims to clarify when a digital asset is a commodity versus a security, a long-standing jurisdictional issue between the CFTC and the SEC.

Selig’s nomination follows the withdrawal of Trump’s earlier pick, Brian Quintenz, who alleged his nomination was derailed by pressure from major crypto donors, the Winklevoss twins. Senators are expected to press Selig on his approach to inter-agency cooperation, how he would regulate crypto spot markets, and how the CFTC might handle politically sensitive areas like election betting. Currently, only one commissioner remains on the CFTC, Republican Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair and has signaled plans to step down once a new leader is confirmed.

Senate to grill Trump’s pick for CFTC head on crypto regulation | Reuters

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot revive his defamation lawsuit against CNN over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Trump filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the phrase linked him to Nazi propaganda and unfairly compared him to Adolf Hitler. However, both the district court and the appeals court found that CNN’s language constituted protected opinion, not provable falsehoods.

The court emphasized that Trump failed to demonstrate that CNN’s statements were factually false, which is a necessary element of a defamation claim. While Trump asserted that “Big Lie” was unambiguous and defamatory, the panel disagreed, finding the term inherently subjective and open to interpretation—particularly in political contexts. They noted that if politically charged terms like “fascist” are ambiguous, then “Big Lie,” which is facially apolitical, must be considered at least as ambiguous.

Trump had also tried to compare CNN’s interpretation of his actions to his own self-assessment, in which he saw himself as exercising constitutional rights. But the court held that differing views on Trump’s conduct are subjective and not subject to clear proof. The district court’s refusal to reconsider or allow Trump to amend the complaint was upheld, as he failed to present new evidence or show any legal error.

The opinion was issued per curiam by Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth Branch.

Trump Fails to Revive Defamation Suit Against CNN Over ‘Big Lie’

This Day in Legal History: Statute of Marlborough

On November 18, 1267, the Statute of Marlborough was enacted during the reign of King Henry III of England. It is the oldest piece of English statute law still partially in force, with four of its original twenty-nine chapters remaining on the books. The statute emerged from a period of intense baronial conflict and civil unrest, notably the Second Barons’ War, and was part of a broader effort to restore royal authority and stabilize governance through legal reform. It reinforced the crown’s prerogatives while addressing grievances raised by rebellious nobles, making it a compromise between royal and feudal powers.

Among its most enduring provisions were regulations on the practice of “distress,” which referred to the seizure of property to compel debt repayment or enforce court judgments. The statute restricted unlawful and excessive distresses, requiring them to occur only with legal justification and in the appropriate jurisdiction. These reforms curtailed private self-help remedies and emphasized formal court processes, laying foundational principles for due process and the centralization of judicial authority. It also addressed issues like wardship, waste of land, and the obligations of tenants—key concerns in the feudal legal structure.

The Statute of Marlborough built upon earlier reforms such as the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster, but had a more lasting legal impact. Its survival into modern times speaks to the durability of certain legal concepts, especially those reinforcing procedural fairness. Some of its language has been modernized, but the essence of its rules remains intact in English law. The statute reflects an early attempt to systematize and limit both public and private power through legal mechanisms. Legal historians often point to it as a stepping stone on the path to the English common law tradition.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the federal government’s authority to limit asylum processing at official U.S.-Mexico border crossings under the now-rescinded “metering” policy. Originally implemented under President Trump and formalized in 2018, metering allowed border agents to stop asylum seekers before they crossed into the U.S. and decline to process their claims, even when they were physically present at ports of entry. The Biden administration repealed the policy in 2021, but Trump’s return to office has revived interest in reestablishing it.

At the core of the case is the legal meaning of the phrase “arrives in the United States,” with the Ninth Circuit ruling in 2024 that it includes people who reach official border entry points—even if still on the Mexican side. That ruling held that federal law requires asylum seekers at ports of entry to be inspected and allowed to apply, regardless of logistical constraints like capacity. The advocacy group Al Otro Lado, which brought the lawsuit in 2017, argues the metering policy illegally circumvented these obligations, leaving vulnerable migrants stranded in dangerous border conditions.

Trump’s Justice Department contends that “arrives in” means actual entry, not mere proximity—using analogies ranging from Normandy to football to make its point. The administration has also signaled that it intends to resume the policy if conditions warrant. The case, which will likely be decided by June, comes amid broader efforts to restrict asylum protections globally and may clarify the limits of executive power over humanitarian migration policy.

Supreme Court to review US government power to limit asylum processing | Reuters

A California judge has blocked a proposed class action lawsuit involving 6,000 Black workers at Tesla’s Fremont factory who alleged systemic racial harassment, marking a significant legal win for the company. Judge Peter Borkon ruled that the case could not proceed as a class action because the plaintiffs’ attorneys failed to secure testimony from at least 200 workers—raising doubts about whether the experiences of a smaller group could represent the broader workforce. This reverses a 2024 decision by another judge who had previously allowed the class to move forward.

The original lawsuit, filed in 2017 by former worker Marcus Vaughn, alleged pervasive racism at the facility, including slurs, racist graffiti, and even nooses in work areas. Tesla has denied allowing harassment and said it takes disciplinary action against those who violate company policy. While this ruling narrows the scope of Vaughn’s lawsuit, Tesla still faces other legal challenges, including a similar case from California’s civil rights agency and a separate federal suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Tesla has previously settled other race discrimination lawsuits brought by individual employees.

Tesla wins bid to undo race bias class action by Black factory workers | Reuters

Ashurst and Perkins Coie have agreed to merge, forming a global law firm with 3,000 lawyers and $2.7 billion in revenue—placing it among the world’s top 20 legal outfits by size. The merger, expected to close in late 2026 pending partner approval, will create Ashurst Perkins Coie, with 52 offices across 23 countries. The move is part of a broader trend of transatlantic law firm consolidation aimed at scaling up to serve cross-border clients more effectively.

Leadership will be shared between Ashurst’s global CEO Paul Jenkins and Perkins Coie’s managing partner Bill Malley, who emphasized the merger’s value for clients in technology, financial services, and energy. Talks began in early 2025, with both firms framing the deal as a long-term strategic alignment. Perkins Coie recently gained attention for its role in successfully challenging executive orders from President Trump’s administration targeting the firm and others tied to his political adversaries. While the firms say they have no current plans to expand their office footprint, the combination signals a deepening of U.K.-U.S. legal market integration.

Law firms Ashurst, Perkins Coie agree merger to create global top-20 outfit | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg this week looks at OpenAI’s effort to expand the CHIPS Act tax credit into a broad-based AI infrastructure subsidy—and what it reveals about the government’s evolving role in underwriting the AI economy. OpenAI has asked the federal government to stretch the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Credit—originally designed to revive U.S. semiconductor manufacturing—to cover the entire AI stack, from servers to steel. That request arrives as data centers’ energy consumption and land use start imposing real costs on local grids, budgets, and communities, raising the question: who’s actually footing the bill for AI?

I argue that this isn’t a bailout so much as a bid for taxpayer-backed central planning, with a venture-capital gloss. AI infrastructure projects like OpenAI’s Stargate centers already benefit from layers of state and local tax breaks, discounted electricity, and favorable land deals. Adding a 35% federal credit on top creates a subsidy stack that warps local priorities—school districts lose tax revenue, utilities are forced to reroute energy, and residents pay more on their bills. The public impact is mounting, even as the private benefit remains largely proprietary and insulated.

Rather than offering blank checks, Congress should condition federal support on clear benefit-sharing requirements: job thresholds, emissions transparency, energy sourcing obligations, and clawbacks for missed targets. I propose a framework that makes federal aid contingent on upfront impact disclosures, co-investment in the grid, and full accounting of overlapping subsidies. Industrial policy isn’t inherently bad—but without enforceable terms, we’re not funding a public-private partnership. We’re subsidizing a corporate buildout dressed up as a national security imperative.

This Day in Legal History: US Capitol Opens

On November 17, 1800, the United States Congress convened for the first time in the new Capitol building in Washington, D.C., marking a foundational moment in American legal and political history. The relocation came after a decade of Congress meeting in temporary quarters, most recently in Philadelphia, as the young republic grappled with questions of permanence and national identity. Washington, D.C. had been selected as the capital through the Residence Act of 1790, a political compromise that helped balance regional power between North and South. By 1800, the city remained largely undeveloped, and the Capitol itself was still under construction—only the north wing was usable.

Despite its incomplete state, the Capitol’s occupation by Congress signaled the institutional maturity of the federal government. It gave physical shape to the separation of powers by housing the legislative branch in its own dedicated space, distinct from the executive and judiciary. This move also underscored the federal character of the American system, establishing a neutral location not belonging to any one state. John Adams, still president at the time, had moved into the President’s House (now the White House) just weeks earlier, completing the federal trifecta.

The decision to proceed with the session in an unfinished building reflected a commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law, even in the face of logistical and environmental hardships. Lawmakers contended with the muddy streets and sparse accommodations of the nascent city, yet their presence inaugurated what would become one of the most symbolically and functionally important legislative chambers in the world. This moment laid the groundwork for Washington, D.C. to become not only the seat of American government but a focal point for legal development, political conflict, and democratic debate for centuries to come.

More than 500 lawsuits alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy causes autism in children may be revived, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit prepares to hear arguments from plaintiffs challenging a 2024 dismissal of their cases. A lower court had rejected the claims after finding that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony lacked scientific rigor, a conclusion supported by Tylenol maker Kenvue. The plaintiffs argue the judge mischaracterized their experts’ findings and are citing public support from President Trump and health officials, who linked autism to Tylenol use during a September 2025 press conference.

Scientific consensus continues to hold that no definitive link exists between acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) and autism, a position echoed by Kenvue. The company is also facing a separate suit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who accuses Kenvue of concealing risks to children, though a Texas judge recently denied Paxton’s efforts to halt a $398 million shareholder dividend and restrict Tylenol marketing. Meanwhile, it remains uncertain whether the appeal will impact Kimberly-Clark’s pending $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, though both companies have indicated that litigation over autism claims won’t derail the deal.

US appeals court to weigh reviving cases over Tylenol and autism | Reuters

Gupta Wessler, a boutique appellate firm in Washington, D.C., known for its U.S. Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of plaintiffs, has hired Matthew Guarnieri, a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. Guarnieri argued 13 Supreme Court cases under both the Biden and Trump administrations and is the first attorney to leave the solicitor general’s office for a firm that exclusively handles plaintiff-side appellate work. His move reflects a growing recognition of Gupta Wessler’s nontraditional model, which competes with corporate-heavy appellate practices at larger firms.

Guarnieri becomes the fifth principal at the 18-lawyer firm, which is currently involved in high-profile litigation, including representing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau employees challenging President Trump’s mass firings and securing a $185 million verdict against Monsanto over chemical contamination. The firm also represents Uber passengers alleging sexual assault and recently blocked an attempt in Nevada to limit contingency fees in civil cases. Guarnieri left the DOJ in October after nine years of service; the department declined to comment on his departure.

DC appellate firm picks up departing DOJ Supreme Court advocate | Reuters

A federal jury in California has ordered Apple to pay $634 million to Masimo, a medical technology company, for infringing a patent related to blood-oxygen monitoring used in Apple Watches. The jury found that specific features like workout mode and heart rate notifications violated Masimo’s patent rights. Apple has announced plans to appeal, arguing that the patent in question, which expired in 2022, covers outdated technology and that most of Masimo’s other patent claims have been invalidated.

This verdict is part of a broader legal conflict between Apple and Masimo, which accuses Apple of poaching employees and misappropriating pulse oximetry technology. In 2023, the U.S. International Trade Commission imposed an import ban on certain Apple Watch models, prompting Apple to remove the disputed feature and later reintroduce it with customs approval. A new ITC review is now underway to determine if the updated models should also be banned. The legal fight spans several courts and includes ongoing challenges from both companies over import restrictions and intellectual property claims.

US jury says Apple must pay Masimo $634 million in smartwatch patent case | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

On this day in legal history, November 14, 1922, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, a foundational case in American property law. At issue was a Pennsylvania statute—the Kohler Act—that prohibited coal mining beneath certain structures to prevent surface subsidence. The Pennsylvania Coal Company had previously sold the surface rights to a parcel of land but retained the right to mine the coal beneath. When the state blocked their ability to do so, the company sued, arguing that the law had effectively stripped them of valuable property rights without compensation. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the majority opinion.

In his decision, Holmes introduced the now-famous principle that “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” This line marked the birth of the regulatory takings doctrine, which holds that government actions short of full appropriation can still require just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Holmes emphasized that the economic impact of a regulation on the property owner must be weighed, not just the public interest it serves. In this case, the regulation was deemed too burdensome to be considered a mere exercise of police power.

The Court sided with the coal company, holding that the Kohler Act, as applied, amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The dissent, penned by Justice Brandeis, warned against undermining states’ ability to protect public welfare. Despite being a 5–4 decision, Mahon has had lasting influence on land use, zoning, and environmental regulation. It reframed the boundaries between public regulation and private rights, signaling that not all public-interest laws are immune from constitutional scrutiny. Today, Mahon remains a cornerstone case for litigants challenging regulations that significantly diminish property value.

A Texas judge is set to hear arguments on Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request to block Kenvue from issuing a $398 million dividend and from marketing Tylenol as safe during pregnancy. Paxton sued Kenvue in October, accusing the company of hiding risks linked to prenatal Tylenol use, including autism and ADHD—a claim not supported by the broader medical community. The lawsuit follows public comments by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoting the same unproven theory. Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson, which previously owned Tylenol, maintain the drug’s safety and argue the state has no authority to interfere in federal drug regulation or corporate dividends.

The companies also say the dividend will not impair Kenvue’s solvency and warn that Paxton’s effort could undermine both the First Amendment and the credibility of Texas courts. Paxton, however, argues that the public interest justifies intervention, citing potential future liabilities from Tylenol and talc-related lawsuits. He contends that misleading commercial speech can be regulated, and that the dividend should be halted to preserve cash in the face of those risks. The case could have broader implications, particularly for Kimberly-Clark’s $40 billion acquisition of Kenvue, announced shortly after the lawsuit. Kenvue has vowed to appeal any injunction.

Judge to weigh if Texas AG can block Kenvue dividend over Tylenol claims | Reuters

Sierra Leone has reached a tentative settlement with U.S. law firm Jenner & Block to resolve a dispute over $8.1 million in unpaid legal fees. The law firm sued the West African nation in 2022, claiming it was still owed money for representing Sierra Leone in a high-stakes case against Gerald International Ltd., which had sought $1.8 billion in damages over an iron ore export ban. Jenner argued the legal work was more extensive than initially expected and said it had only been paid $3.6 million by the end of 2021.

Sierra Leone pushed back, disputing the existence of a valid contract and asserting that no further payments were owed. The country also tried to claim sovereign immunity, but a federal judge rejected those arguments in January, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey announced the settlement in principle last week, although specific terms were not disclosed. Neither party has commented publicly on the resolution.

Sierra Leone, law firm Jenner & Block reach settlement over $8 million legal tab | Reuters

McDermott Will & Emery has become the first major U.S. law firm to publicly confirm that it is considering private equity investment, signaling a potential shift in how Big Law might operate. The firm’s chairman acknowledged preliminary talks with outside investors, a move that stunned the legal industry, where non-lawyer ownership has long been resisted due to ethical and regulatory restrictions. McDermott is reportedly exploring a structure that would separate its legal services from administrative operations by creating a managed service organization (MSO) owned by outside investors, allowing the firm to raise capital without violating professional conduct rules.

This model has gained traction among smaller firms, but McDermott’s adoption could legitimize the MSO approach for large firms. Proponents argue it would free lawyers to focus on client work while upgrading support systems through external funding. Critics caution that it involves relinquishing control of critical firm functions and raises concerns about maintaining ethical standards, particularly regarding fee-sharing with non-lawyers. While still early, industry experts say other firms are beginning to explore similar paths to stay competitive, especially in jurisdictions like Arizona that allow non-lawyer ownership.

McDermott’s Outside Investor Talks Augur Big Law Transformation

The Trump administration has filed suit against California over its recently approved congressional redistricting maps, which were adopted through a ballot initiative known as Proposition 50. The measure, passed by voters last week, allows temporary use of new district lines that could give Democrats up to five additional U.S. House seats. The Justice Department joined a lawsuit initially filed by the California Republican Party and several voters, alleging that the redistricting plan was racially motivated and unconstitutional.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called the maps a “brazen power grab,” accusing California of using race to unlawfully boost Hispanic voting power. California Governor Gavin Newsom dismissed the lawsuit, framing it as retaliation for California’s resistance to Trump’s broader political agenda. Newsom also argued that the new maps are a necessary corrective to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts, like those in Texas, where civil rights groups have sued over alleged dilution of minority voting power.

The lawsuit claims California’s map violates the U.S. Constitution by improperly using race in the redistricting process. The outcome could impact the balance of power in the House and add fuel to ongoing legal battles over partisan and racial gerrymandering nationwide.

Trump administration sues California over new redistricting maps | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.

This week’s closing theme is the first movement of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, a work that balances classical clarity with Beethoven’s unmistakable wit and rhythmic drive. Composed in 1812 during a period of personal turmoil, the Eighth is often described as a cheerful outlier among his symphonies, compact and effervescent despite being written amid deteriorating health and emotional strain. It was premiered in 1814, but it was a revival performance on November 14, 1814, in Vienna that helped solidify its reputation and gave the public a second opportunity to appreciate its lightness and humor in contrast to the more dramatic works surrounding it.

Unlike the grand scale of the Seventh or Ninth, the Eighth is shorter and more classical in form, often drawing comparisons to Haydn in its wit and economy. Yet Beethoven infuses it with his unique voice—syncopations, dynamic extremes, and abrupt harmonic shifts abound, particularly in the first movement. The Allegro vivace e con brio opens with a bold, playful theme, tossing melodic fragments between the orchestra with cheerful assertiveness. It’s less stormy than many of Beethoven’s first movements, but no less commanding.

Critics at the time were puzzled by the symphony’s restraint and humor, expecting more overt heroism from Beethoven. But modern listeners often recognize the Eighth as a masterwork of compression and invention. The first movement in particular plays with rhythmic momentum, frequently disrupting expectations just as they form. There’s a confidence in its restraint, a knowing smile behind the forceful accents and offbeat rhythms. It’s music that’s both technically impressive and viscerally enjoyable, which is perhaps why Beethoven held it in especially high regard.

As we close out the week, we leave you with that November 14 revival spirit—a reminder that even a “little Symphony” can land with enduring force.

Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 8 in F Major, Op. 93 – I. Allegro vivace e con brio, enjoy!

This Day in Legal History: Happy Brandeis Day

On November 13, 1856, Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He would go on to become one of the most influential jurists in American legal history. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson, Brandeis was the first Jewish justice and brought a deeply progressive and pragmatic philosophy to the bench. Long before his judicial career, he co-authored the seminal 1890 Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy,” articulating a legal theory that would shape decades of constitutional interpretation. On the Court, he consistently championed civil liberties, individual privacy, and limitations on unchecked government and corporate power.

Brandeis was known for his meticulous reasoning and willingness to dissent, often laying the groundwork for future majority opinions. In Whitney v. California (1927), his concurring opinion defended free speech in sweeping terms, arguing that the remedy for harmful ideas was more speech, not enforced silence—a principle that remains central to First Amendment jurisprudence. In economic cases, he frequently opposed monopolistic practices and was skeptical of concentrated financial power, earning him the moniker “the people’s lawyer.” His distrust of large institutions was not ideological but rooted in a belief that democracy and individual autonomy could only flourish when those institutions were held accountable.

Brandeis also advanced the use of social science and empirical data in legal arguments, exemplified by the famous “Brandeis Brief” in Muller v. Oregon (1908), which emphasized real-world facts over abstract legal theory. He believed that courts should understand the broader implications of their rulings, particularly in cases affecting labor, privacy, and civil rights. Though his views were sometimes out of step with his contemporaries, many of his ideas became mainstream in later decades. Brandeis served on the Court until 1939, leaving a legacy of principled independence and intellectual rigor.

House Democrats have released emails suggesting that Donald Trump may have been aware of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of underage girls. The documents include a 2019 email in which Epstein told author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls” and asked Ghislaine Maxwell to “stop,” as well as a 2011 message from Epstein to Maxwell claiming Trump spent significant time at his house with one of Epstein’s victims. The victim’s name is redacted, but the White House says it refers to the late Virginia Giuffre, who has publicly stated that Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing.

Trump has consistently denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, emphasizing that their friendship ended years before Epstein’s death in jail in 2019. The White House dismissed the email release as a politically motivated stunt and accused Democrats of constructing a “fake narrative.” Still, the controversy has stirred unease among Trump’s base, with recent polling showing only 40% of Republicans support his handling of the Epstein case—far less than his usual approval ratings.

Wednesday’s release coincides with the swearing-in of Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, whose vote could trigger a full House vote to declassify all Epstein-related records. Democrats, led by Rep. Robert Garcia, are pushing for full transparency, alleging that attempts to conceal the files raise deeper concerns about Trump’s connection to Epstein.

House Democrats release Epstein papers saying Trump ‘knew about the girls’ | Reuters

Apple says recent fee cuts for app developers in the EU, made to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), have not led to lower prices for consumers. The company commissioned a study showing that developers kept prices the same or raised them for 90% of products, with only 9% seeing reductions—and those were consistent with typical pricing trends, not fee changes. Most of the financial benefit from reduced commissions, totaling €20.1 million, went to non-EU developers.

Apple argues this undermines the DMA’s goal of helping consumers and fostering competition, instead creating new hurdles for startups and potential risks for users. The European Commission has not yet commented. The DMA targets tech giants like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, aiming to level the playing field and offer users more choice.

Developer fee cuts not passed on to EU users, Apple says | Reuters

Google has filed a federal lawsuit in New York aiming to dismantle an international phishing operation it claims originated in China. According to the complaint, the group used software called “Lighthouse” to impersonate entities like Google, the U.S. Postal Service, and E-ZPass, sending fake text messages that tricked users into revealing sensitive personal and financial information. Nearly 200,000 fraudulent websites were allegedly created in just 20 days, targeting over a million people across more than 120 countries.

Google accuses the 25 unnamed defendants of trademark infringement, false advertising, and racketeering, and is seeking financial damages as well as legal orders to shut the scheme down in the U.S. The company estimates the group may have stolen between 12.7 million and 115 million U.S. credit card numbers. Google’s general counsel also backed proposed federal legislation to strengthen protections against similar scams.

Google sues in New York to break up text phishing scheme | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

On November 12, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 into law, enacting one of the most ambitious environmental regulatory packages in U.S. history. The amendments addressed a broad range of air quality concerns, including acid rain, smog in urban areas, and emissions of hazardous air pollutants. At the time, the legislation was notable for its bipartisan support and its embrace of both traditional regulation and market-based solutions. Among its most innovative features was the introduction of a cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, the primary cause of acid rain. This program placed a national cap on emissions and allowed utilities to buy and sell allowances, incentivizing the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices.

The legislation also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 189 toxic air pollutants, a massive expansion from the original eight. It required cleaner gasoline in high-pollution areas and set deadlines for phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. States were mandated to submit detailed plans for meeting federal air quality standards, significantly increasing local accountability. The law established a new operating permit system for major sources of air pollution, centralizing compliance efforts. It also increased civil and criminal penalties for violators and expanded the public’s right to sue polluters and the government for non-enforcement.

The amendments reflected growing public concern about environmental degradation and represented a turning point in how the federal government approached pollution control. By pairing stricter standards with economic incentives, the 1990 law helped redefine regulatory strategy in environmental law.

The U.S. Supreme Court extended a temporary pause on a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits during the ongoing government shutdown. The administration is currently withholding approximately $4 billion from the program, which supports 42 million low-income Americans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who initially granted the pause, stated she would have denied the request to extend it further. The pause is now set to expire Thursday, though an end to the shutdown could render the legal fight moot. Meanwhile, the Senate has approved a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history. The lapse in SNAP funding marks the first such disruption in the program’s six-decade existence, prompting recipients to rely on food pantries and cut back on essential expenses like medications.

US Supreme Court extends pause on order requiring Trump to fully fund food aid | Reuters

Three former senior enforcement officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have launched a new legal initiative aimed at holding corporations accountable in the absence of federal action. The project, backed by the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, will focus on bringing strategic lawsuits against companies accused of exploiting consumers, workers, and small businesses. The team—Eric Halperin, Cara Petersen, and Tara Mikkilineni—previously held top roles at the CFPB before it was effectively sidelined by the Trump administration.

The CFPB’s enforcement and supervision functions were largely dismantled this year, leaving a vacuum in consumer protection at the federal level. In response, consumer advocates and state officials have begun stepping in to fill the enforcement gap. Halperin emphasized that rising corporate profits alongside deepening financial stress for ordinary Americans is no coincidence, pointing to a lack of oversight that enables corporate misconduct to go unchecked.

Former top enforcers at US watchdog join project to bring pro-consumer lawsuits | Reuters

The NCAA has agreed to a $303 million settlement to resolve claims from over 7,700 current and former Division I coaches who say they were illegally denied pay under a now-repealed policy that barred compensation for so-called “volunteer” coaches in all sports except baseball. Filed in federal court in Sacramento, the proposed class action settlement still requires approval from U.S. District Judge William Shubb. If approved, no coach will receive less than $5,000, with average payouts expected to be around $39,260 before fees, and some six-figure awards anticipated.

The plaintiffs argued the NCAA and its member schools violated antitrust laws by maintaining the compensation ban, a rule repealed in 2023. The NCAA denies wrongdoing but said the deal provides “certainty and clarity.” The lawyers representing the coaches plan to seek up to 30% of the settlement—around $90.9 million—in legal fees. This case follows a $49 million NCAA settlement with baseball coaches over similar claims and comes amid broader legal pressure on the NCAA, including a pending $2.8 billion settlement allowing schools to pay student-athletes directly.

NCAA agrees to $303 million settlement with unpaid college coaches | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg this week looks at Mexico’s latest attempt to crack down on value-added tax (VAT) invoice fraud—and why it misses the mark. The new measure shifts enforcement burdens onto digital platforms like Amazon and eBay, criminalizing them for fraud they are neither equipped nor authorized to detect. Instead of building a real-time fiscal invoicing system that validates transactions as they occur, the government is digitizing enforcement without changing the underlying system that enables fraud in the first place.

False VAT invoice fraud in Mexico typically involves shell companies, or factureras, issuing legally compliant but entirely fictitious receipts that allow taxpayers to inflate deductions or claim improper refunds. The fraud takes root not in shady ads or informal platforms, but in a tax infrastructure that fails to verify the legitimacy of transactions in real time. Despite having a digital identity framework and certified validators in place, more than 8,000 shell entities have used these tools to issue fake invoices that are indistinguishable from valid ones.

The government’s move to deputize digital platforms sidesteps the real problem: the lack of a transactional choke point where the buyer, seller, and tax authority all converge—namely, the point of sale. Countries like Brazil and Italy have shown that embedding validation at checkout prevents fraud from scaling. Until Mexico adopts this kind of infrastructure, enforcement efforts will continue to target the periphery while the core system remains vulnerable.

Mexico Effort to Curtail VAT Fraud Needs Real-Time Verification

This Day in Legal History: Armistice Day

On November 11, 1918, World War I came to an end with the signing of the Armistice between the Allies and Germany. While not a legal instrument in the treaty sense, the armistice was a binding agreement that had massive legal and geopolitical ramifications. Its terms, including a cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of German forces, and surrender of military equipment, were enforced by military and diplomatic means, laying the groundwork for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The legal aftermath of the war led to the creation of new nation-states, redrawn borders, and the first formal attempt at international governance through the League of Nations.

November 11 would later be recognized in the United States as Veterans Day, originally commemorated as Armistice Day, reflecting the legal shift from honoring only WWI veterans to recognizing all who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The legal transition occurred in 1954 when President Eisenhower signed legislation formally renaming the holiday. The legal framework surrounding veterans’ benefits also expanded post-WWI, with landmark legislation like the GI Bill of Rights in 1944 and its subsequent reauthorizations, shaping how the U.S. compensates military service.

Internationally, the armistice also contributed to legal debates over war guilt and reparations, particularly with Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles—the so-called “War Guilt Clause”—which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany and its allies. That clause became a flashpoint in both legal and political discussions and was later cited by Germany as a grievance contributing to the rise of Nazism and WWII.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis had argued that her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion shielded her from liability, but lower courts rejected that defense, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees exceeding $360,000 to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore. The Sixth Circuit found that Davis’s actions constituted state action, not protected private conduct, and that she could not invoke her own constitutional rights to infringe on the rights of others while acting in an official capacity.

Davis had also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell, arguing it rested on the same substantive due process doctrine as Roe v. Wade, which the Court overturned in 2022. However, the justices declined to take up that issue, just as they had in 2020. The Court’s refusal to revisit Obergefell signals a reluctance, at least for now, to reexamine established rights to same-sex marriage, even as the bench remains deeply conservative.

US Supreme Court rejects bid to overturn same-sex marriage right | Reuters

Senior U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf, appointed by President Reagan in 1985, announced his resignation in order to publicly oppose what he describes as President Donald Trump’s abuse of legal authority. In an article for The Atlantic, Wolf accused Trump of weaponizing the law against political enemies while shielding allies, a pattern he claims contradicts the principles he upheld over five decades in the Justice Department and on the bench. Wolf cited Trump’s direction to Attorney General Pam Bondi to indict political opponents, including New York AG Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, as especially troubling.

Wolf expressed frustration over the ethical constraints on judges that prevent them from speaking out publicly, saying he could no longer remain silent as Trump undermined the rule of law and dismantled oversight mechanisms such as inspectors general and the FBI’s public-corruption unit. His resignation comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, underscored by combative rhetoric at a recent Federalist Society event. Wolf, who had previously criticized the handling of ethics complaints against Justice Clarence Thomas, said he now plans to support litigation and advocacy efforts to protect democratic norms and defend judges unable to speak for themselves.

Reagan Judge Says He Quit Bench to Speak Out Against Trump

The Trump administration has significantly shortened the time between publicly announcing judicial nominees and holding their Senate confirmation hearings, in some cases to as little as two days—far less than the typical 28-day window used by past administrations. While the Senate Judiciary Committee still adheres to its rule requiring 28 days between receiving nominee questionnaires and hearings, the White House now delays public disclosure until much later in the process, often after nominees have cleared internal background checks. Critics argue this reduces transparency and limits public scrutiny of lifetime judicial appointments, while supporters claim the process is efficient and appropriate given the nominees’ qualifications.

Some nominees, like Louisiana district court picks William Crain and Alexander Van Hook, received swift hearings with little controversy, though others, like appellate nominee Emil Bove, drew public concern during the brief window between announcement and hearing. Observers also criticized the administration’s choice to reveal nominees via Trump’s Truth Social account, often late at night, bypassing traditional press channels. Legal experts suggest this shift reflects a strategic move to minimize opposition and accelerate confirmations, but it has alarmed advocacy groups who say it undermines public trust and democratic norms.

Trump Changes How Judicial Nominees Get Publicly Revealed