This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Arrives in France

On December 13, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson arrived in France to negotiate the terms of peace to conclude World War I, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to travel to Europe. Wilson's presence marked a historic moment in international diplomacy, as he sought to champion his vision for a postwar world order based on his Fourteen Points. These principles emphasized self-determination, free trade, disarmament, and the establishment of a League of Nations to prevent future conflicts.

Wilson joined the Allied leaders at the Paris Peace Conference, where complex negotiations would ultimately shape the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty included harsh reparations against Germany, redrew national borders across Europe, and officially created the League of Nations. While the League was Wilson's most cherished goal, the treaty and its terms faced intense scrutiny back in the United States.

Despite Wilson's efforts to garner support, the U.S. Senate, led by Republicans skeptical of the treaty’s implications, rejected it in 1920. Key concerns included the League's potential to entangle the U.S. in foreign conflicts without congressional approval. This decision prevented the United States from joining the League of Nations, a significant blow to Wilson's vision and to the League’s influence as a global peacekeeping body. The treaty’s rejection highlighted the tension between internationalism and isolationism in American foreign policy.

Wilson's involvement in the treaty process nevertheless underscored the growing role of the United States in global affairs and set a precedent for presidential diplomacy on the world stage.

Aaron Siri, a lawyer aligned with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has petitioned the FDA to revoke approval of the polio vaccine, challenging one of the most significant public health achievements in history. Siri, who has a long track record of opposing vaccines, argues that the polio vaccine, like others, lacks sufficient testing and transparency. His actions, including a request to pause distribution of 13 additional vaccines, align with the agenda of the Informed Consent Action Network, a nonprofit advocating for "medical freedom" and closely tied to Kennedy. Critics warn that such efforts undermine decades of progress in eradicating vaccine-preventable diseases.

In the battle between children and polio, RFK Jr. has thrown his hat into the ring on the side of polio. Public health experts are alarmed by the potential consequences of withdrawing the polio vaccine, which has protected millions from paralysis and death. Recent polio cases in unvaccinated populations highlight the persistent threat of the virus, described by one expert as “an airplane ride away.”

Siri’s approach extends beyond polio, targeting the FDA’s vaccine approval processes and inundating agencies with document requests that some view as an attempt to hinder their operations. Kennedy’s consideration for health secretary in the incoming Trump administration raises fears that vaccine policy may shift dramatically. Critics argue that dismantling vaccine programs risks a resurgence of diseases that left children dead or in leg braces, a grim echo of past public health crises. Despite claims of merely seeking transparency and choice, Kennedy and Siri’s actions are seen as a direct threat to public health infrastructure.

RFK Jr.’s Lawyer Has Asked the FDA to Revoke Polio Vaccine Approval - The New York Times

Washington defense lawyers are preparing to represent Justice Department officials, prosecutors, and FBI agents who fear being targeted for investigations under Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency. Lawyers report a surge in inquiries from current and former DOJ employees concerned about congressional scrutiny, criminal probes, or internal watchdog investigations as Trump vows to dismantle the so-called “deep state” and pursue individuals he perceives as politically disloyal. 

Though much remains uncertain, attorneys are advising federal workers on how to prepare for potential retaliation tied to politically sensitive cases. Some fear investigations from the DOJ’s inspector general, which could harm careers without requiring courtroom evidence. High-profile threats, such as prosecuting Special Counsel Jack Smith, are seen as less likely due to the difficulty of meeting legal standards for criminal cases.

Financial concerns loom large, as many DOJ employees cannot afford expensive legal defense. Discussions among attorneys have included providing pro bono or reduced-fee services to meet the anticipated demand. The nomination of Kash Patel as FBI director, who has openly advocated for firing and prosecuting certain federal employees, has intensified these preparations. Lawyers emphasize that these concerns are not paranoia, given public statements from Trump allies outlining plans to target DOJ personnel.

Lawyers Prep to Defend DOJ Workforce From Trump-Directed Probes

A federal judge has ruled that Yintao “Roger” Yu, a former ByteDance executive suing the company for wrongful termination, engaged in serious misconduct during his lawsuit. Judge Susan Illston found that Yu fabricated a key witness, lied under oath during his deposition, and abused the judicial process. As a result, the court sanctioned Yu and ordered his claims to be resolved through arbitration rather than continuing in court.

Yu, previously head of U.S. engineering for ByteDance, alleged he was fired for exposing the company’s intellectual property theft and the Chinese Communist Party's influence on TikTok. He claimed TikTok suppressed pro-democracy content at the CCP’s request. However, ByteDance presented evidence that Yu lied about signing arbitration agreements and fabricated a declaration from an alleged witness. The witness, a ByteDance HR employee, testified she never made the statements attributed to her.

The judge stated Yu’s actions caused delays, wasted court resources, and constituted egregious litigation misconduct. She denied Yu’s attempt to withdraw his lawsuit after ByteDance exposed his alleged perjury, ruling that such behavior would further undermine the judicial process. The judgment forces Yu to resolve the case through private arbitration, as required by the disputed agreements he initially denied signing.

ByteDance Whistleblower Abused Judicial Process, Faked Evidence

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reopened an investigation into Elon Musk’s brain-chip startup, Neuralink, according to a letter shared by Musk on the social platform X (formerly Twitter). The letter, written by Musk's attorney Alex Spiro, was addressed to outgoing SEC Chair Gary Gensler and disclosed that Musk was given a 48-hour deadline to settle by paying an undisclosed monetary amount or face charges. However, the settlement demand is tied to the SEC’s probe into Musk's $44 billion takeover of Twitter, not Neuralink.

Musk and the SEC have a contentious history, including a 2018 lawsuit over Musk’s statements about taking Tesla private, which was settled with a $20 million fine and other conditions. Neuralink has also been under scrutiny after lawmakers urged the SEC to investigate whether Musk misled investors about the safety of its brain implant technology. 

It remains uncertain how much traction the SEC will gain against Musk, especially given his growing political influence. Musk, who supported Donald Trump’s recent presidential campaign with substantial financial contributions, is poised to play a significant role in shaping the regulatory landscape. Trump has appointed Musk to a task force for overhauling the U.S. government. Musk and his attorney have vowed to resist SEC pressure, stating they will not be "intimidated."

SEC 'reopens' probe into Neuralink, Musk's lawyer says | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Joseph H. Rainey Sworn in to U.S. House of Representatives

On December 12, 1870, Joseph H. Rainey was sworn in as the first Black member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Born into slavery in South Carolina in 1832, Rainey and his family gained their freedom when his father purchased their emancipation. Rainey became a successful businessman and returned to the United States after living in Bermuda during the Civil War. During the Reconstruction era, he was elected to Congress as a representative for South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, where he served until 1879.

In Congress, Rainey was a vocal advocate for civil rights, emphasizing the need for laws to protect Black citizens from discrimination and violence. He supported the Enforcement Acts, which aimed to curb the activities of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and championed education and economic opportunities for freedmen. Rainey’s tenure was marked by his resilience in the face of racism and his efforts to uphold the principles of equality during a tumultuous period in American history.

Also on this day in 1787, Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. This significant decision was instrumental in encouraging other states to adopt the Constitution, ensuring the establishment of a unified federal government. Pennsylvania's ratification, occurring just five days after Delaware’s, helped build momentum for the creation of the United States as a constitutional republic.

Both events reflect crucial turning points in American history: one symbolizing progress in representation and civil rights, the other laying the foundational framework of the nation's governance. Together, they highlight the evolving journey of equality and democracy in the United States.

The Biden administration has advised the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid taking up cases brought by oil companies and Republican-led states aimed at blocking state and local climate change lawsuits. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the Court to decline appeals from oil companies challenging a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that permits Honolulu to sue major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about climate change. She also recommended rejecting efforts by 19 Republican-led states to prevent Democratic-led states from pursuing similar lawsuits. 

Prelogar argued that the oil companies’ constitutional claims are still being addressed in lower courts and that the Republican-led states lack standing to block lawsuits that target private companies. She dismissed the argument that the lawsuits attempt to regulate emissions—a federal issue—stating the claims do not conflict with federal common law on air pollution. The Republican-led states contend that the Democratic-led lawsuits improperly attempt to regulate global emissions via state courts. 

These cases involve prominent oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Shell, as well as multiple state governments. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority had earlier sought the solicitor general’s opinion on these matters. The cases reflect ongoing legal battles over the intersection of state-level climate accountability and federal jurisdiction.

US Supreme Court should avoid climate change cases, Biden administration says | Reuters

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Nasdaq’s board diversity rules, reversing a prior SEC-approved mandate requiring Nasdaq-listed companies to diversify their boards or explain why they could not. The 9-8 decision emphasized that the SEC lacked the authority to enforce such requirements under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which primarily governs fair trading practices.

The regulations, implemented in 2023, required companies to include at least one woman, minority, or LGBTQ+ board member and disclose diversity metrics annually. Conservative groups, led by figures such as Edward Blum, argued that these rules exceeded the SEC’s legal scope, ultimately persuading the majority of Republican-appointed judges. Writing for the majority, Judge Andrew Oldham stated that diversity disclosures are not an ethical or customary obligation in securities trade.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Higginson and supported by a mix of Democratic and Republican-appointed judges, argued that the SEC had acted within its authority. Higginson contended that market forces, not judicial intervention, should resolve disputes over the desirability of diversity disclosures. Despite disagreement, Nasdaq has announced it will not appeal the ruling, while the SEC is reviewing the decision.

For much more context than I could ever provide, I would encourage a perusal of the excellent Professor Ann Lipton's Mastodon thread breaking down some of the tacit and overt shifts, like the overall reorientation of securities laws to be solely about preventing fraud and the jettisoning of other goals, like accurate pricing.

Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules Struck Down by Fifth Circuit (2)

Fifth Circuit Strikes the NASDAQ Diversity Rule

The U.S. Justice Department has urged a federal appeals court to reject TikTok’s emergency bid to block a law requiring its parent company, ByteDance, to divest the app by January 19 or face a nationwide ban. TikTok argued in its filing that the law could effectively shut down the platform, which has over 170 million U.S. users. The Justice Department countered that Chinese control of TikTok remains a national security risk, emphasizing that the ban is a necessary precaution. 

If implemented, the ban would not immediately stop users from accessing TikTok but would eventually render the app unusable due to restrictions on support and updates. A panel of judges upheld the law last week, and TikTok has since appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The companies hope a delay would allow time for the incoming Trump administration to determine its stance, as President-elect Donald Trump has stated he opposes a TikTok ban. 

This ruling affirms the U.S. government’s broad authority to regulate or ban foreign-owned apps over national security and data privacy concerns, echoing previous legal challenges involving WeChat. TikTok's fate now hinges on whether Biden grants a 90-day extension of the divestment deadline and on the Trump administration’s next steps.

US asks court to reject TikTok's bid to stave off law that could ban the app | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Bernie Madoff Arrested

On December 11, 2008, financier Bernard L. Madoff was arrested by federal authorities for orchestrating one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history. Madoff, a respected figure on Wall Street and former chairman of NASDAQ, had promised consistent high returns to investors. However, he used money from new investors to pay returns to earlier ones, rather than generating legitimate profits. The scheme unraveled during the 2008 financial crisis when panicked investors sought to withdraw funds, revealing Madoff’s inability to cover billions of dollars.

Madoff’s fraud affected a vast range of victims, including wealthy individuals, charities, and pension funds, some of which were completely wiped out. Prosecutors estimated the losses to be approximately $65 billion, though this figure included fictitious profits shown on client statements. The actual cash losses were around $17.5 billion, much of which was later recovered by a court-appointed trustee.

Madoff pleaded guilty in 2009 to 11 federal felonies, including securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. He received a 150-year prison sentence, reflecting the enormous harm caused by his crimes. The case also spurred regulatory reforms, as it revealed significant oversight failures by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which had missed numerous red flags during prior investigations.

The scandal had lasting implications for the financial world, highlighting vulnerabilities in investment practices and the need for stringent oversight. Many victims continued seeking justice and compensation long after Madoff’s imprisonment, while the case remains a cautionary tale about trust and greed in finance.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge halted The Onion's planned purchase of Alex Jones' Infowars website, ruling that the bankruptcy auction did not maximize potential bids. Judge Christopher Lopez acknowledged errors in the auction process, including the trustee’s premature call for final offers, which likely left money on the table. Neither The Onion’s winning bid nor the runner-up bid from a company tied to Jones’ businesses adequately addressed Jones’ significant debts. 

Jones, who declared bankruptcy in 2022, owes over $1.3 billion to families of Sandy Hook shooting victims after courts ruled he defamed them by falsely claiming the tragedy was staged. The Onion’s bid was bolstered by Sandy Hook families waiving part of their repayment to increase creditor payouts, raising its total valuation to $7 million. However, Jones argued The Onion’s bid relied on inflated calculations compared to the $3.5 million cash offer from First American United Companies.

The judge ordered a renewed auction process and called for resolving creditor disputes beforehand. While Jones celebrated the decision, The Onion expressed disappointment but reiterated its interest in turning Infowars into a parody site with less harmful content. Sandy Hook families’ attorneys criticized the delays but remained committed to holding Jones accountable.

The Onion's purchase of Alex Jones' Infowars stopped by US judge | Reuters

The Onion's Bid for Alex Jones' Infowars Rejected by Judge (1)

President Joe Biden announced his intent to veto the JUDGES Act, a bipartisan bill proposing 66 new federal trial court judgeships to alleviate case backlogs. Despite the Democratic-led Senate passing the bill in August, the Republican-controlled House delayed action until after the election, won by Republican President-elect Donald Trump. The White House criticized the timing, suggesting partisan motives, and noted Republicans' prior resistance to filling judicial vacancies under Biden.

The legislation aims to stagger new appointments over a decade to distribute appointments across three presidential administrations, addressing concerns about partisanship in judicial nominations. Republican Senator Todd Young, the bill's sponsor, and several judges emphasized the urgent need for additional resources, citing increased case filings and delays since 1990.

House Democrats, however, withdrew support, accusing Republicans of reneging on promises to pass the bill earlier. Representative Jerrold Nadler argued that granting Trump immediate judicial appointments could bolster his executive power. Biden’s veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override, an unlikely scenario. Judges advocating for the bill expressed disappointment, emphasizing its nonpartisan intent and necessity to ensure timely justice.

Biden vows to veto bill expanding US judiciary after Trump's win | Reuters

Woody Allen’s former chef, Hermie Fajardo, has filed a lawsuit accusing Allen, his wife Soon-Yi Previn, and their home manager Pamela Steigmeyer of unlawful termination due to his military obligations and complaints about improper wages. Fajardo alleges violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) and New York labor laws, asserting that he was dismissed after raising concerns about taxless paychecks and reduced wages during his Army Reserve training.

Fajardo’s claims suggest a pattern of retaliation, including hostility from Steigmeyer and a sudden, unexplained termination shortly after a delayed return from mandatory military duty. The lawsuit challenges the defendants’ subsequent claims of dissatisfaction with Fajardo’s cooking, pointing instead to his complaints and military obligations as the true motivations for his firing.

Criticism of Allen is underscored, to say the least, by his history of abusive personal and professional behavior. Allen has faced decades of allegations, including longstanding sexual abuse claims from his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow, which have cast a well-deserved shadow over his career despite his continued denial of wrongdoing. 

Woody Allen's Ex-Chef Alleges He Was Fired Over Military Service

A U.S. federal court blocked the proposed $25 billion merger between Kroger and Albertsons, marking a victory for consumers who prioritize competitive grocery pricing. Judge Adrienne Nelson ruled that the deal, which would have united the two largest traditional grocery chains, could harm shoppers by reducing competition and driving up costs. The decision aligns with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) efforts to counteract inflation and protect consumers.

The FTC and state attorneys general argued that the merger would limit choices for consumers and weaken the bargaining power of unionized grocery workers. The court rejected Kroger’s claims that the deal would reduce prices and improve services through efficiencies, noting the lack of enforceable guarantees. Concerns about job losses and potential harm to small businesses were also central to the opposition.

For shoppers, the decision improves the chance that grocery prices remain as low as possible by preserving competition between major chains. With food costs already having risen by 25% in recent years, maintaining market competition is a crucial step toward affordability. This ruling reinforces the importance of competition in the economy, benefiting not only consumers but also workers and small businesses.

While Kroger and Albertsons argued that the merger was necessary to compete with giants like Walmart and Amazon, the court doubted whether their proposals to sell stores to maintain competition would succeed. Ultimately, this decision supports those who believe that strong antitrust enforcement is essential for a balanced economy.

Kroger's $25-billion deal for grocery rival Albertsons blocked by US courts | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Wyoming Territory Suffrage

On December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory made history by enacting the first law in the United States to grant women the right to vote. Signed into law by Governor John A. Campbell, the legislation represented a bold step toward gender equality in a country where voting rights for women were otherwise non-existent. This groundbreaking decision was influenced by a mix of progressive ideals and pragmatic concerns. Some lawmakers supported the measure as a genuine effort to recognize women's rights, while others believed it might attract settlers to the sparsely populated territory.

The law not only granted women the right to vote but also allowed them to hold public office, a rarity even in international contexts at the time. The first woman to serve on a jury in the U.S. would soon do so in Wyoming, and Esther Hobart Morris became the first female justice of the peace in 1870, further cementing Wyoming's legacy as a leader in women's rights.

Although Wyoming’s population was small and its territorial status meant it didn’t have full representation in Congress, the move set a precedent that fueled the broader suffrage movement. When Wyoming sought statehood in 1890, it faced pressure to revoke women’s voting rights, but the state stood firm, famously declaring it would remain out of the Union rather than sacrifice women's suffrage. This early commitment earned Wyoming its nickname, the "Equality State."

By taking this step in 1869, Wyoming paved the way for the eventual passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which extended voting rights to women across the United States. Wyoming's decision remains a landmark moment in the history of democracy and gender equality in America.

President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is expected to target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in businesses and universities, arguing that such policies violate anti-discrimination laws. The Justice Department under Trump plans to investigate and potentially litigate against these practices, framing them as unlawful discrimination. Trump's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, has a record of opposing "woke" corporate policies. The administration may leverage Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to challenge federally funded programs that consider race in decision-making, including university admissions and healthcare equity initiatives. 

Legal challenges to DEI efforts could also arise from private lawsuits, some of which have already been dismissed due to lack of standing. Conservative groups, such as America First Legal, have intensified pressure on corporations to dismantle diversity initiatives, often citing laws historically intended to protect marginalized communities. Critics argue this approach undermines the mission of civil rights laws, which were designed to address systemic inequities affecting underrepresented groups. 

Proponents of DEI programs contend they are crucial for addressing structural racism and promoting equitable opportunities. However, the threat of government scrutiny may prompt some companies to scale back their diversity commitments, as seen recently with Walmart and JPMorgan Chase. Legal experts note that while many DEI policies may withstand legal challenges, the broader campaign against them reflects a contentious debate over equity, merit, and the role of government in addressing societal disparities.

DOJ v. DEI: Trump's Justice Department likely to target diversity programs | Reuters

The bankruptcy court hearing over Alex Jones’ Infowars platform began with heated accusations, including claims of "voodoo economics" from Jones' attorney. The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy has chosen The Onion’s corporate parent, Global Tetrahedron LLC, as the preferred bidder with a $7 million offer, which includes waived claims by Sandy Hook families against sale proceeds. Competing bidder First United American Cos., offering $3.5 million in cash and plans to keep Infowars operational, argues its bid is more substantial, calling The Onion's bid inflated and misleading.

The sale aims to liquidate Jones’ assets to address $1.3 billion in judgments related to his false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The Onion plans to replace Infowars with a new platform by January 2025, in collaboration with Everytown for Gun Safety. The Sandy Hook families’ participation in boosting The Onion’s bid has been criticized by Jones’ team as manipulative.

Meanwhile, social media accounts associated with Infowars on X (formerly Twitter) were excluded from the sale after X Corp. asserted ownership of the handles. The court has yet to decide who will take control of Infowars, with testimony expected to continue.

Alex Jones Lawyer Accuses Onion of ‘Voodoo Economics’ in Court

New York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione, 26, with murder in the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson, concluding a five-day manhunt. Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after being spotted at a McDonald's. Upon his capture, police found a "ghost gun" matching the weapon used in the crime, along with masks, cash, false IDs, and a handwritten manifesto expressing hostility toward corporate America. Mangione is also facing forgery and gun charges in Pennsylvania, where prosecutors successfully argued to deny him bail.

Thompson, 50, was killed outside a Manhattan hotel, in what authorities believe was a targeted attack. Surveillance footage showed the suspect fleeing on a bike, later boarding a bus out of the city. Investigators are probing whether others were also targeted. Shell casings at the scene were inscribed with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose," referencing a book critical of the insurance industry.

Mangione, a Maryland native and Ivy League graduate, had a documented history of academic excellence but harbored grievances against corporate entities. Thompson's murder has fueled public frustration over the insurance industry, though officials, including Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, have condemned any glorification of the act. Thompson, a longtime UnitedHealth executive and father of two, was in New York for an investor conference at the time of his death.

Suspect in killing of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson charged with murder | Reuters

Texas exemplifies the need to condition federal aid on state tax reform, especially as federal debt grows and economic inequities deepen. While Texas touts its business-friendly, low-tax environment, this model relies heavily on regressive taxes that disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income residents. The state’s avoidance of personal and corporate income taxes forces reliance on property taxes—among the nation’s highest—and sales taxes, both of which hit poorer Texans hardest. Compounding the inequity, Texas receives significant federal funding, partly financed by taxpayers in higher-tax states like California. This dynamic effectively subsidizes Texas’ low-tax model at a national cost. 

The state’s tax policies create a paradox: wealthy individuals and corporations enjoy the benefits of Texas’ infrastructure and services while avoiding proportional contributions, with federal taxpayers covering the shortfall. This system also distorts interstate competition, incentivizing migrations to low-tax states and exacerbating national fiscal inequities. As population growth and climate challenges strain Texas’ regressive tax system, federal policymakers may need to condition aid—such as disaster relief or infrastructure grants—on reforms that promote equity and fiscal sustainability.

Texas Shows Why Federal Aid Should Be Tied to State Tax Reform

This Day in Legal History: Florida Recount Stayed

On December 9, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision to stay the recount of presidential election votes in Florida, a pivotal moment in one of the most controversial elections in American history. The recount had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court after a contentious election between George W. Bush and Al Gore left the outcome hinging on Florida’s 25 electoral votes. The Supreme Court’s stay temporarily halted efforts to resolve disputes over "hanging chads" and other ballot irregularities in a highly scrutinized manual recount process. 

This pause set the stage for the landmark decision in Bush v. Gore three days later. On December 12, the Court ruled that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively ending the process and cementing George W. Bush’s victory. The Court's majority held that varying standards for counting votes across Florida counties were inherently unequal, and there was insufficient time to establish uniform procedures before the Electoral College deadline.

The decision was deeply divisive, with the dissenting justices arguing that halting the recount undermined public confidence in the democratic process. Critics of the ruling contended that it set a dangerous precedent by involving the judiciary in the electoral process, while supporters claimed it ensured a timely resolution in an unprecedented situation. Ultimately, the ruling awarded Bush the presidency by a margin of just 537 votes in Florida.

The case has since been a flashpoint for debates about judicial impartiality and election integrity. It underscored the significance of state-level election laws and highlighted vulnerabilities in the U.S. electoral system that continue to shape legal and political discourse today.

A legal showdown involving Alex Jones’ Infowars, Elon Musk’s X Corp., and The Onion centers on the ownership and transfer of social media accounts in bankruptcy proceedings. Infowars is being sold to The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron LLC, as part of Jones’ bankruptcy to cover $1.4 billion in defamation judgments owed to Sandy Hook families. However, X Corp. has filed objections, asserting that it owns Infowars’ accounts under its terms of service and has the right to control their transfer or use.

The Onion’s winning bid, supported by some Sandy Hook families who agreed to defer payments, is under scrutiny for its structure and fairness. Judge Christopher Lopez will decide whether X’s claim to ownership under its terms of service—which prohibits account transfers without consent—supersedes the bankruptcy estate's right to sell interests in the accounts. X’s lawyers argue that the accounts are licenses, not assets, and therefore cannot be transferred. This legal stance aligns with prior cases that emphasized the authority of social media companies’ terms of use.

This dispute highlights X’s aggressive stance under Musk’s leadership in asserting control over account transfers, even as it risks alienating users. The case also raises broader questions about the transferability of accounts on other platforms, like Gab and Truth Social, which may have similar restrictions. The outcome could set precedent in determining how social media accounts are treated in bankruptcy, a legal area still in its infancy.

US judge weighs fate of the Onion's buyout of Infowars | Reuters

Musk Flexes Muscle to Stop Infowars' X Account Sale to The Onion

ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, and the app itself have requested a temporary halt to a U.S. law requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok by January 19, 2025, or face a ban. The companies filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking relief while they petition for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that the law would force TikTok, a major platform with over 170 million monthly U.S. users, to shut down just before a presidential inauguration.

The divestment law, passed earlier in 2024, reflects ongoing concerns over national security risks linked to TikTok’s ownership by a Chinese company. ByteDance contends the law undermines free speech and harms millions of American users and creators who rely on the platform for communication and income. The court’s decision will determine whether the app remains operational during the Supreme Court review process.

ByteDance, TikTok seek temporary halt to US crackdown law pending Supreme Court review | Reuters

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has asserted supervisory authority over Google Payment Corp., a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., as part of expanding oversight of nonbank financial platforms. This decision could lead to regulatory exams, though it does not imply any misconduct by Google. The CFPB stated that Google Payment Corp. meets the legal criteria for supervision, citing potential consumer risks linked to remaining balances in discontinued Google Pay accounts.

Google quickly filed a lawsuit challenging the CFPB's authority, calling the move an example of government overreach. The company argues that the U.S. version of its Google Pay peer-to-peer payment service no longer exists and has posed no risks to consumers. Google contends that the CFPB's decision is legally flawed and lacks justification. 

The case reflects ongoing tensions between tech companies and financial regulators as agencies like the CFPB increasingly focus on nonbank platforms. While the CFPB has been criticized for underusing its authority in this area, Google’s response highlights concerns about regulatory overreach and its impact on innovation.

CFPB Claims Supervision Over Google Unit, Which Promptly Sues

This Day in Legal History: 13th Amendment Ratified

On December 6, 1865, the United States formally abolished slavery with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. This historic amendment declared that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Its passage marked the culmination of decades of abolitionist struggle and the bloody Civil War, which had torn the nation apart over the issue of human bondage. 

The amendment was first passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, but required ratification by three-fourths of the states to become law. This final step was achieved when Georgia, the 27th state needed for approval, ratified it. Although President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, freeing slaves in Confederate-held territories, the 13th Amendment went further by permanently outlawing slavery throughout the entire country, including states loyal to the Union.

The amendment also laid the groundwork for subsequent constitutional changes aimed at achieving racial equality, including the 14th and 15th Amendments. However, it was not the end of systemic racial oppression. In the years that followed, practices like sharecropping and the rise of "Black Codes" sought to perpetuate the subjugation of African Americans. The amendment's exception clause—allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes—also became a basis for exploitative practices in the penal system, with effects still debated today.

Nevertheless, the ratification of the 13th Amendment remains a cornerstone of American history, symbolizing the nation’s legal commitment to freedom and human dignity. It was a monumental step in the ongoing journey toward civil rights and justice in the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court is examining United States v. Miller, a case involving the IRS and a bankruptcy trustee, which centers on whether sovereign immunity allows the IRS to keep payments made by a company before bankruptcy. The dispute arose from All Resort Group Inc.'s payment of $145,000 to cover its directors’ personal tax debts three years prior to its bankruptcy filing. The trustee argues these payments were fraudulent transfers since the company was insolvent at the time, and the IRS should return the funds like any other creditor.

Justices across ideological lines expressed skepticism of the IRS’s claim that state fraudulent transfer laws and extended lookback periods, typically used by bankruptcy trustees, are inapplicable due to sovereign immunity. Justice Kavanaugh warned that reversing lower court rulings in favor of the trustee could enable fraud by allowing debtors to misuse company funds while shielding the IRS from clawback actions.

The IRS maintains that the trustee's actions exceed the two-year lookback period allowed under bankruptcy law and that sovereign immunity blocks state law-based extensions. Critics argue that siding with the IRS could undermine bankruptcy trustees' avoidance powers, giving the government an unfair advantage over other creditors.

Justices, including Barrett, Kagan, and Jackson, questioned the IRS's reasoning, suggesting it contradicts bankruptcy law's intent to treat the government like other creditors in such cases. Legal experts noted that Utah's fraudulent transfer laws, used to extend the recovery period, align with federal principles, challenging the IRS's "peculiar" stance.

IRS Climbing a Steep Hill in Bankruptcy Trustee Clawback Dispute

OpenAI plans to request the centralization of eight copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New York and California, according to statements made to a federal judge. These lawsuits allege that OpenAI infringed on copyrights during the training of its large language models. Plaintiffs include prominent names like The New York Times, comedian Sarah Silverman, and author Ta-Nehisi Coates. 

OpenAI assured the court it will continue participating in discovery while the request is reviewed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Notably, one DMCA claim by Intercept Media Inc., alleging OpenAI removed copyright management information from its content, recently survived a motion to dismiss. However, OpenAI successfully defended against a similar suit from Raw Story Media Inc. and Alternet Media Inc.

The company has also sought to merge suits filed by The New York Times and Daily News LP. OpenAI is represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, and Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, while the authors are represented by the Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. The case underlines ongoing legal challenges for AI companies related to copyright and content use.

OpenAI to Seek to Centralize Eight Copyright Lawsuits Against It

House Democrats are divided on a Senate-passed bill to add 66 judgeships to federal district courts, with some wary of granting Donald Trump the opportunity to appoint new judges during his presidency. The JUDGES Act, which aims to address judicial shortages in heavily burdened districts, represents the first major expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990. While some Democrats, such as Reps. Doris Matsui and Eric Swalwell, emphasize the urgent need for additional judges in their states, others, like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, oppose the timing, accusing Republicans of strategically advancing the bill after Trump’s election win.

The legislation proposes phasing in new judgeships over the next three presidential terms, beginning with 11 appointments in 2025 and another 11 in 2027. Courts in states with Democratic senators would receive 37 permanent seats, while those in Republican states would gain 26 permanent and three temporary positions. 

Supporters argue that the measure addresses pressing judicial workloads, such as in California’s Eastern District, where judges face one of the nation’s highest case-to-population ratios. However, critics suspect political maneuvering, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren questioning why Republicans waited until after Trump’s victory to advance the bill. 

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan hopes to pass the measure quickly, and experts note Republicans may secure enough Democratic support despite objections. The judiciary’s policymaking body and federal judges back the bill, though its timing and implications for Trump’s influence over the judiciary remain contentious.

House Democrats Split on Bill to Add Judges After Trump Win (1)

Donald Trump announced David Sacks, venture capitalist and co-founder of Craft Ventures, as his pick for the newly created position of AI and Crypto Czar. This role will oversee federal policy on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, with a focus on boosting U.S. leadership in these sectors. Sacks, a prominent Trump supporter and Silicon Valley figure, has ties to Elon Musk and was a key fundraiser for Trump’s campaign. He is also set to lead the Presidential Council of Advisors for Science and Technology.

Sacks’ responsibilities will include crafting a legal framework to provide clarity for the crypto industry, a sector Trump has pledged to support after previously criticizing it. He will also influence the regulation and adoption of AI, countering Biden-era executive orders on AI oversight, which Trump has criticized as stifling innovation. 

Despite holding investments in crypto and enterprise software, Sacks will not be required to divest his assets, though conflict-of-interest rules will limit his involvement in specific decisions. Known for advocating free speech and opposing "Big Tech bias," Sacks aligns with Trump’s broader deregulatory agenda. His appointment, alongside crypto advocate Paul Atkins to lead the SEC, signals a strong focus on deregulation for digital assets and tech industries.

Trump Names David Sacks as White House AI and Crypto Czar (2)

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

Ludwig van Beethoven, one of the towering figures of classical music, revolutionized the art form with his innovative compositions and bold vision. Born in Bonn in 1770, Beethoven's life spanned the Classical and Romantic eras, and his works embodied the bridge between these two periods. Despite his struggles with hearing loss, he composed some of the most enduring and transformative music ever written. Among his celebrated symphonies, the Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op. 92, stands out for its infectious energy, rhythmic innovation, and emotional depth. Premiered in 1813, the symphony's exuberance earned it a special place in audiences' hearts, with the second movement, Allegretto, becoming an instant favorite.

This week, we spotlight Franz Liszt's masterful piano transcription of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7. Liszt, a virtuoso pianist and composer of the Romantic era, was renowned for his transcriptions, which brought orchestral works to the solo piano repertoire, allowing a wider audience to experience their brilliance. His transcription of the Seventh Symphony captures not only the rhythmic vitality and dramatic contrasts of Beethoven's original but also its delicate nuances and grandeur.

The second movement, in particular, shines in Liszt's version, with its solemn, almost hymn-like theme resonating deeply on the piano. Its hypnotic pulse and poignant melody reveal the emotional core of Beethoven’s vision, even in a solo performance. This piece embodies the interplay of intensity and elegance that defines Beethoven’s work and showcases Liszt's genius as both interpreter and innovator.

Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op. 92.

This Day in Legal History: Pope Innocent VIII Launches Witch Hunt

On December 5, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued the papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus, which formally authorized investigations and prosecutions of witchcraft in Germany. This decree empowered Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, Dominican inquisitors, to act against alleged witches, leading to heightened witch-hunting activities in the late 15th century. The bull emphasized the Church's role in combating heresy and supernatural practices deemed harmful to the Christian faith. The investigations authorized by this bull were pivotal in the creation of the infamous Malleus Maleficarum ("Hammer of the Witches") in 1486, a manual written by Kramer and Sprenger that advocated for the use of torture to extract confessions from accused witches.

The bull and the subsequent witch hunts reflected prevailing fears of social and religious disorder, often targeting marginalized individuals, particularly women. These practices were underpinned by a blend of theological reasoning and pre-modern natural law principles, which were used to justify harsh measures to preserve the perceived divine order of society. The natural law theory, rooted in the belief that moral principles are derived from God's eternal law, was interpreted by medieval theologians to condemn witchcraft as a violation of natural harmony and divine will.

However, the association between witchcraft and natural law theory also reveals its limitations when misapplied. Instead of promoting justice and fairness, the era's interpretation of natural law principles often rationalized coercion and systemic persecution. This misuse highlights a tension between the aspirational ideals of natural law—justice and the common good—and its historical implementation, which at times reflected societal prejudices rather than universal truths.

The legacy of Summis desiderantes affectibus thus serves as a cautionary example of how appeals to divine and natural law can be manipulated to enforce moral panic and oppression, rather than genuine justice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is set to hear West Virginia v. EPA on December 6, focusing on challenges to Biden administration emissions standards for coal-fired power plants. The case centers on whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can mandate carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology under the Clean Air Act, a requirement contested by Republican-led states and industry groups as unproven and impractical. Opponents argue the rule is designed to phase out coal plants prematurely. 

Oral arguments will primarily address the feasibility of CCS, with additional discussions on natural gas co-firing, federalism, and the "major questions" doctrine. Although the Supreme Court recently declined to freeze the rule, the regulation is expected to face setbacks when the Trump administration returns in 2025, as incoming officials could pause or repeal the standards.

The case has drawn significant attention due to its implications for federal climate authority and power sector regulation, with observers watching for signals from the court on the EPA's justification of CCS. Industry groups have already lobbied for a quick repeal, while legal experts predict the litigation will be delayed under new political leadership.

EPA to Fight Industry, States Over Power Plant Rules on Thin Ice

The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold state bans on gender-affirming care for minors, signaling support for laws like Tennessee’s, which prohibit puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for individuals under 18. During arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, conservative justices expressed skepticism about claims that such bans violate equal protection rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the Constitution does not arbitrate medical debates, while Chief Justice John Roberts noted the court’s lack of expertise in these matters, deferring to state lawmakers.

The court’s liberals sharply criticized this hands-off approach. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out the heightened risks of suicide and addiction for transgender youth denied care, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the state’s arguments could destabilize foundational equal protection rulings. Both justices underscored the challenges of relying on the democratic process to protect minority rights, particularly for groups comprising less than 1% of the population.

Justice Samuel Alito probed whether European countries’ decisions to curtail similar treatments for minors undermined arguments for their necessity, citing the UK’s Cass Review. Alito’s inquiry reflects a striking contradiction in judicial philosophy: while the court claims to merely interpret the Constitution, such references reveal its active role in shaping national policy, effectively constructing new legal norms rather than "discovering" inherent rights.

This case carries immense implications for transgender rights nationwide, with the Court’s ruling, expected by July, likely to affect laws in dozens of states. Critics argue the bans defy established medical guidelines and override parental authority, making the issue a focal point in the nation’s broader cultural and legal battles over LGBTQ+ rights.

Supreme Court Signals Support for Laws Curbing Trans Care (2)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has found that the Memphis Police Department engages in systemic discrimination against Black residents and uses excessive force, as detailed in a report following a 17-month investigation. Prompted by the January 2023 death of Tyre Nichols, a Black motorist beaten by Memphis officers, the investigation revealed patterns of unlawful stops, searches, and arrests, as well as discriminatory treatment of children and individuals with behavioral health disabilities. 

While the DOJ acknowledged that some reforms had been implemented, it emphasized that significant changes are still required to protect residents' civil and constitutional rights. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke stated that the community deserves a police department that fosters trust and safety. 

City officials have yet to agree to negotiate reforms with the DOJ. Memphis City Attorney Tannera Gibson argued that the report’s relatively short investigation period suggests a "rush to judgment." The city has not committed to a consent decree, a common tool for enforcing systemic reforms under independent oversight. 

The investigation follows federal trials of former officers involved in Nichols' death. Three officers were recently convicted of witness tampering, while others pleaded guilty to federal charges. A state murder trial for three of the officers is scheduled for April. Federal officials plan to engage with Memphis residents to address the report’s findings and potential remedies.

Memphis police discriminate against Black people, US DOJ finds | Reuters

U.S. law firms are entering 2025 with optimism, driven by strong financial performance in 2024 and anticipated growth in key practice areas. According to a report by Citigroup’s Citi Global Wealth at Work Law Firm Group and Hildebrandt Consulting, revenue rose by an average of 11.9% in 2024, fueled by increased demand and higher billing rates. Firms are well-positioned for continued success, particularly in areas like litigation, regulatory work, antitrust, private equity, and M&A, as interest rates ease and transactional activity rebounds.

Key industries for expansion include technology, healthcare, life sciences, and energy, with firms expecting to invest further in U.S. hubs like New York, Washington, D.C., Texas, and Northern California. Internationally, London, Singapore, and the UAE are poised for growth, while less-profitable markets such as China have seen office closures. 

Generative AI is viewed as a transformative opportunity, with firms optimistic about its impact on legal services. However, questions remain about how to integrate AI cost-effectively and train junior lawyers as traditional tasks are automated. Current spending on AI has been minimal but is expected to rise substantially as firms adapt.

Despite this positive outlook, challenges such as talent retention, geopolitical tensions, and macroeconomic pressures remain concerns. Nonetheless, law firms are confident in their ability to navigate these obstacles while leveraging AI and market opportunities for future growth.

US law firms eye 2025 with optimism, report says | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Alcohol Control Administration Created

On December 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Federal Alcohol Control Administration (FACA) by executive order, a pivotal moment in the transition away from Prohibition. This action came under the National Industrial Recovery Act, as part of Roosevelt's broader New Deal agenda aimed at economic recovery. FACA was designed to regulate the burgeoning alcohol industry, which was reemerging after years of prohibition, ensuring it operated within fair competition guidelines. The administration focused on creating voluntary codes for brewers, distillers, and wineries to prevent monopolistic practices and maintain equitable market conditions.

FACA’s creation coincided with the formal repeal of Prohibition under the 21st Amendment, which took effect later that month. However, the agency’s lifespan was short-lived. By August 1935, it was replaced by the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) through new legislation. The FAA consolidated alcohol regulation within the Treasury Department, laying the groundwork for modern alcohol oversight. Today, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), a successor to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), continues to fulfill the regulatory role first envisioned by FACA. 

The establishment and swift evolution of alcohol regulation reflect the complexities of ending Prohibition and integrating alcohol back into the economy under federal oversight.

A federal judge in California dismissed Hunter Biden's tax case but criticized the presidential pardon issued by President Joe Biden. Judge Mark C. Scarsi expressed skepticism about the validity of the pardon, noting that it was supported only by a press release and could be interpreted as covering actions beyond its signing date. He questioned the argument that the charges against Hunter were politically motivated, highlighting that the investigation was conducted under the supervision of the President’s own Department of Justice.

The judge also pointed out inconsistencies in statements by the President, who claimed his son was treated unfairly compared to others with similar tax issues. However, Hunter Biden had admitted to evading taxes while sober, contrary to claims of addiction-related leniency. Despite these critiques, Scarsi determined that the part of the pardon covering Hunter’s past conduct required dismissal of the charges in his Los Angeles tax case. 

The case underscores the legal and political complexities surrounding Hunter Biden’s prosecution and the implications of presidential pardons.

Judge Slams Hunter Biden Pardon but Tosses California Tax Case

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong issued a warning to law firms that hiring former government officials involved in crypto enforcement could result in losing Coinbase as a client. In a Dec. 2 post, Armstrong criticized Milbank LLP for hiring Gurbir Grewal, the former SEC enforcement director who led numerous actions against crypto companies, including Coinbase. Armstrong called this move a mistake, stating Coinbase would never work with Milbank as long as Grewal was there.

Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s general counsel, supported Armstrong's stance, emphasizing the importance of holding former government lawyers accountable for their actions while in office. He hoped the statement would spark a broader conversation about the “revolving door” between Washington and private law firms. Armstrong’s post aims to influence firms not yet on Coinbase’s roster to consider the implications of their hiring choices. 

At a legal panel, Gurbir Grewal defended his actions at the SEC, denying any bias against the crypto industry but acknowledging frustrations with the agency's strict enforcement. Legal experts noted that public ultimatums like Armstrong’s are rare, though private client concerns about hiring conflicts are common. Coinbase continues to navigate regulatory tensions, having been charged by the SEC in June 2023 for operating without proper registration and filing its own legal challenges against the agency.

Coinbase CEO Threatens Law Firms Over Government Hires (1)

A federal court in Texas has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which requires U.S. businesses to report their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department. Judge Amos L. Mazzant III ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, including a firearms retailer and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, who argued that the law exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by targeting all incorporated entities, even those not engaged in commercial activity.

The CTA aimed to combat anonymous shell companies and deter financial crimes like money laundering and terrorism financing. However, Judge Mazzant criticized the law as a "quasi-Orwellian statute" that oversteps constitutional limits, asserting that Congress cannot mandate such disclosures solely for law enforcement purposes. He emphasized that the act does not directly regulate commerce, undermining its constitutional basis.

The injunction affects an estimated 32.6 million businesses required to comply by 2025. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the ruling. The plaintiffs were represented by S|L Law PLLC and the Center for Individual Rights in the case Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland.

Corporate Transparency Act Blocked Nationwide by Texas Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a pivotal case on the rights of transgender minors, focusing on a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medical care such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 18. The Biden administration argues that the law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status. This case represents a critical examination of individual rights and the role of government in regulating personal healthcare decisions.

Tennessee defends the law as a measure to protect minors from what it calls "risky and unproven" medical treatments, citing international debates and instances of treatment regret. However, major medical associations counter that gender-affirming care is effective and can be life-saving for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, which is linked to higher suicide rates if untreated.

The law has significant consequences for families like that of plaintiff Brian Williams, whose 16-year-old transgender child depends on this care to thrive. Advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, argue that the law unjustly targets vulnerable youth, while Tennessee officials claim it safeguards children.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will decide on the legality of this ban by June. This decision could set a precedent for similar laws in 23 other states, highlighting critical questions about equality and healthcare access for transgender individuals.

US Supreme Court set to hear major transgender rights case | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Teddy Roosevelt, Trust Buster

On December 3, 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt delivered his first State of the Union address, where he boldly called for the dissolution of powerful business trusts. These trusts, large corporate conglomerates dominating key sectors like railroads, oil, and steel, were widely criticized for stifling competition and exploiting workers. Roosevelt argued that unchecked corporate power threatened the economic and political freedoms of ordinary Americans. This speech marked the beginning of Roosevelt’s aggressive antitrust campaign, which sought to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890—a law that had been largely dormant due to weak enforcement. 

During his presidency, Roosevelt initiated lawsuits against 44 trusts, targeting entities like the Northern Securities Company, a massive railroad monopoly, and Standard Oil. His administration’s victory in the 1904 Northern Securities case was a landmark decision, affirming the federal government’s authority to regulate monopolies. Roosevelt’s efforts earned him the nickname "Trust Buster," though he preferred to describe his approach as ensuring a "square deal" for all, rather than dismantling every large corporation indiscriminately. 

The 1901 address and the actions that followed redefined the federal government’s role in economic regulation, setting a precedent for progressive reforms. Roosevelt’s trust-busting legacy laid the groundwork for future antitrust policies and established the President as a central figure in addressing economic inequality and corporate overreach.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sharply criticized two federal judges for reversing their retirement plans, a move he claims prevents Donald Trump from filling their vacancies when he returns to the White House. Referring to the judges as "partisan Democrat district judges," McConnell accused them of undermining the electoral mandate by remaining active after the November election results. Though he didn’t name them, McConnell's comments were aimed at U.S. District Judges Algenon Marbley and Max Cogburn, appointees of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively, who had previously indicated they would take senior status—a semi-retirement—pending Senate confirmation of successors. 

McConnell labeled the judges’ decisions as partisan interference, urging the incoming administration to consider recusal options for them. He also claimed their actions reflect a “political finger on the scale,” though no historical precedent or formal violation underpins his accusations. Notably, judicial replacements for both seats faced delays during Biden's administration due to Senate procedural traditions and partisan gridlock, complicating the nomination process.

McConnell's critique appears selective, given his own record of partisanship in judicial confirmations. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin countered by highlighting McConnell’s refusal to advance Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination during Obama’s presidency—a move widely criticized as unprecedented gamesmanship. McConnell also criticized appellate judges who announced retirements contingent on successor confirmations, calling potential reversals "unprecedented," despite the lack of ethical violations or rule breaches. Critics argue McConnell’s remarks exemplify a strategic focus on judiciary control rather than a genuine concern for ethics or impartiality.

McConnell Blasts Judges Who Reversed Retirement Post-Trump Win

Elon Musk’s $56 billion Tesla compensation package was invalidated by Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick, marking a significant legal setback for the billionaire. The judge ruled that Tesla’s board had been improperly influenced by Musk when it approved the plan in 2018, describing the arrangement as excessive and criticizing the board for capitulating to Musk’s demands. This decision upheld her earlier January ruling, rejecting arguments from Musk and Tesla shareholders who had voted to revive the package.

The ruling not only voids the record-setting payout but also requires Tesla’s board to propose a new compensation plan, though the company has announced plans to appeal. Musk, the world’s richest person, reacted by labeling the decision “absolute corruption” on his social media platform, X. The court also awarded $345 million in attorney fees to the shareholder lawyers who challenged the package, marking one of the largest legal payouts in U.S. shareholder litigation.

The compensation case stemmed from a lawsuit alleging that Tesla’s board failed to act independently and allowed Musk to orchestrate the details of his pay package. McCormick dismissed arguments that shareholder approval could override her judicial findings, emphasizing the limits of post-trial actions in reversing decisions. Tesla shares fell after the ruling, and the decision could prompt further scrutiny of corporate governance at the company.

Musk’s Multibillion-Dollar Tesla Payout Gutted by Delaware Judge

Delaware judge rejects Musk's $56 billion Tesla pay - again | Reuters

California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a $25 million legal fund to prepare for potential conflicts with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. Announced during a special legislative session, the fund aims to bolster the state’s ability to challenge federal policies on issues like reproductive rights, immigration, and environmental protection. Newsom emphasized that the initiative seeks to protect critical state resources, such as disaster relief and health care, while safeguarding civil rights and reproductive health care access.

The funding would enable the California Department of Justice and other state agencies to swiftly respond to federal actions, with Attorney General Rob Bonta planning to expand staffing for legal battles. California has a history of such litigation, having spent $42 million during Trump’s first term and filing over 120 lawsuits against his administration. Newsom cited past successes in securing funding and reversing federal actions as evidence of the strategy’s effectiveness.

The proposal also aligns with new legislative measures to protect abortion rights, including access to medication and enforcement of the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act. Newsom’s office expects the budget measure to pass before Trump’s inauguration on January 20, ensuring California’s readiness to counter any federal policies that could impact the state’s economy or public services.

California governor proposes $25 million war chest for legal fights with Trump | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg this week tackles the looming funding crisis facing Social Security, one of America’s most vital anti-poverty programs. Without intervention, the program will face a shortfall by 2035, jeopardizing benefits millions of Americans rely on. To avert this crisis, I propose two practical and politically feasible solutions: raising the cap on taxable income and expanding Social Security taxes to include investment income.

Currently, income above $168,600 is exempt from Social Security taxes, creating a regressive structure where high earners contribute a smaller share of their total income. Eliminating or significantly increasing this cap would not only generate substantial revenue but also ensure a fairer tax burden. Public opinion overwhelmingly supports this approach, favoring tax adjustments over benefit cuts or increasing the retirement age.

Beyond raising the cap, policymakers should modernize the tax base by including investment income such as capital gains, dividends, and interest. In 2024, Americans earned $3.7 trillion in investment income, much of it untaxed for Social Security purposes. Even modest taxation on this income, especially above high thresholds like $400,000, could secure the program’s solvency while reflecting the realities of modern wealth generation.

Opponents might argue that taxing investments could harm economic growth, but careful, incremental adjustments would likely have minimal impact on investor behavior. Acting now allows for gradual changes and avoids drastic measures later, ensuring Social Security continues to deliver on its promise of financial security for all contributors.

Social Security Faces a Crisis, but Sound Tax Policy Can Help

This Day in Legal History: John Brown Hanged

On December 2, 1859, John Brown, a fervent abolitionist, was executed by hanging after being convicted of treason, murder, and inciting an insurrection. Brown's actions culminated in the October 1859 raid on the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), where he and his small band of followers aimed to spark a widespread slave uprising. The raid ultimately failed, with local militia and federal troops, led by then-Colonel Robert E. Lee, quelling the assault. Brown and several of his men were captured, while others were killed in the attack or shortly thereafter.  

At his trial, Brown delivered a defiant and eloquent speech, asserting his moral righteousness and condemning the institution of slavery. He proclaimed that he acted on divine principles to aid the oppressed, famously stating, “If it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice... I submit; so let it be done.” These words cemented Brown's place as a martyr in the eyes of abolitionists and a villain to many in the pro-slavery South.  

Brown’s execution deepened the sectional divide in the United States. His death was celebrated in much of the South as justice served but mourned in the North as the loss of a man willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of ending slavery. The incident inflamed tensions, contributing to the accelerating march toward the Civil War. To many, John Brown remains a complex figure—part radical, part visionary, whose unwavering commitment to justice continues to spark debate about the means and ends of social change.

President Joe Biden issued a full pardon for his son Hunter Biden, reversing his previous stance against using executive power in the case. The pardon covers all offenses committed by Hunter between 2014 and 2024, including gun and tax charges for which he was recently convicted. Biden justified the decision, calling the charges politically motivated attacks by his opponents aimed at undermining him and his family. Hunter, in his statement, expressed gratitude and vowed to use his second chance to help others struggling with addiction.  

The timing of the pardon, just weeks before Biden’s departure from office, drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who have long accused Hunter Biden of unethical business practices and leveraging his father’s influence. GOP lawmakers, including Representative James Comer, denounced the move as an attempt to shield the Biden family from accountability, despite a lack of evidence connecting President Biden to any misconduct.  

Former President Donald Trump criticized the pardon on social media, framing it as part of a broader misuse of the justice system, a claim his team frequently makes about their own legal battles. Hunter Biden’s legal team confirmed they have filed to dismiss pending cases in multiple courts based on the pardon. The decision reignited debate over executive clemency and its role in politically charged cases, highlighting the partisan tensions surrounding both Hunter and President Biden.

Biden Pardons Son Hunter in Reversal With Weeks Left in Term (2)

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the FDA's denial of flavored e-cigarette products, focusing on whether the agency followed proper legal procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. The FDA rejected applications from Triton Distribution and Vapetasia, among others, citing health risks to youth, as flavors like “pink lemonade” and “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies” were seen as appealing to minors. The FDA's review process requires e-cigarette makers to demonstrate that their products benefit public health more than they pose risks, a standard critics argue is stringent.  

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the FDA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious," as it failed to consider measures proposed by the companies to restrict underage use. This ruling conflicts with decisions from seven other federal appellate courts that upheld the FDA’s actions, prompting the agency’s Supreme Court appeal.  

The FDA has authorized only 34 flavored e-cigarette products, all tobacco or menthol flavored, while rejecting over a million others due to concerns about youth usage. The agency found that flavored e-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among teens, with flavor cited as a key motivator. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has increasingly limited federal regulatory authority, making this case a critical test of the FDA’s powers under the Tobacco Control Act.

US Supreme Court to scrutinize FDA denial of flavored vape products | Reuters

JPMorgan Chase and Tesla have agreed to settle their long-running legal dispute over stock warrants, dropping their claims against each other. The lawsuit, filed by JPMorgan in 2021, sought $162.2 million, alleging that Tesla breached a 2014 agreement related to the warrants. These financial instruments allowed JPMorgan to buy Tesla shares at a set price and date, but the bank argued that Elon Musk’s 2018 tweet about potentially taking Tesla private at $420 per share significantly affected the stock’s value and required repricing of the warrants.  

Tesla countersued in 2023, accusing JPMorgan of exploiting the repricing to seek an undue financial advantage. Despite the acrimony, the companies resolved their differences in a Manhattan court filing, and settlement terms were not disclosed. JPMorgan described the outcome as a positive resolution and indicated plans to develop a new commercial relationship with Tesla.  

Musk’s controversial 2018 tweet, which led to market volatility, also prompted regulatory scrutiny, including a deal with the SEC requiring pre-approval for certain of his tweets. The settlement ends years of legal battles and clears the way for the two firms to move forward collaboratively.

JPMorgan agrees to drop lawsuit against Tesla over stock warrants | Reuters

Donald Trump's decision to nominate Kash Patel as FBI director has sparked bipartisan criticism and raised concerns over Patel’s qualifications and polarizing rhetoric. A staunch Trump loyalist, Patel has frequently attacked the FBI, labeling it a core part of the so-called “deep state,” and has vowed to shut down its Washington, D.C., headquarters, calling for it to be repurposed as a “museum of the deep state.” His nomination, dependent on the removal of current FBI director Christopher Wray, faces strong opposition in the Senate, even among some Republicans.  

Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) praised Wray’s leadership and hinted at resistance to Patel's confirmation, emphasizing the Senate’s constitutional role in vetting nominees. Other Republicans, like Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Hagerty, support Patel, citing his commitment to dismantling perceived FBI corruption. However, Democrats and some moderates view Patel’s nomination as a politicized attack on the agency. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) challenged claims of FBI partisanship under President Biden, pointing to high-profile prosecutions of Democratic politicians as evidence of impartiality.  

Critics are alarmed by Patel’s inflammatory statements, including threats to use federal power against perceived political enemies and his accusations against individuals like Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. Patel’s loyalty to Trump, coupled with his lack of traditional law enforcement experience, has further fueled concerns about his fitness to lead the nation’s premier investigative agency.  

Patel’s nomination is part of a series of controversial picks by Trump for his potential administration, including appointing convicted felon Charles Kushner as ambassador to France and other contentious figures to key roles. These decisions highlight Trump’s intent to reshape federal agencies according to his political vision, drawing sharp criticism from opponents and skepticism even from within his party.

Conspiracy theorist Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to lead FBI, faces Senate blowback | FBI | The Guardian