This Day in Legal History: Juneteenth

On this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.

Granger’s announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government’s authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.

In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law’s proclamation and its realization.

A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.

FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.

The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review’s five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.

Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection Bias

A federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.

Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration’s efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.

The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week’s decision broadens that to all states.

HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.

US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | Reuters

Xlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency’s authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC’s recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.

Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company’s legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.

The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.

The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.

Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | Reuters

A federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.

The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.

Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration’s broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states’ argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.

The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.

US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Georgia v. McCollum

On June 18, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), holding that criminal defendants cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. This decision extended the logic of Batson v. Kentucky—which barred prosecutors from racially discriminatory jury strikes—to defense attorneys, ensuring both sides are bound by the Equal Protection Clause. The case involved white defendants in Georgia who sought to remove Black jurors, prompting the state to challenge the defense’s strikes as racially biased.

The Court, in a 7–2 opinion written by Justice Blackmun, reasoned that racial discrimination in jury selection, regardless of the source, undermines public confidence in the justice system and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. It emphasized that the courtroom is not a private forum and that all participants—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges—must adhere to constitutional principles.

Importantly, the decision addressed the state action requirement, acknowledging that while defense attorneys are not state actors in the traditional sense, their participation in the jury selection process is conducted under judicial supervision and is thus attributable to the state. This broadened the scope of equal protection enforcement in criminal proceedings.

The ruling was a major step toward eradicating racial bias in the judicial process, reinforcing that justice must not only be impartial but also be perceived as such. By holding defense attorneys to the same standard as prosecutors, the Court ensured that the integrity of jury selection is preserved across the board. The decision also highlighted the evolving understanding of the judiciary’s role in preventing systemic discrimination, even in adversarial settings.

Georgia v. McCollum remains a critical precedent in both constitutional law and criminal procedure, illustrating the Court's commitment to fairness in one of the most fundamental aspects of the legal system—trial by jury.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick expanded a prior injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s passport policy that restricted transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from obtaining passports reflecting their gender identity. Kobick found that the State Department’s revised policy—mandating passports list only “biological” sex at birth—likely violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and reflecting irrational bias.

Initially, the injunction applied only to six plaintiffs, but Kobick’s ruling now grants class-action status, halting enforcement of the policy nationwide. The policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump after returning to office in January 2025, directing all federal agencies to recognize only two sexes and abandon the gender marker flexibility introduced under the Biden administration in 2022.

The ruling marks a legal setback for the administration’s effort to reimpose binary sex classifications across federal documents. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, called it a critical win for transgender rights. The White House condemned the ruling as judicial overreach. The broader case remains ongoing.

US judge blocks Trump passport policy targeting transgender people | Reuters

Educational toy company Learning Resources petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs before lower court appeals conclude. The company argues that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is unconstitutional and economically damaging, citing a May 29 district court ruling that found the tariffs illegal. That decision, however, is currently stayed pending appeal.

Learning Resources’ CEO, Rick Woldenberg, warned that delaying Supreme Court review could cost American businesses up to $150 billion due to ongoing tariff-related costs. He described the tariffs as a hidden tax and accused the government of forcing importers to act as involuntary tax collectors.

Two federal courts have already ruled against Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA, a law historically used for targeted sanctions, not general trade policy. The administration defends the tariffs as a legal response to national emergencies like trade imbalances and drug trafficking, though critics say the justification is legally thin and economically harmful.

While rare, the Supreme Court has expedited cases of national significance in the past, such as Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. A key appeals court hearing on Trump’s tariff authority is scheduled for July 31.

Small business seeks early Supreme Court review of Trump’s tariffs | Reuters

A federal judge has also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a new Department of Defense policy that would cap indirect cost reimbursements to universities at 15%. The move came in response to a lawsuit filed by 12 research institutions—including MIT and Johns Hopkins—as well as major academic associations. These groups argued that the cap violated existing federal regulations and congressional intent.

The Department of Defense had framed the policy as a cost-saving measure, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming it could save up to $900 million annually. However, universities rely on indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure, staff, and equipment that support research across multiple projects—not just the ones directly funded.

The ruling by Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, mirrors earlier judicial blocks of similar funding cuts proposed by the NIH and Department of Energy. A hearing is scheduled for July 2 to determine whether a longer-term injunction should be issued. The case highlights growing legal resistance to the administration’s broader push to reduce federal spending on scientific research.

US judge blocks Defense Department from slashing federal research funding | Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors in a 6–3 decision that sets a national precedent and effectively greenlights similar restrictions in over 20 states. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the law neither classifies based on sex nor targets transgender status, and thus only required rational basis review—not heightened constitutional scrutiny. The Court accepted Tennessee’s framing of the law as neutral and medically cautious, not discriminatory, citing European health policy shifts and purported uncertainty around gender-affirming care as justification.

Critics, including the Court’s liberal bloc, argued the law does in fact discriminate based on sex and gender identity by banning medical treatment only when it aims to affirm a transgender identity. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, emphasized that the law’s language and application plainly hinge on a minor’s “sex as assigned at birth,” drawing troubling parallels to older jurisprudence that permitted covert forms of discrimination under the guise of neutrality.

The ruling marks a major rollback of legal protections for transgender youth, ignoring years of precedent that increasingly recognized transgender identity as a constitutionally protected status. By lowering the scrutiny threshold and deferring to legislative “uncertainty,” the Court provided a road map for states to restrict gender-affirming care through general, non-explicitly discriminatory language. The majority’s refusal to engage with medical consensus or the real-world impact on transgender youth reveals a troubling judicial posture: one that values legislative deference over individual rights, even when the stakes include physical and psychological harm to a vulnerable group.

Supreme Court Upholds Curbs on Treatment for Transgender Minors

This Day in Legal History: Abington School District v. Schempp

On this day in legal history, June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Abington School District v. Schempp, a landmark case concerning the constitutional boundaries between church and state. The case arose when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian from Pennsylvania, challenged a state law that required public schools to begin each day with Bible readings. The Schempp family argued that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing religion.

In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the Schempps, holding that the mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government must remain neutral toward religion, the school’s policy amounted to state-sanctioned religious exercise. The ruling did not ban the Bible from public schools altogether but clarified that its use must be educational, not devotional.

This decision built on the precedent set in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down mandatory prayer in schools, and it reinforced a broader interpretation of the separation of church and state. The ruling provoked strong reactions across the country, with many viewing it as an attack on traditional religious values, while others saw it as a vital protection of individual liberties in a pluralistic society.

The case remains a cornerstone in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping debates over religion in public education for decades. It also marked a pivotal moment in the Warren Court’s broader effort to expand civil liberties through constitutional interpretation.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using executive orders to intimidate major law firms based on their past clients and hiring choices. Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution and have created a chilling effect on the legal profession. The ABA claims Trump's actions hindered its ability to secure legal representation, especially in cases opposing the federal government.

The suit comes after four law firms successfully challenged similar executive orders, with judges temporarily or permanently blocking enforcement. One of these firms, Susman Godfrey, is now representing the ABA in this new case. Despite court setbacks, nine firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration to avoid similar targeting.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the ABA’s lawsuit as “frivolous,” asserting presidential authority over security clearances and federal contracting. The ABA also alleges the administration has threatened its accreditation authority and slashed funding, particularly in areas like training legal advocates for domestic violence victims.

American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice is undergoing a significant restructuring under the Trump administration, marked by mass resignations, staff reductions, and departmental overhauls. Approximately 4,500 DOJ employees have accepted buyouts through the administration's deferred resignation program, known as “Fork in the Road,” which allows for paid leave through September before official departure. These exits, along with planned eliminations of 5,093 positions, are expected to save around $470 million and reduce the DOJ's workforce from roughly 110,000.

The administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year aims to reshape the DOJ in line with conservative priorities. This includes dismantling the tax division—once staffed by over 500 people—and distributing its enforcement functions across the civil and criminal divisions. Despite some added funding to these divisions, they are also set to reduce attorney headcounts. The move has drawn backlash from former DOJ and IRS officials, who warned it could undermine tax enforcement. The DOJ's top tax official resigned earlier this year in protest.

Political leadership changes have also prompted an exodus from the civil rights division, where two-thirds of career attorneys have either resigned or been reassigned. Cuts are also planned for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and other oversight bodies, such as the DOJ Inspector General's office and the Community Relations Service.

Other structural shifts include folding INTERPOL’s U.S. office into the U.S. Marshals Service, closing multiple field offices, and launching a new firearm rights restoration initiative. The administration has also proposed merging the ATF with the DEA and cutting the FBI’s budget by over half a billion dollars.

Justice Department to Lose 4,500 Staffers to Buyout Offers (1)

Justice Department to Eliminate Tax Unit as Workforce Shrinks

The NCAA’s $2.8 billion settlement—approved earlier this month—has reignited momentum in Congress for national legislation to address key issues in college athletics, particularly around antitrust liability, name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, and student-athlete classification. Beginning July 1, colleges can directly pay athletes, marking a historic shift that has intensified calls for a federal framework to standardize these changes.

The settlement, which also includes back pay for nearly 400,000 athletes, has been described as a stabilizing force in the chaotic NIL landscape. It is now being used by the NCAA to push Congress for a liability shield to prevent further antitrust lawsuits. Although several NIL reform bills have been proposed in the past, none have passed. Two current bills—the bipartisan SPORTS Act and the GOP-led SCORE Act—aim to balance athlete rights with regulatory uniformity while clarifying that student-athletes are not employees.

The SCORE Act would create revenue-based limits on athlete pay and involve multiple House committees, while the SPORTS Act focuses on educational support and fair market value benchmarks for NIL deals. Both would preempt state laws and address core NCAA concerns.

Despite the settlement, legal uncertainty remains. Female athletes have already filed appeals challenging the deal under Title IX, and further litigation is expected. Experts note that any legislation granting an antitrust exemption—similar to the unique one held by Major League Baseball—would face judicial skepticism and political resistance.

NCAA’s $2.8 Billion Settlement Gets Congress Moving Toward Fixes

In my column this week I write a bit about how a tax amnesty program in Illinois might provide a roadmap for the rest of the nifty fifty. Illinois’ new remote seller amnesty program offers a strategic and replicable model for encouraging tax compliance among previously noncompliant businesses. By waiving penalties and interest and applying a simplified, flat 9% tax rate across the state’s many local jurisdictions, the program lowers the barriers to voluntary disclosure. This approach addresses the core problem of the “compliance paradox,” where businesses avoid coming clean for fear of triggering audits. In contrast to fear-based enforcement, Illinois’ model promotes intelligence-based compliance, exchanging amnesty for valuable insights into evasion tactics and tools.

The program's design could be adapted to brick-and-mortar businesses engaged in sales suppression through tools like zapper software. If these businesses were offered amnesty in return for disclosing how they evaded taxes—such as revealing the software they used and methods employed—states could use this intelligence to improve enforcement. Such disclosures would turn voluntary compliance into a form of strategic reconnaissance, identifying enforcement blind spots and bad actors.

Illinois’ policy doesn’t just recoup lost revenue; it also creates opportunities to map the ecosystem of tax evasion tools and techniques. By incentivizing transparency and simplifying compliance, the initiative provides a blueprint for other states facing fiscal pressure and looking to modernize tax enforcement.

Illinois Remote Seller Amnesty Program Offers Roadmap for States

This Day in Legal History: Glass-Steagall Signed

On June 16, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933 into law—a pivotal piece of Depression-era legislation better known by the names of its congressional architects: Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry Steagall. The law’s timing was not accidental; it came just months after the catastrophic banking failures that had shuttered thousands of banks and evaporated public trust in the financial system. At its core, the act sought to restore that trust through structural reform, not just emergency patchwork.

The most well-known feature of the law was the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which for the first time guaranteed Americans’ bank deposits up to a set amount. This singular policy innovation helped stem the tide of bank runs and brought stability to the retail banking sector almost overnight.

But the law went further. In what became known as the Glass–Steagall provisions, it imposed a formal separation between commercial banking and investment banking. The rationale was simple: banks that take deposits and issue loans should not also be speculating in stocks, bonds, or other risky assets. The aim was to curtail the kind of speculative behavior that had, in part, fueled the 1929 crash.

This firewall between different banking functions endured for decades, until its gradual erosion and eventual repeal under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Critics of deregulation would later argue that dismantling Glass–Steagall helped set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis.

So, why does June 16 matter? Because it marks the day Congress decided that the rule of law—not just market forces—would govern American finance. It’s a reminder that even in moments of deep economic despair, institutional design and legislative action can restore public confidence. The legacy of the 1933 Banking Act lives on every time someone deposits a paycheck without worrying if their bank will still be open next week.

President Donald Trump has ordered a major escalation in deportation operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), targeting the largest U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. The initiative, described by Trump as the "single largest Mass Deportation Program in History," comes amid widespread protests and legal opposition. Trump framed the policy as necessary to remove "millions" of undocumented migrants but also pledged to soften its impact on sectors like agriculture and hospitality, which rely heavily on immigrant labor.

ICE is now arresting roughly 2,000 undocumented individuals daily, a significant increase from the Biden administration's rates. Trump aide Stephen Miller has pushed for even higher daily arrests, aiming for 3,000. This surge coincides with a drop in the number of foreign workers, contributing to an overall labor force decline.

In response to protests—particularly in Los Angeles—Trump deployed National Guard troops and up to 700 active-duty Marines to secure federal property, sparking backlash from local leaders. California Governor Gavin Newsom has sued the administration, challenging the legality of the troop deployment. A federal appeals court is currently reviewing a lower court’s restriction on the National Guard’s use.

Trump Orders ICE to Expand Deportations in Largest US Cities

Senate Republicans are preparing to unveil their draft of President Trump’s sweeping $3 trillion economic package, aiming for passage by Independence Day. But one key detail remains conspicuously unresolved: the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap.

The draft, expected Monday, reflects weeks of intraparty negotiation. Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo has been trying to thread the needle between budget hawks, business-friendly Republicans, and clean energy holdouts. While the bill includes permanent extensions of key Trump-era business tax cuts—like R&D deductions, interest expensing, and full depreciation—the SALT cap remains a political landmine.

The House version, passed earlier this year, raised the SALT cap to $40,000 in a bid to placate Republicans from high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, and California. Senate GOP leaders, by contrast, are floating either retaining the $10,000 cap or leaving it blank for now. Majority Leader John Thune admitted there’s little appetite among senators from low-tax states to raise it.

The SALT cap is more than a tax policy footnote—it’s a litmus test for how seriously Republicans take their own rhetoric on fiscal responsibility. Repealing or expanding the cap would disproportionately benefit wealthy households in blue states while blowing a hole in federal revenues. It’s a strange hill for a so-called “populist” party to die on.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is pressuring the Senate to keep the $40,000 cap, warning that anything less could tank the bill in the House. It’s a delicate dance between appeasing suburban Republicans and not torching whatever remains of fiscal conservatism.

Meanwhile, energy companies are watching closely to see how the bill handles the phase-out of clean energy credits. Foreign investors are lobbying against the "Section 899 revenge tax," and Medicaid work requirements face their own internal friction. States may not be ready to implement them, and pushback is mounting over penalizing low-income parents.

Senate to Unveil Trump Tax Bill Draft With SALT Fight Unresolved

A federal judge in Boston is weighing whether to block President Trump’s latest move to bar foreign nationals from studying at Harvard University, as part of a broader legal fight over immigration, education, and executive power.

The administration’s proclamation—signed earlier this month—cites national security concerns and temporarily suspends the entry of international students bound for Harvard. It also directs the State Department to consider revoking visas for those already enrolled. The measure follows Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s earlier attempt to strip Harvard’s certification to host international students, which the court temporarily blocked.

Harvard, which counts nearly 6,800 international students (about 27% of its student body), argues that the Trump administration is engaging in unconstitutional retaliation. The university claims it’s being punished for resisting White House efforts to control its governance, curriculum, and ideological direction—an alleged violation of First Amendment protections.

Trump’s proclamation, and the broader freeze on $2.5 billion in Harvard funding, mark an unprecedented federal offensive against the country’s oldest and wealthiest university. Harvard is now seeking a broad injunction to protect its ability to host foreign students while its lawsuits proceed.

The Justice Department, for its part, is asking the court to treat Trump’s proclamation separately from Noem’s earlier actions, arguing it rests on different legal grounds and doesn't expel current students—at least not yet.

The outcome of today’s hearing could have profound implications, not just for Harvard, but for how far a sitting president can go in leveraging immigration law to reshape higher education.

Harvard to urge judge to bar Trump from closing doors for international students | Reuters

This Day in Legal History:  Miranda v. Arizona

On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.

The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual’s privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.

Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.

Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.

The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.

Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | Reuters

A federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump’s order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer’s ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.

Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.

Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | Reuters

In a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump’s favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.

District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden’s entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.

The Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court’s current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.

Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.

This week’s closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era’s leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.

Albinoni’s style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week’s featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.

The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni’s refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni’s authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.

His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni’s bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni’s Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.

Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni’s Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7.

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia 

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws that banned interracial marriage. The case arose when Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black and Indigenous woman, were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other in Washington, D.C., then returning to their home in Virginia, which criminalized interracial unions under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple's challenge to their conviction eventually reached the nation's highest court.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the Court, stated that the freedom to marry is a “vital personal right,” and restricting that freedom on the basis of race was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court emphasized that classifications based solely on race are “odious to a free people” and cannot stand.

The decision invalidated laws in 16 states that still prohibited interracial marriage at the time, cementing Loving v. Virginia as a major victory in the civil rights movement. It not only reinforced the constitutional commitment to racial equality but also laid critical groundwork for later decisions involving personal liberty, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.

A U.S. federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil based on U.S. foreign policy concerns. The decision, issued by Judge Michael Farbiarz in Newark, found that using a rarely applied immigration law to justify Khalil’s detention violated his free speech rights. Khalil, whose green card was revoked in March, has been in detention since then and was the first foreign student arrested amid the pro-Palestinian campus protests following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.

The court found that Khalil was suffering irreparable harm due to the damage to his career and the chilling effect on his speech. While the ruling bars Khalil’s deportation under the foreign policy provision, it does not require his immediate release, allowing the administration until Friday to appeal. Khalil’s wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, urged his immediate return to their home in New York, where she cares for their newborn son.

Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department commented. The case reflects tensions over U.S. responses to student activism amid global political conflicts, particularly as Trump-era policies are used to target protesters. The foreign policy provision invoked allows deportation of non-citizens if their presence is seen as harmful to U.S. interests, but the court found it unconstitutional in this case.

US foreign policy no basis to detain Columbia protester Khalil, judge rules | Reuters

California is taking the Trump administration to court over the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid escalating protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Approximately 700 Marines are set to join 4,000 National Guard troops to support federal agents and protect government property, sparking backlash from state officials who argue the move is illegal and inflammatory. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with other state and local leaders, contends the deployment violates the state’s rights and unnecessarily escalates tensions.

The protests, which began in response to a wave of immigration raids, have spread to cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., and are expected to intensify with over 1,800 demonstrations planned for the weekend. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have largely remained peaceful, though incidents of violence and aggressive police responses have been reported. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments Thursday as California seeks a restraining order to halt the military’s law enforcement involvement.

The Marines have completed crowd control and de-escalation training but are operating under Title 10 of U.S. law, which authorizes limited military involvement in civilian matters. They are permitted to detain individuals interfering with federal duties but are not supposed to engage in regular policing. Trump defended the deployment, calling it essential to maintaining order, while critics, including national Democrats, have called it a dangerous overreach.

Marines prepare for Los Angeles deployment as protests spread across US

A group of current and former female athletes is appealing the NCAA’s $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the deal violates Title IX by disproportionately compensating male athletes. Approved by a federal judge on June 6, the settlement allocates 90% of back pay damages to men, largely benefiting football and basketball players. The objectors, represented by attorney John Clune, argue this breakdown reflects a $1.1 billion miscalculation and discriminates against women in violation of federal law.

The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first formal challenge to a settlement touted as a major victory for student-athletes. Clune said the agreement lacks meaningful support for women’s sports, including basketball and Olympic disciplines, and warned that schools are already discussing cutting programs as a result of the deal’s financial structure.

Critics of the appeal, including settlement attorney Jeffrey Kessler, claim the Title IX objection is misplaced in an antitrust case and will delay compensation for over 100,000 athletes. Still, the challenge raises questions about gender equity in how the NCAA compensates athletes for past name, image, and likeness (NIL) restrictions.

While the total settlement amount isn't being disputed, the appeal could impact future policies around compensation, roster limits, and salary caps. The NCAA says it's continuing with implementation, but the appeal introduces legal uncertainty into an already complex shift in college athletics.

NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Gets Appealed Over Title IX Issues (1)

Donald Trump’s legal team is attempting to fast-track an appeal of his New York felony conviction by moving the case toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, marking the first time a former or current president has been found guilty of a felony. His attorneys returned to court this week to argue the state case should be shifted to federal jurisdiction.

They contend that Trump’s actions were connected to his official duties as president and thus should be handled in federal court, where they believe he might receive a more favorable legal environment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing the request, which Trump hopes will pave the way for a rapid review by the Supreme Court.

The legal maneuvering is part of a broader strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the New York state trial and delay sentencing or any other consequences. Trump maintains that the case is politically motivated and that the charges are being used to interfere with his political agenda.

Trump Seeks Quick Path to Supreme Court in Hush Money Appeal (1)

This Day in Legal History: People v. Ruggles and the Transposition of a “Common Law Crime”

On June 11, 1811, the New York Supreme Court of Judicature decided People v. Ruggles, a seminal case in early American constitutional law and one of the rare recorded convictions for blasphemy in U.S. history. John Ruggles was convicted for publicly declaring in a tavern that “Jesus Christ was a b*****d and his mother must be a w***e,” and was sentenced to three months in jail and fined $500. What made the decision historically significant was Chancellor James Kent’s justification: he upheld the conviction by transposing the English common law crime of blasphemy into American jurisprudence, despite the existence of a state constitutional provision protecting religious freedom.

Kent argued that the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution—similar to the First Amendment—guaranteed religious tolerance but did not protect speech deemed immoral or dangerous to public order. He defined blasphemy as “maliciously reviling God, or religion,” and asserted that Americans, like the English, required religion-based moral discipline to maintain social cohesion. Crucially, Kent held that blasphemy applied only to Christianity, stating that “we are a Christian people,” and that moral and legal norms in the U.S. were “ingrafted upon Christianity.”

This decision represented a foundational moment in American law by carrying forward a religiously grounded common law principle into a supposedly secular, constitutional framework. Kent cited Sunday observance laws and other religious references in law as evidence that Christianity remained embedded in the legal culture. He acknowledged tolerance for other religions but did not extend legal protection to speech critical of Christianity.

The decision aligned with Justice Joseph Story’s later view that Christianity underpinned American common law, but stood in contrast to the secularist interpretation advanced by figures like Thomas Jefferson. Though Kent’s reasoning carried weight in his era, it would eventually lose ground. In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively invalidated blasphemy laws, ruling that speech critical of religion was protected under the First Amendment.

A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while legal challenges to their legality proceed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. paused a lower-court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The court called the matter one of “exceptional importance” and took the rare step of assigning it to the full 11-judge panel, with oral arguments scheduled for July 31.

The tariffs in question include broad duties on imports from most U.S. trading partners—nicknamed “Liberation Day” tariffs—as well as separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Trump has claimed that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA due to threats like fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing trade deficit. Critics argue these are not legitimate emergencies under the law and that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.

The original ruling striking down the tariffs came from the U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28, in lawsuits brought by five small businesses and twelve states led by Oregon. That court found Trump’s use of IEEPA overreached presidential authority and misapplied a law designed for national emergencies. While disappointed by the stay, the plaintiffs emphasized that no court has yet upheld Trump’s broad claims under IEEPA.

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismissed two more employees who were involved in investigations concerning President Trump, bringing the total number of terminations related to those probes to 17 since Trump's return to power in January. One of the fired individuals had served as a lawyer on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team and previously prosecuted defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The other was a support staff member also tied to Smith's team. Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the dismissals. Although both had been reassigned to other DOJ divisions prior to their termination, their past involvement with the Trump investigations was cited as the likely reason for their firing.

Earlier, on January 27, 14 attorneys were dismissed at once due to their work on Trump-related cases. In April, a longtime public affairs official who had represented Smith's team was also let go. The DOJ has not officially commented on the recent terminations. Trump has persistently claimed that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him for political reasons, though Smith’s team consistently rejected that narrative in court. These firings raise new concerns about political influence over the DOJ’s personnel decisions.

US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say | Reuters

A group of Tesla owners in France has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that CEO Elon Musk’s public behavior and political alignments have caused them reputational harm. Represented by law firm GKA, about ten leaseholders are asking the Paris Commercial Court to cancel their vehicle contracts and recover legal costs. They argue that Tesla cars, once seen as eco-friendly innovations, are now perceived as far-right symbols due to Musk’s vocal support for Donald Trump and Germany’s far-right AfD party.

The plaintiffs allege that Musk's political affiliations and controversial gestures—such as one during Trump’s inauguration that was likened online to a Nazi salute because it was absolutely a Nazi salute—have made Tesla ownership socially and professionally damaging. The group also cites Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-backed initiative to reduce public spending, as further evidence of his deep political entanglements. Public backlash against Musk has included protests and vandalism at Tesla showrooms across Europe and the U.S.

This lawsuit comes amid declining Tesla sales in Europe, where customers are increasingly turning to competitively priced Chinese EVs. GKA emphasized that its clients purchased Tesla vehicles for their environmental and technological appeal, not as political statements. Tesla has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Musk recently acknowledged regretting some of his remarks on X, the platform he owns, after a public dispute with Trump.

Some French Tesla drivers file lawsuit over harm allegedly caused by Musk's behaviour | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Colegrove v. Green

On June 10, 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Colegrove v. Green, upholding an Illinois congressional districting scheme that created dramatically uneven district populations. The plaintiffs argued the map diluted votes by packing more people into some districts than others, violating principles of equal representation. However, the Court, in a plurality opinion by Justice Felix Frankfurter, declined to intervene. Frankfurter emphasized that districting was a “political question” and not within the judiciary’s purview to resolve.

This ruling effectively insulated redistricting practices from federal judicial review and left voters in malapportioned districts without a constitutional remedy. Frankfurter’s view was rooted in judicial restraint, warning against courts becoming embroiled in “political thickets.” But critics argued that this deference allowed entrenched political interests to ignore population shifts and disenfranchise urban voters.

The decision stood until 1962, when the Court reversed course in Baker v. Carr. There, the justices held that federal courts could indeed hear redistricting cases under the Equal Protection Clause, ushering in the “one person, one vote” era. Colegrove thus marked the high-water mark of the political question doctrine’s use in avoiding electoral oversight—a stance the Court ultimately abandoned.

Mexico’s antitrust regulator is poised to issue a ruling by June 17 on whether Google engaged in monopolistic practices in the country’s digital advertising market. If found guilty, the tech giant could face a fine amounting to 8% of its annual Mexican revenue—potentially one of the largest ever imposed by the agency. The case began in 2020 and moved into a trial phase last year, with a key hearing held on May 20. Mexican regulators claim Google built an illegal monopoly, and has obtained financial data from the Mexican tax authority as part of its investigation.

Google, which hasn’t disclosed Mexico-specific revenue but reported $20.4 billion for the broader “other Americas” region in 2024, could seek an injunction to delay the ruling pending judicial review. This would parallel similar antitrust issues the company faces in the U.S., where courts have ruled against its dominance in search and advertising technologies.

Adding to tensions, President Claudia Sheinbaum has sued Google for renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America” for U.S. users—a move she claims Google had no authority to make. The long-standing antitrust case has drawn political attention, with lawmakers urging Mexican officials to act.

Google in Mexico faces major potential fine as antitrust ruling nears | Reuters

Texas has taken a meaningful first step toward curbing abuse in its affordable housing tax system with HB 21, but the new law leaves major gaps that developers could still exploit. Signed by Governor Greg Abbott, HB 21 aims to end long-term tax breaks for projects that offer little true affordability. However, the bill’s reliance on “area median income” (AMI) to define affordability creates a loophole: in wealthy areas, rent set at 80% of AMI can be as high as typical market rates, making the term “affordable” misleading.

The law requires that half of all units be reserved for “low-income” tenants, but without adjusting for local wage realities, this standard fails to address the needs of those most burdened by housing costs. Worse still, enforcement is delayed—audits may take years, and there is no mechanism to reclaim tax benefits already received by developers who fall out of compliance. This makes upfront compliance optional in practice, not mandatory.

While HB 21 mandates parity in amenities between market-rate and affordable units, this provision seems symbolic without robust inspection. The lack of a tax credit clawback—something present in federal programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—further weakens accountability.

The bill’s structure could dissuade honest developers, who face unclear or burdensome requirements, while allowing bad actors to benefit before facing any scrutiny. Texas risks ending exploitative deals without fostering enough viable new ones, exacerbating its housing shortage.

Texas Housing Law Addresses Problem but Creates Major Loopholes

As the push for government efficiency grows, the IRS is considering using artificial intelligence to identify noncompliant taxpayers based on past audit outcomes. While this might sound like a smart upgrade, history offers a sobering warning. The Netherlands tried something similar, using AI to spot fraud in childcare benefits, and it ended in a national scandal—the algorithm disproportionately targeted minority families, human reviewers failed to intervene, and the fallout brought down the government.

A recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report suggests the IRS could “leverage examination results” to improve case selection algorithms. But this raises red flags. IRS audit history isn’t neutral. A 2023 joint study by Stanford and the Treasury Department found that Black taxpayers were audited up to 4.7 times more than others, especially when claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. That disparity likely came from algorithmic choices aimed at efficiency, not fairness.

If the IRS trains AI on this unfiltered historical data, it risks cementing and expanding past biases into future audits. AI could be a powerful tool—but only if accompanied by key safeguards. First, training data must be rigorously reviewed to eliminate bias. Second, model decisions must be transparent so we understand how and why certain cases are flagged. And third, human reviewers must be actively trained and authorized to question and override algorithmic decisions.

Week in Insights: TIGTA’s AI Ambitions Risk Rerun of Dutch Fiasco

This Day in Legal History: “Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?”

On June 9, 1954, one of the most pivotal moments in American legal and political history unfolded during the Army–McCarthy hearings. The hearings were part of a broader investigation into allegations that Senator Joseph McCarthy and his staff had pressured the U.S. Army for preferential treatment of a former aide. By this time, McCarthy had become infamous for his aggressive campaign against alleged communists in government, using Senate hearings as a stage for accusations often lacking in evidence. His tactics had created a culture of fear and censorship across multiple sectors of American life.

The dramatic turning point came when Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy after the senator attempted to smear a young attorney from Welch’s law firm. With millions watching the nationally televised hearing, Welch famously asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” The moment drew applause and signaled a critical shift in public sentiment. It crystallized growing discomfort with McCarthy’s bullying methods and marked the beginning of his political downfall.

The legal significance of this day lies not in a court decision but in the public rejection of demagoguery and the defense of due process and professional ethics. Welch’s rebuke helped reassert norms of fairness in legislative proceedings and served as a precedent for reining in congressional overreach. Within months, McCarthy was censured by the Senate, and his influence waned. June 9, 1954, thus stands as a symbolic restoration of institutional decency amid the legal theater of Cold War America.

Getty Images has launched a major copyright lawsuit against Stability AI in the UK, accusing the company of using millions of its images without permission to train its AI system, Stable Diffusion. The case, now underway in London's High Court, challenges whether such data use falls within fair use or infringes intellectual property rights. Getty insists the lawsuit is not an attack on AI itself, but a defense of copyright protections, arguing that AI can thrive alongside creators if proper licensing is respected. Stability AI denies any wrongdoing, framing the dispute as a broader debate about innovation and freedom of expression.

The legal battle is unfolding amid a global wave of lawsuits over AI training data, as creative industries express concern about the unauthorized use of their work. Getty is also pursuing a parallel case in the United States. Lawyers for Stability AI argue the suit could endanger the entire generative AI industry, but Getty counters that respecting copyright is key to AI's future. The outcome of this case could reshape how copyright law is applied to AI in the UK and potentially influence government policy.

One legal element of note is UK copyright's application to machine learning, particularly regarding the "scraping" of protected content. This is significant because the UK lacks a settled precedent on whether using copyrighted data to train AI systems constitutes infringement, especially in the absence of express licensing. This case could establish that precedent.

Getty argues its landmark UK copyright case does not threaten AI | Reuters

Damian Williams, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has left Paul Weiss just months after joining the firm to move to Jenner & Block. His departure comes as Paul Weiss faces scrutiny for striking a controversial deal with the Trump administration in March, agreeing to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services in exchange for rescinding an executive order targeting the firm. Jenner & Block, in contrast, opposed the same Trump-era executive order in court and recently secured a permanent ruling against it.

Williams will now co-chair Jenner’s litigation and investigations practice. During his time as U.S. Attorney, he led major prosecutions including those of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried and Senator Bob Menendez. In a statement, Williams praised Jenner’s fearless advocacy and strategic counsel. Jenner did not mention its legal fight against Trump or Paul Weiss's agreement in its announcement.

Paul Weiss has seen several other high-profile departures in recent months, including five partners who left to start a new firm and the head of its pro bono practice, who left to work on housing advocacy. The Trump-related agreement has sparked debate within the legal community, with some praising it as pragmatic and others criticizing it as compromising firm independence.

Former Manhattan US attorney leaves Paul Weiss for law firm fighting Trump | Reuters

A federal judge has given final approval to a groundbreaking $2.8 billion antitrust settlement between the NCAA, its Power Five conferences, and student-athletes, allowing for direct payments to college athletes for the first time. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the deal, which also resolves ongoing litigation over name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, was fair and served pro-competitive purposes despite concerns raised over team roster limits and compensation caps. As part of the agreement, schools can begin sharing up to 22% of their athletic revenue—around $20 million annually per Power Five school—with athletes as soon as this summer.

The deal includes $2.75 billion in back payments over 10 years to Division I athletes who played from 2016 onward. Some athletes had objected, citing unfair pay practices, gender inequities, and a lack of input from future players. Wilken responded by approving revisions that exempt some athletes from roster limits and clarified that future athletes can object to the settlement before being bound by it. Less than 0.1% of nearly 390,000 class members formally objected.

While this decision marks a shift toward a new financial model in college sports, litigation will continue. Former athletes not covered by this deal are still pursuing claims, and broader legal fights remain over whether athletes should be considered employees. NCAA President Charlie Baker emphasized the deal as a stabilizing step amid ongoing legal and political challenges, including state-level competition over NIL rules.

NCAA Wins Final Approval of $2.8 Billion Player-Pay Deal (2)

This Day in Legal History: SEC Established

On this day in legal history, June 6, 1934, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established as part of the sweeping reforms of the New Deal. The SEC was created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, which exposed widespread fraud, manipulation, and lack of oversight in the financial markets. Its primary mission was, and remains, to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Joseph P. Kennedy, a former stockbroker and businessman, as the SEC’s first chairman. The choice was controversial—Kennedy had profited handsomely from some of the same speculative practices the SEC was meant to prevent—but Roosevelt believed that Kennedy’s insider knowledge would make him an effective regulator.

The SEC was empowered to regulate the securities industry, enforce federal securities laws, and oversee the nation’s stock and options exchanges. Among its early duties were requiring public companies to file detailed financial disclosures, registering securities before public offering, and monitoring insider trading. The commission also played a key role in restoring investor confidence in U.S. capital markets during a time of deep financial mistrust.

Over time, the SEC expanded its reach, responding to new financial products, trading technologies, and crises. From investigating corporate accounting scandals like Enron and WorldCom, to managing the regulatory fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, the SEC has remained a pivotal force in shaping American financial law. It continues to evolve, now addressing issues such as crypto asset regulation, ESG disclosures, and algorithmic trading.

Speaking of the SEC, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton dismissed a lawsuit challenging the SEC 2020 rule changes that made it more difficult for shareholders to submit proposals at corporate annual meetings. The rules, enacted late in President Trump’s term, raised the ownership thresholds and lengthened holding periods required to file shareholder proposals. They also introduced stricter resubmission requirements for proposals previously rejected by shareholders.

The plaintiffs, including the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, As You Sow, and shareholder advocate James McRitchie, argued the changes disproportionately harmed proposals on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues and reduced long-term shareholder value. They claimed the SEC failed to assess the benefits of such proposals before implementing the rules.

Judge Walton rejected these claims, ruling that the SEC adequately justified the changes under its mandate to promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The SEC, which had defended the rules during both the Trump and Biden administrations, argued that the reforms ensured shareholder proposals had broader relevance and potential for meaningful corporate action. The 2020 vote on the rule changes split along party lines, with Republican commissioners in support. While the SEC declined to comment on the ruling, the plaintiffs expressed disappointment and affirmed their commitment to corporate engagement on environmental and social issues.

SEC wins dismissal of lawsuit challenging tighter rules on shareholder proposals | Reuters

OpenAI filed an appeal challenging a court order that requires it to indefinitely preserve ChatGPT output data in an ongoing copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times. OpenAI argues the order conflicts with its user privacy commitments and sets a troubling precedent. The preservation directive was issued last month after The Times requested that all relevant log data be maintained and segregated.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly criticized the order on social media, affirming the company’s stance against actions it sees as compromising user privacy. The appeal, filed on June 3, asks U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein to vacate the preservation requirement.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of using millions of Times articles without permission to train ChatGPT. In April, Judge Stein ruled that The Times had plausibly alleged that OpenAI and Microsoft may have encouraged users to reproduce copyrighted content. The ruling rejected parts of a motion to dismiss the case and allowed several of the Times’ claims to move forward, citing multiple examples of ChatGPT generating material closely resembling Times articles.

OpenAI appeals data preservation order in NYT copyright case | Reuters

President Donald Trump’s 2026 budget proposal includes a plan to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), an independent agency that funds civil legal aid for low-income Americans. The proposal seeks $21 million for an "orderly closeout" of the organization, which had requested $2.1 billion to meet growing demand. The LSC supports 130 nonprofit legal aid programs that assist with issues such as evictions, disaster recovery, and access to public benefits.

Critics warn that the move would devastate legal aid access for millions, particularly in rural areas and the South. In Louisiana, for example, there is just one legal aid lawyer for every 11,250 eligible residents. Legal aid leaders say they already turn away half of those seeking help due to budget constraints, and the proposed funding cut would further limit their reach.

Organizations like Southeast Louisiana Legal Services and Legal Aid of North Carolina would lose 40–50% of their funding, jeopardizing services for communities still recovering from recent hurricanes. Legal Services NYC, the largest legal aid provider in the country, has implemented a hiring freeze in anticipation of possible cuts.

The proposal revives a long-standing conservative goal. Past Republican efforts to dismantle the LSC date back to the Reagan era, and Trump made a similar attempt in 2018. The Heritage Foundation has accused the LSC of supporting controversial causes, but legal aid advocates argue the organization is vital to community stability and fairness in the justice system.

Trump Plan to Ax Legal Aid a Conservative Aim That Targets Poor

In a piece I wrote for Forbes last week, I discuss how the IRS has quietly released the underlying codebase for its Direct File program on GitHub, marking a rare moment of transparency in government software. At the center of this release is something called the “Fact Graph,” a logic engine that models tax rules as interrelated facts rather than a linear checklist. Built using XML and Scala, the Fact Graph interprets ambiguous tax data, identifies contradictions or omissions, and suggests paths forward, all in a transparent, declarative format.

What sets this apart is that, unlike proprietary tax software, Direct File’s logic isn’t hidden—it’s open, reviewable, and potentially improvable by anyone. This move not only demystifies some of the inner workings of tax enforcement but also sets a precedent: if algorithms are mediating our legal obligations, we should be able to see and understand the rules they follow.

The release is particularly striking in an era of eroding public trust in institutions and increasing reliance on automated decision-making. While Direct File itself remains limited in scope and its future uncertain, the open-sourcing of its logic engine may have laid the groundwork for broader change. Other agencies—from state tax departments to those experimenting with AI-driven policy enforcement—could adopt similar transparency, allowing the public to engage with and even help refine the systems that govern them.

Peeking Behind The Code—IRS Just Open-Sourced Direct File

This week’s closing theme is by Robert Schumann and comes courtesy of Christopher Zbinden. 

This week’s closing theme is Robert Schumann’s Toccata in C major, Op. 7, a dazzling showcase of Romantic-era pianism and one of the most technically demanding works in the standard repertoire. Composed in 1830 and revised in 1833, the piece earned a reputation early on as a pianist’s Everest—Franz Liszt himself dubbed it “the hardest piece ever written.” Clocking in at just over five minutes when played at tempo, it’s a relentless whirlwind of perpetual motion, requiring both physical stamina and interpretive precision.

The toccata form, traditionally a virtuosic keyboard piece emphasizing dexterity, becomes in Schumann’s hands something more cerebral. Beneath its bravura surface lies a structure built on two contrasting themes, developed with intricate counterpoint and rhythmic displacement. The left hand must execute rapid repeated notes and wide leaps with precision, while the right weaves through syncopated figures and chromatic runs, creating a dense musical texture.

Schumann dedicated the piece to his friend Ludwig Schuncke, who had recently died at the age of 23. That personal connection adds an emotional layer to a work that might otherwise be heard as pure technical spectacle. Unlike many showpieces of the era, Schumann’s Toccata isn’t just difficult for difficulty’s sake—it’s an expression of obsession, energy, and youthful ambition.

For a composer better known for lyrical piano miniatures, the Toccata is an early signal of the depth and range Schumann would explore in later works. As this week closes, it offers a fitting sendoff: intricate, driven, and a little manic—in the best Romantic sense of the word.

Without further ado, Robert Schumann’s Toccata in C major, Op. 7 – enjoy!