This Day in Legal History: 25th Amendment to the US Constitution 

On February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, establishing clear procedures for presidential succession and addressing concerns about vacancies in the executive branch. The amendment was a response to historical ambiguities in presidential succession, particularly after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Prior to its ratification, the Constitution provided little guidance on what to do if a president became incapacitated. The amendment formally allowed the vice president to assume the presidency if the president died, resigned, or was removed from office. It also established a process for filling a vacant vice presidency, a critical change since several vice presidents had died or resigned without a designated replacement mechanism. 

Additionally, it provided a procedure for a president to temporarily transfer power to the vice president, such as in cases of medical procedures. The amendment’s fourth section allowed for the removal of a president deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office, though this provision has never been invoked. The first use of the amendment came in 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, and President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford as his replacement. The amendment was invoked again in 1974 when Nixon resigned, making Ford the first unelected president in U.S. history. Since then, the temporary transfer of power provision has been used several times for medical reasons, including during surgeries for Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, and Biden. The 25th Amendment remains a critical safeguard, ensuring stability and continuity in the executive branch.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from accessing certain Treasury Department data and ordered the destruction of information already obtained. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by 19 Democratic-led states against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, alleging that allowing Musk’s team access to personal financial data violates federal law. 

The judge found the states likely to succeed on the merits and cited risks of data exposure and hacking. The lawsuit argues that the administration implemented the policy without public explanation or a privacy impact assessment, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The order prevents Treasury from granting access to unqualified individuals and mandates background checks for those with clearance. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit filed by unions has also led to a temporary restriction on access to Treasury systems. The White House defended DOGE’s role as a government efficiency initiative, while critics, including Senator Ron Wyden, accused the administration of misleading Congress about the extent of Musk’s involvement. A hearing is set for February 14 to determine whether a longer injunction will be issued.

Musk’s DOGE Blocked From Treasury Data in State AGs Lawsuit (1)

The Justice Department is shifting resources from traditional priorities like counterterrorism and white-collar crime to focus on immigration enforcement under President Trump. Prosecutors are being reassigned to border districts, and the FBI’s joint terrorism task forces have been directed to assist with immigration initiatives. Additionally, US Marshals and DEA agents now have the authority to make immigration arrests. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered investigations into sanctuary jurisdictions and instructed DOJ units to prioritize foreign bribery cases linked to cartels over other white-collar crimes. 

Critics, including congressional Democrats, warn that diverting resources in this way could increase crime and weaken national security. Legal experts argue that pulling experienced prosecutors for immigration cases carries a steep opportunity cost, while counterterrorism specialists say their methods are not suited for handling migration. The move reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to maximize the DOJ’s role in immigration enforcement early in the new term, learning from past efforts to reshape asylum law and border policies.

Border Focus Pulls DOJ Resources From Terrorism, White Collar

A U.S. judge will soon decide whether President Trump’s buyout offer to two million federal workers can proceed. The plan, which offers employees pay through September if they resign now, has been challenged by federal workers' unions, arguing that Congress has not approved funding for it. Overseen by Elon Musk and his newly created Department of Government Efficiency, the initiative is part of Trump’s broader effort to downsize the federal government. 

Democrats and unions have raised concerns over Musk’s growing influence and DOGE’s access to sensitive government data. While 65,000 employees have reportedly accepted the buyout, unions warn that the administration may not honor the deal. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already faced shutdown-like actions, with staff ordered to stop work and the agency temporarily closed. Meanwhile, Trump has hinted at further cuts, including in the Pentagon, as legal challenges continue to mount against his sweeping restructuring efforts.

Judge to review Trump's buyout offer to government workers | Reuters

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been effectively shut down under the leadership of acting chief Russell Vought, who ordered staff to halt all regulatory activities and cut the agency’s funding. The move eliminates federal oversight of financial companies, drawing sharp criticism from consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers. The National Treasury Employees Union sued to block Vought’s actions, arguing they undermine Congress’ authority. Critics also raised concerns about Elon Musk’s involvement, as his Department of Government Efficiency has gained administrative access to CFPB systems, despite Musk’s business interests in the financial sector. Agency employees and unions accuse Musk of trying to take control of his own regulator. Vought also ordered the agency’s headquarters to close for a week and shut down public communications. The shutdown is part of Trump and Musk’s broader effort to restructure the federal government, prompting legal challenges and public protests.

Consumer protection agency neutralized by Trump's new chief | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: 11th Amendment Ratified

On February 7, 1795, the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, restricting federal judicial power over lawsuits against states. The amendment was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s 1793 decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, which held that a private citizen of one state could sue another state in federal court. This ruling alarmed many states, as it threatened their sovereign immunity and exposed them to lawsuits from individuals. 

In reaction, Congress swiftly proposed the 11th Amendment, which was ratified by North Carolina on this day, completing the necessary approvals. The amendment states that federal courts cannot hear cases against a state brought by citizens of another state or a foreign country. This reinforced the principle of state sovereignty and limited the reach of the federal judiciary. The amendment effectively overturned Chisholm and set a precedent for later expansions of state immunity. Over time, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment broadly, extending protections to cases brought by a state’s own citizens as well. The 11th Amendment remains a cornerstone of federalism, shaping the balance of power between states and the national government.

Federal agencies have pulled out of law school recruiting events following President Donald Trump’s executive order freezing hiring across the government. More than a dozen agencies withdrew from NYU’s public interest career fair, and others skipped a similar event hosted by Georgetown and George Washington University. The freeze, which affects federal legal jobs and prestigious honors programs at agencies like the DOJ and IRS, has left many law students scrambling for alternatives. While some large law firms are looking to hire displaced junior lawyers, there are limited openings, especially for first- and second-year students whose summer jobs were canceled. 

Firms like Morgan Lewis, Quinn Emanuel, and Elsberg Baker & Maruri are among those actively considering affected candidates. However, with most Big Law summer associate spots already filled, many students may struggle to secure positions. The freeze, which could last up to 90 days, is part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce through attrition and “efficiency” measures.

Trump Hiring Freeze Has Agencies Ditching Law School Recruiting

For decades, the Justice Department has prided itself on independence, with attorneys expected to uphold the law "without fear or favor," as former Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized. This principle, strengthened after Watergate, has long guided DOJ lawyers in their duty to serve the nation rather than any single president. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s new memo marks a stark departure from that tradition, warning DOJ lawyers against refusing to advance legal arguments they disagree with and referring to them as the president’s lawyers. 

The memo threatens disciplinary action, including termination, for attorneys who decline to sign briefs or appear in court due to personal objections. Critics argue that this undermines legal ethics and pressures attorneys to prioritize loyalty to Trump over their professional responsibilities. Historically, DOJ lawyers who found themselves in ethical conflicts could ask to be reassigned or resign, but Bondi’s directive appears designed to force them into compliance or out of the department entirely. The memo is particularly concerning as Trump’s DOJ aggressively defends controversial executive actions, making it harder for lawyers to voice concerns about weak or legally questionable cases. Legal experts worry that a mass exodus of experienced attorneys could damage the department’s credibility, further eroding trust in the rule of law.

Bondi Raises Independence Concerns with Attorney Advocacy Memo

The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association over its rapid dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The suit, filed in federal court, argues that President Trump’s foreign aid freeze and subsequent orders to halt USAID projects were unconstitutional and have caused a global humanitarian crisis. Since Trump’s executive order on January 20, USAID staff have been laid off or placed on leave, and key aid programs combating malaria, HIV, and global hunger have been suspended. The shutdown, largely overseen by Elon Musk, has left food aid worth $340 million stranded and led to worsening health crises, according to the lawsuit. Critics argue that since Congress created USAID by statute, Trump lacks the legal authority to dismantle it. The lawsuit seeks an emergency court order to restore funding, reopen offices, and prevent further agency cuts.

Trump administration sued by government workers over cuts to USAID | Reuters

Companies are rushing to file merger notifications before a new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule takes effect after 5 p.m. on Friday, significantly expanding reporting requirements for deals over $126.4 million. The rule, introduced under President Biden and set to take effect under President Trump, is expected to triple the workload for companies seeking regulatory clearance. Businesses are scrambling to file under the old rules to avoid higher compliance costs and navigate a familiar system rather than being among the first to test the new requirements. While attorneys don’t see the rush as an attempt to evade scrutiny, some worry that the surge in filings—combined with Trump’s push to shrink the federal workforce—could result in inadequate review of certain deals. The private equity industry has strongly opposed the rule, arguing it places unnecessary burdens on firms, and has filed a lawsuit to block it, though no ruling is expected this week. Some lawmakers are considering legislative action, and attorneys are closely watching for any last-minute delays, though chances of a suspension are diminishing.

Companies wary of new US rule scramble to file mergers by Friday, lawyers say | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.

Gustav Mahler, one of the most influential late-Romantic composers, was known for his expansive symphonies that bridged the worlds of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in 1860, Mahler's music often grappled with deep philosophical and existential themes, blending moments of beauty, nostalgia, and turmoil. His Symphony No. 4, completed in 1900, is one of his most accessible works, offering a lighter, more lyrical approach compared to his more intense symphonies. On February 7, 1904, Mahler himself conducted a performance of this symphony in Berlin, reinforcing its place in the concert repertoire.

The fourth movement, "Das himmlische Leben" (The Heavenly Life), is the symphony’s heart and soul, featuring a soprano voice describing a child's vision of heaven. Unlike the grandeur of Mahler’s other finales, this movement is delicate and dreamlike, with folk-like melodies and a sense of innocence. The lyrics, drawn from the Des Knaben Wunderhorn (The Boy’s Magic Horn) collection, depict a paradise filled with music, dancing, and endless feasting, all with a touch of Mahler’s characteristic irony. The orchestration remains light and transparent, with delicate bells and strings giving the music an ethereal quality.

As this week’s closing theme, "Das himmlische Leben" serves as a gentle farewell, offering a moment of reflection and tranquility. Its serene and almost childlike optimism provides a perfect contrast to the weightier legal discussions, reminding us that even in complex times, beauty and simplicity endure.

Without further ado, Gustav Mahler’s Symphony No. 4, the fourth movement, “Das himmlische Leben” – enjoy. 

This Day in Legal History: Permanent Court of Arbitration Established

On February 6, 1900, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was officially established following the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This marked a major step toward institutionalizing peaceful dispute resolution between nations. The PCA, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, became the first international tribunal designed to arbitrate conflicts between states, offering an alternative to war. 

While not a court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support for arbitral tribunals, helping resolve territorial, trade, and investment disputes. Recognizing the need for improvement, the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes refined its procedures, further solidifying arbitration as a legitimate mechanism for international law. Over the years, the PCA’s role expanded beyond state-to-state disputes to include cases involving international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. 

Today, it operates out of the Peace Palace, home to other key legal institutions like the International Court of Justice. With 109 member states, the PCA continues to handle complex cases, from border conflicts to environmental agreements. Its existence laid the groundwork for later international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court and various UN tribunals. By promoting arbitration over conflict, the PCA has helped shape a more structured and rule-based international legal order.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a major shift in the Justice Department’s white-collar enforcement priorities, scaling back efforts in foreign lobbying transparency and foreign bribery cases. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit will now focus on bribery cases tied to transnational crime, such as those facilitating human smuggling, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. Other FCPA investigations with no such connection will be deprioritized.

Similarly, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enforcement will be limited to cases resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section will focus more on civil enforcement and regulatory guidance rather than aggressive criminal prosecutions. These changes mark a significant pullback from the increased enforcement seen over the past decade, particularly under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division’s corporate enforcement unit, an initiative championed by Biden-era Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It’s unclear if the division will continue prioritizing corporate crime linked to adversarial nations like China and Iran. These policy shifts were part of a broader series of announcements as Bondi took charge as the nation's top law enforcement official following her confirmation on Tuesday night.

Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement (1)

Google is ending its diversity-based hiring targets and reviewing its broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, aligning with a broader corporate trend of scaling back such efforts. The company previously set a goal in 2020 to increase leadership representation from underrepresented groups by 30% by 2025, but Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that Google would no longer pursue aspirational hiring goals.

This shift follows years of public DEI commitments, especially after the 2020 protests over police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans. Google had also begun evaluating executives on diversity metrics, but recent SEC filings show it removed language reaffirming its DEI commitments.

The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) criticized the move, calling it part of a broader anti-worker trend in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Google cited legal considerations as a federal contractor, stating it is reviewing compliance with court decisions and executive orders affecting DEI policies.

Google will maintain internal employee groups such as “Black Googler Network” and “Trans at Google.” The company’s decision follows similar DEI cutbacks at Meta and Amazon, amid increasing conservative pushback and legal challenges after the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling.

Google scraps diversity-based hiring targets | Reuters

More than 40,000 federal employees have signed up for the Trump administration’s buyout offer, which promises pay through September if they resign by the end of February. This represents about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, with officials expecting a surge in applications before the Thursday deadline.

The initiative is part of President Trump’s second-term effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency. The White House initially projected that 5% to 10% of federal workers might accept the offer.

Federal employee unions oppose the plan, questioning its legality and enforceability. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has warned workers that job cuts are likely, with agency restructurings and layoffs expected. However, key employees in defense, immigration, law enforcement, and postal services are exempt from the deal.

With nearly 298,000 federal employees eligible for retirement in the next two years, the administration’s strategy could significantly reshape the workforce. Union leaders, like Everett Kelley of the American Federation of Government Employees, have urged workers to reject the offer, calling it misleading and driven by unelected billionaires.

Musk ‘Buyout’ Taken by 40,000 Federal Workers as Deadline Nears - Bloomberg

On her first day as U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi issued a directive stating that Justice Department lawyers who refuse to advance legal arguments on behalf of the Trump administration could face termination. The memo warns that attorneys who decline to sign briefs, delay cases, or impede the department’s mission may be disciplined or fired.

The move is part of a broader effort by Trump appointees to assert control over the Justice Department, which has already seen firings and reassignments of career lawyers. Bondi also announced a review of criminal and civil cases brought against Trump and his supporters, including prosecutions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. This "Weaponization Working Group" will scrutinize cases Republicans claim were politically motivated under the Biden administration.

Additionally, Bondi scaled back enforcement of foreign influence laws, stating that criminal cases will only be pursued in instances resembling “traditional espionage”, shifting the focus to civil enforcement. These laws, which require individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register as foreign agents, were previously used to prosecute several Trump associates.

Bondi’s directive reflects Trump allies’ long-standing complaints that career DOJ attorneys obstructed his policies, such as resisting lawsuits against Yale’s admissions practices and refusing to defend the 2017 travel ban. The memo asserts that DOJ lawyers cannot substitute their personal views for the administration’s legal agenda.

Trump's attorney general says lawyers who refuse orders could be fired | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Switch in Time that Saved Nine

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that became known as the “court-packing” plan. Frustrated by the Court striking down key New Deal programs, Roosevelt sought to add up to six new justices, arguing it would make the Court more efficient. His plan allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire. Critics saw this as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and tilt the Court in Roosevelt’s favor. The proposal faced strong bipartisan opposition, including from members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party.

While the plan ultimately failed in the Senate, the political pressure had an effect. Soon after, the Court began ruling in favor of New Deal legislation, a shift sometimes called “the switch in time that saved nine.” This shift preserved Roosevelt’s policies without requiring changes to the Court’s structure. By the early 1940s, Roosevelt had the chance to appoint multiple justices as vacancies naturally occurred. The controversy reinforced the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It also set a precedent that court expansion efforts would be met with significant resistance.

The court-packing episode remains relevant in modern debates over judicial reform. It serves as a historical lesson on the limits of presidential power and the resilience of the judiciary. Roosevelt, despite his immense political influence, could not force structural changes to the Supreme Court. The episode highlights the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches, ensuring no single branch dominates the government.

Pam Bondi was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General in a 54-46 Senate vote, positioning her to lead the Justice Department amid significant shifts under the Trump administration. Bondi, a longtime Trump ally, takes over as the department faces internal upheaval, with interim leadership forcing out officials involved in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. She has pledged to restore what she calls an "equal, fair system of justice" and to end the "partisan weaponization" of the DOJ.  

Since Trump took office, the DOJ has realigned its priorities, focusing on immigration enforcement while reducing emphasis on other areas. One of Trump’s first executive orders directed the agency to address alleged "weaponization" of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Bondi supports this effort, vowing to enforce the law vigorously while backing the administration’s policy shifts.  

Her tenure is expected to bring further changes, including tensions between the DOJ and the FBI. Recently, the FBI was asked to provide names of employees involved in January 6 investigations, prompting lawsuits from agents concerned about retaliation. Critics warn that the administration’s moves risk politicizing the DOJ and eroding institutional knowledge as career officials depart.

Bondi Confirmed as Trump’s Attorney General to Lead DOJ Shake-Up - Bloomberg

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is suing the Trump administration to stop its voluntary resignation program, "Fork in the Road," arguing it violates federal law. The program allows federal employees who resign by February 6 to continue receiving pay and benefits through September 30, but requires them to waive their right to sue their employer. The union claims this promise is illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from committing funds before Congress approves them.  

Congress has only authorized funding for most agencies through March 14, meaning agencies cannot guarantee salaries beyond that date. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is the latest challenge to efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reduce the federal workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) argues that the resignation offer is legal because it does not provide “additional compensation.”  

AFGE has received thousands of complaints from employees, saying the program forces staff to work extra hours while raising concerns about whether the government will honor its commitments. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

Federal Worker Union Sues to Stop Trump's Resignation Offer (1)

Farmers in Curry County, New Mexico, are at a critical juncture in their fight against PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base, with a key court hearing set for February 7. Art and Renee Schaap, once owners of a thriving dairy farm, were forced to slaughter their entire herd after discovering dangerously high levels of PFAS in their water supply. The chemicals, linked to firefighting foam used by the military, rendered their milk unsellable and their land contaminated.  

A legal battle over the government’s responsibility is unfolding, with the Schaaps’ case becoming a test for broader national litigation. The Pentagon has requested dismissal of all claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that its use of PFAS-containing foam was discretionary and therefore not subject to lawsuits. The government is also resisting cleanup demands under Superfund laws, which could delay remediation efforts.  

If the court allows lawsuits to proceed, affected farmers and businesses may finally receive compensation and quicker environmental cleanup. Meanwhile, concerns over PFAS exposure continue to grow, with nearby cheese processors and residents installing costly water filtration systems to protect against contamination. The Air Force has begun cleanup efforts, including a planned $73 million water treatment facility, but obstacles remain, including regulatory changes and the lack of proven PFAS destruction technologies.  

For now, the Schaaps and other local farmers face uncertainty, with their land value in question and their future livelihoods at risk. The case’s outcome could determine whether the military is held accountable for widespread PFAS contamination affecting communities nationwide.

Farmers Ruined by PFAS Face Key Moment in Fight Against

Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on tips may seem like a win for hospitality workers, but it risks deepening wage inequities and further entrenching the service industry’s reliance on gratuities. While tipped workers might see short-term benefits, the policy would leave out millions of low-wage workers in non-tipped sectors, such as retail or manufacturing, exacerbating disparities. It could also push more workers into precarious, tip-dependent jobs rather than stable, salaried positions.

By making tips tax-free, employers may feel even less incentive to raise wages, worsening income instability for workers who already rely on inconsistent gratuities. The plan also ignores existing discrimination in tipping, which could become even more entrenched in an unregulated tip-based economy. Instead of piecemeal solutions that favor certain workers over others, policymakers should focus on raising the federal minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage exemption.

The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 per hour since 1991, despite inflation reducing its value over time. Phasing it out and aligning it with the federal minimum wage would offer workers more stability, ensuring they earn a livable income independent of customer generosity. A broader increase in the minimum wage is also necessary, as the current $7.25 rate, set in 2009, has failed to keep pace with inflation.

While tax-free tips may sound appealing, they don’t address the root causes of wage insecurity. True reform would prioritize fair pay for all low-wage workers, creating stability and reducing financial precarity across industries.

Trump’s Tax-Free Tips Proposal May Sound Good But Is a Risky Bet

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Unanimously Elected

On February 4, 1789, George Washington was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States by the Electoral College, setting a precedent for democratic governance under the newly ratified Constitution. His election marked the formal beginning of the executive branch, shaping the legal and political framework of the young nation. On the same date in 1801, John Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States. Marshall’s tenure, spanning 34 years, would profoundly influence American law, particularly through landmark decisions like Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. His leadership solidified the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government. Decades later, on February 4, 1945, the Yalta Conference began, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin meeting to discuss Europe’s post-World War II reorganization. The conference had lasting legal implications, shaping international law, the formation of the United Nations, and the division of Germany. More recently, on this day in 1997, a civil jury found O.J. Simpson liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a stark contrast to his earlier criminal trial acquittal. This verdict highlighted the differing burdens of proof in civil versus criminal law. Each of these events reflects the evolving nature of law and governance, from the founding of the presidency to the expansion of judicial power and international legal agreements.

President Donald Trump has announced plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as part of his strategy to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The law, originally passed during rising tensions with France, gives the president broad authority to detain, deport, or impose restrictions on foreign nationals deemed a threat during wartime. It can be activated when the U.S. is at war or facing an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign government. Trump has directed his administration to assess whether drug cartels operating in the U.S. qualify as an invasion, which could serve as the legal basis for invoking the act.

Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has been used in wartime, including during the War of 1812 and both World Wars. President Woodrow Wilson imposed restrictions on foreign nationals, and President Franklin Roosevelt used the law to justify the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court has upheld the law’s constitutionality, even allowing deportations after wartime, as seen in the 1948 case of a former Nazi, Kurt Ludecke. However, courts have been reluctant to define “invasion” broadly, previously ruling that large numbers of migrants crossing the border do not meet the founders' definition of an armed threat.

Democratic lawmakers have recently pushed to repeal the act, citing its historical use in violating civil rights. If Trump proceeds with his plan, legal challenges will likely arise over whether cartel activity constitutes an invasion and whether the law can be used outside of traditional wartime contexts.

What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 that Trump wants to use in deportations? | Reuters

A Trump-appointed federal prosecutor, Edward Martin, has warned that anyone obstructing Elon Musk’s government efficiency initiative could face criminal charges. In a letter posted on X, Martin assured Musk that his office would take legal action against anyone threatening or hindering the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk responded with a public thank-you.

The warning follows reports that career government officials tried to block DOGE employees from accessing sensitive information. At the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), two top security officials were removed after preventing DOGE representatives from entering secure areas. Similarly, a Treasury Department official reportedly resisted efforts by DOGE to access financial systems.

Martin revealed that his office had been working with DOGE but did not provide specifics. He also encouraged Musk to report any “questionable conduct” for potential legal action. The Trump administration has been expanding its control over the Justice Department, recently launching an investigation into a sheriff’s office for releasing an undocumented immigrant in defiance of federal orders. Martin, who previously dropped all Jan. 6-related cases, has been outspoken in support of Trump, a departure from the typical neutrality of U.S. attorneys.

US prosecutor warns of legal risk for anyone hindering Musk's efficiency effort | Reuters

Lawyers representing plaintiffs in a $2.8 billion antitrust settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield have asked a federal judge in Alabama to approve over $754 million in legal fees and expenses. The legal team, led by Joe Whatley and Edith Kallas, is requesting $657.1 million in fees—equal to 23.47% of the settlement fund—along with at least $97 million in expenses. They argue this percentage is consistent with a similar $2.7 billion Blue Cross settlement in 2020, which awarded lawyers a comparable fee.

The case, which has been in litigation for over a decade, accuses Blue Cross of dividing the country into exclusive territories to avoid competition, which allegedly drove up insurance costs and lowered reimbursements. Blue Cross has denied any wrongdoing. The lawyers claim they have worked 373,000 hours and spent $100 million on expert witnesses and other expenses.

A previous $2.7 billion settlement involving Blue Cross, which addressed overcharging claims, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year and resulted in $667 million in legal fees. The current settlement agreement permits lawyers to request up to 25% of the total fund for legal fees, leaving the judge to decide whether the request is reasonable.

Lawyers seek $754 million in new Blue Cross antitrust settlement | Reuters

A U.S. judge has extended a pause on the Trump administration’s plan to freeze federal loans, grants, and financial aid after advocacy groups challenged the policy in court. Judge Loren AliKhan warned that cutting off funding would be "catastrophic" for organizations serving the public interest. The extension follows an earlier short-term pause, which was set to expire Monday.

The funding freeze originated from a White House budget office memo directing agencies to halt funding in line with Trump’s executive orders on immigration, climate change, and diversity. The memo was later withdrawn, but some grant recipients reported ongoing difficulties accessing funds.

A Rhode Island judge issued a separate restraining order last week in response to a lawsuit from 22 Democratic attorneys general and Washington, D.C. Despite these rulings, a Trump administration lawyer argued that the president has the right to direct agencies under his executive authority. The legal battle over whether the funding freeze can move forward remains unresolved.

US judge extends pause on Trump's plan to freeze federal grants, loans | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Chief Justice Taft Resigns

On February 3, 1930, Chief Justice William Howard Taft resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court due to declining health. Taft remains the only person in American history to have served both as President (1909–1913) and as Chief Justice (1921–1930). After his presidency, he achieved what he considered his true ambition—leading the nation’s highest court. As Chief Justice, he was instrumental in modernizing the federal judiciary, including advocating for the construction of the Supreme Court’s own building, which was completed after his death. His tenure also saw decisions that reinforced executive power and judicial efficiency. By late 1929, however, his health had deteriorated significantly due to heart disease and progressive neurological issues. Struggling to fulfill his duties, he reluctantly stepped down, fearing he could no longer serve effectively. Just five weeks later, on March 8, 1930, he passed away. His successor, Charles Evans Hughes, was nominated by President Herbert Hoover. Taft’s dual legacy as both a U.S. President and Chief Justice remains unmatched in American history.

Elon Musk claimed his "DOGE team," tasked with government efficiency, is shutting down certain payments to federal contractors, raising concerns about his access to U.S. Treasury systems. Musk stated that his team is eliminating corruption in real time, including halting payments to Lutheran Family Services, a charity supporting refugees. The Treasury Department has not confirmed Musk’s level of access, but Senator Ron Wyden suggested Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent granted DOGE full control over federal payments. 

Musk's influence follows his appointment by Donald Trump to modernize federal IT, though he appears to be extending that role to financial oversight. USAID security officials were placed on leave after refusing DOGE staff access, prompting Musk to call the agency “a criminal organization.” His claims about widespread fraud in federal payments remain unverified, as Treasury already has systems in place to prevent improper transactions. Meanwhile, Treasury’s top career official, David Lebryk, recently left his post, further intensifying scrutiny. Trump praised Musk’s cost-cutting efforts but acknowledged potential disagreements on policy direction.

Musk Says DOGE Is Halting Treasury Payments to US Contractors - Bloomberg

A new conservative law firm, Lex Politica, has been launched by Chris Gober, a lawyer for Elon Musk’s America PAC, along with attorneys Steve Roberts and Jessica Furst Johnson. The firm aims to represent Republican candidates, campaigns, and causes, strengthening ties between conservative legal professionals and Trump-aligned politicians. 

Gober, who previously served as America PAC’s treasurer, stated he wants Lex Politica to become synonymous with the conservative movement. Roberts and Johnson bring experience representing figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senator Rick Scott, and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. The firm joins a growing network of right-leaning law groups, such as Dhillon Law Group and Schaerr Jaffe, which have close ties to Trump and Musk. These firms have been involved in significant legal battles, including free speech cases on Musk’s platform, X, and efforts to reshape the federal government’s legal structure. Neither Musk nor representatives for key Republican clients commented on the firm’s launch.

Lawyers for Musk, Republican campaigns form new Washington firm | Reuters

Google is appealing a jury verdict and court order that found it illegally stifled competition in its Play Store. The case, brought by Fortnite maker Epic Games in 2020, accused Google of monopolizing app distribution and in-app payments on Android devices. A jury ruled in Epic’s favor in 2023, and U.S. District Judge James Donato ordered Google to allow rival app stores within its Play Store and make its app catalog available to competitors. Google argues the ruling was flawed, claiming it competes with Apple’s App Store and that the judge improperly expanded the order to impact all developers, not just Epic. Epic insists Google engaged in years of anti-competitive behavior and is fighting to uphold the jury's decision. Microsoft, the U.S. Justice Department, and the FTC have backed Epic in the case. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on Monday, with a decision expected later this year, which could potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Google to ask US appeals court to overturn app store verdict | Reuters

McDonald’s has agreed to revise its HACER National Scholarships Program by removing race and ethnicity as eligibility criteria to settle a lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a group led by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum. The lawsuit argued that restricting eligibility to students with at least one Hispanic or Latino parent discriminated against other ethnic groups. McDonald’s denied wrongdoing but decided that modifying the program was the best course of action. Moving forward, applicants will need to demonstrate their contributions to the Hispanic and Latino community rather than meet racial or ethnic requirements. The settlement comes as McDonald’s and other companies scale back diversity initiatives following legal challenges and political pressure. In January, McDonald’s also abandoned diversity goals for corporate leadership, citing shifting legal standards, including the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that struck down race-based college admissions policies. Blum criticized the scholarship’s previous criteria, arguing that many students were unfairly excluded.

McDonald's settles lawsuit challenging Latino scholarship program | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: 13th Amendment Passed

On January 31, 1865, the U.S. Congress passed the 13th Amendment, formally abolishing slavery in the United States. The 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." While President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had freed enslaved people in Confederate-held territories two years earlier, it lacked the permanence of a constitutional amendment. 

The House of Representatives passed the measure by a vote of 119 to 56, narrowly reaching the required two-thirds majority after intense political maneuvering. The Senate had already approved it in April 1864. Ratification by the states followed, culminating in its adoption on December 6, 1865. The amendment marked a legal end to slavery, but systemic racial discrimination persisted through Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and other restrictive measures. Despite this, the 13th Amendment laid the foundation for future civil rights advancements. Its passage was a key victory for abolitionists and a defining moment of the Civil War’s aftermath. The amendment’s "punishment for crime" clause later became a subject of controversy, as it allowed convict leasing and forced labor in prisons, disproportionately affecting Black Americans. Even today, debates continue over its implications for the U.S. prison system.

Fox Rothschild LLP has blocked its lawyers from using DeepSeek, a Chinese AI startup, due to concerns about client data security. While the firm allows AI tools like ChatGPT with restrictions, DeepSeek's data storage in China raises unique risks, according to Mark G. McCreary, the firm’s chief AI and information security officer. A recent data breach involving DeepSeek further heightened security concerns. Other major law firms, including Wilson Sonsini and Polsinelli, are also implementing strict vetting processes for new AI models. Wilson Sonsini requires its chief information security officer and general counsel to approve AI tools before use, while Polsinelli enforces firm-wide restrictions on unapproved AI software. Law firms are also monitoring AI use by third-party vendors to ensure compliance with security protocols. McCreary emphasized that established legal tech companies prioritize data protection, reducing the risk of firms switching to less secure AI models.

Fox Rothschild Blocks DeepSeek's AI Model for Attorney Use

A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. government's ban on licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under 21 is unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun laws to align with historical firearm regulations. The federal ban, enacted in 1968, was challenged by young adults and gun rights groups, who argued it violated the Second Amendment. Judge Edith Jones, writing for the court, found insufficient historical evidence to justify restricting gun sales for 18-to-20-year-olds. The ruling marks a major shift in gun policy, aligning with broader legal trends expanding Second Amendment protections. The Justice Department, which defended the ban under the Biden administration, has not yet commented on the decision. Gun rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory against age-based firearm restrictions.

US ban on gun sales to adults under age 21 is unconstitutional, court rules | Reuters

In a piece for Techdirt, Karl Bode critiques the Trump FCC’s decision to roll back efforts to curb exclusive broadband deals between landlords and internet providers. The Biden FCC had attempted to update outdated rules that allowed ISPs to form monopolies within apartment buildings, driving up prices and reducing competition. However, due to delays caused by industry opposition and the failed nomination of reformer Gigi Sohn, key proposals—including a ban on bulk billing—were left unapproved. When Brendan Carr took over as FCC chair under Trump, he quickly scrapped these pending consumer protections. Bode argues that U.S. telecom policy is stuck in a cycle where Democrats make half-hearted attempts at reform, only for Republicans to dismantle them entirely under the guise of deregulation. The result is a landscape where telecom giants and landlords continue to collude, leaving consumers with fewer choices, higher costs, and poor service.

The Trump FCC Makes It Easier For Your Landlord And Your ISP To Collude To Rip You Off | Techdirt

Bally’s Chicago casino project is facing a legal challenge over its commitment to reserving 25% of its investment opportunities for women and people of color. Conservative activist Edward Blum, known for spearheading lawsuits against affirmative action, filed the suit on behalf of two white men who claim they were unfairly excluded from investing. The lawsuit argues that the policy violates federal civil rights law and should be open to all investors regardless of race. This case is part of a broader push against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which gained momentum after a recent executive order from President Trump eliminating DEI programs in the federal government. Bally’s maintains that its agreement with the city complies with legal requirements. The lawsuit references an 1866 civil rights law originally meant to protect Black Americans' economic rights and is similar to other cases challenging race-conscious corporate policies. Blum’s organization has previously led legal battles against diversity-focused scholarships, grants, and hiring programs, including the Supreme Court case that struck down race-based college admissions in 2023.

America’s Battle Over DEI Strikes a Chicago Casino’s Financing Plan

This week’s closing theme is by Franz Schubert.

Franz Schubert, one of the most beloved composers of the early Romantic era, was born on this day in 1797 in Vienna, Austria. Though he lived only 31 years, his vast output of music—ranging from symphonies and chamber works to piano music and over 600 songs—continues to inspire musicians and audiences alike. Schubert's music is often characterized by its lyricism, rich harmonies, and deep emotional expression, seamlessly bridging the clarity of the Classical era with the passion of Romanticism.

Despite his immense talent, Schubert struggled with financial stability and never achieved widespread fame during his lifetime. He spent much of his career composing in relative obscurity, supported by a close-knit circle of friends and fellow artists. His songs, or lieder, are especially celebrated for their ability to capture both the beauty and melancholy of the human experience, with works like Erlkönig and Winterreise standing as some of the greatest achievements in the genre.

His instrumental music, however, remained underappreciated until long after his death. Today, his symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas are recognized as masterpieces, filled with lyrical beauty and striking contrasts. Among his later works, the Piano Sonata No. 20 in A major, D. 959 showcases his mature style, blending elegance with deep introspection. The final movement, Rondo: Allegretto, serves as this week's closing theme, capturing both Schubert's charm and his poignant sense of longing.

Though he died in 1828, just a year after Beethoven, Schubert’s influence only grew in the decades that followed. Composers like Schumann, Brahms, and even Mahler admired his work, helping to cement his legacy as one of music’s great geniuses. Today, on the anniversary of his birth, we celebrate the life and music of a composer who, despite facing struggles and setbacks, left behind an extraordinary body of work that continues to resonate across centuries.

Without further ado, Franz Schubert’s Piano Sonata No. 20 in A major, D. 959. 

This Day in Legal History: Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution

On January 30, several U.S. states recognize Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution, honoring the Japanese American civil rights activist who fought against the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Korematsu was arrested in 1942 for refusing to comply with Executive Order 9066, which mandated the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans in internment camps. His legal challenge led to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the internment as a wartime necessity. Decades later, in 1983, new evidence revealed that the U.S. government had withheld critical information from the Court, and Korematsu's conviction was overturned in a federal court ruling. Although the Supreme Court's original decision was never formally overturned, it has been widely condemned and was explicitly discredited in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).

Korematsu spent the rest of his life advocating for civil rights, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. His legacy serves as a reminder of the dangers of racial discrimination and unchecked government power. California was the first state to recognize Fred Korematsu Day in 2010, with other states following in later years. The day is used to promote awareness of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and the impact of past injustices. Schools, libraries, and civic organizations hold educational programs to highlight the importance of vigilance against government overreach. The Korematsu Institute continues his work by advocating for civil rights education. His story is a crucial part of American legal history, reminding the nation that constitutional rights must be protected for all.

Former EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, fired by Donald Trump, has retained high-profile attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz to explore legal options. No president has previously fired an EEOC commissioner, and Trump's actions also removed another Democratic member, Jocelyn Samuels, leaving the agency without a quorum. Samuels and Burrows claim they were dismissed due to their views on sex discrimination and diversity initiatives, which Trump opposes. Banks and Katz, known for representing Christine Blasey Ford in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, have criticized the firings as a political attack. Their firm is also consulting with other government officials dismissed by Trump. The EEOC terminations coincide with broader efforts by Trump to reshape federal agencies, including purging officials from the National Labor Relations Board. Samuels, like Burrows, is considering legal action, but specific claims have not yet been disclosed.

EEOC commissioner fired by Trump hires Kavanaugh accuser's lawyers | Reuters

The Trump administration reversed its decision to freeze hundreds of billions in federal aid after facing legal challenges and bipartisan opposition. The White House had initially paused grant and loan payments, citing a need to review spending on programs Trump opposes, such as diversity initiatives and green energy. However, as lawsuits progressed, officials rescinded the order, likely to avoid a court ruling against them. A federal judge in Rhode Island still held a hearing on the case, indicating concerns over the freeze’s impact. Despite the reversal, Trump vowed to continue cutting funding for initiatives he disapproves of.  

The failed freeze was part of broader efforts by Trump to reshape the government, including removing security protections for a former military official and preparing Guantanamo Bay for detained migrants. His administration also revoked diversity programs in the military and pushed through controversial cabinet appointments, including a defense secretary accused of misconduct. While some Republicans defended the spending freeze as a fiscal responsibility measure, bipartisan lawmakers criticized the confusion and harm it caused. Payments for medical services resumed, but housing assistance remained disrupted. Congress members overseeing federal budgets welcomed the reversal, calling the freeze overreaching and chaotic.

White House revokes spending freeze in the face of legal challenges | Reuters

Trump’s firing of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox is expected to spark a major legal battle over the president’s authority to remove independent agency officials. Federal labor law permits removal of NLRB members only for neglect or malfeasance, and legal scholars widely agree that Trump’s move violates existing precedent. The administration is likely using the case as a test to challenge the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld limits on presidential removal powers for multi-member commissions.

Trump’s legal justification relies on the Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), arguing that NLRB members do not qualify for exceptions to presidential removal power. However, experts argue that Seila Law was meant to carve out, not overturn, Humphrey’s Executor. The Supreme Court has recently expanded presidential removal authority, as seen in Collins v. Yellen (2021) concerning the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). It has also struck down dual-layer removal protections, as in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.

Wilcox has vowed legal action, and her removal could also be challenged by unions affected by the NLRB’s lack of a quorum. If courts adhere to Humphrey’s Executor, Trump’s action may be overturned. However, if the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could provide an opportunity to further weaken constraints on presidential control over independent agencies.

Trump's Labor Board Firing Sets Up Agency Independence Test Case

This Day in Legal History: Sweden Bans Aerosols

On January 29, 1978, Sweden made history by becoming the first nation to ban aerosol sprays, citing concerns over their harmful impact on the ozone layer. The decision was driven by mounting scientific evidence that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly used as propellants in aerosol cans, contributed to ozone depletion. At the time, international awareness of environmental issues was growing, but regulatory action remained limited. Sweden’s bold move set a precedent, signaling to the world that legislative measures were necessary to curb environmental harm.  

The ban came in response to research published in the early 1970s, particularly studies by chemists Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, who identified CFCs as a major threat to the ozone layer. Their findings spurred global discussions about air pollution and climate change, but most governments hesitated to act. Sweden, however, took a proactive stance, prioritizing environmental protection over industry objections. The law prohibited the sale and use of aerosol sprays containing ozone-depleting substances, forcing manufacturers to seek alternative technologies.  

Sweden’s action influenced other nations, including the United States and Canada, which imposed partial restrictions on CFCs in the late 1970s. Over time, growing international pressure led to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a landmark treaty aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting substances worldwide. Today, the ozone layer is gradually recovering, thanks in part to Sweden’s early leadership. The ban underscored the power of legal intervention in addressing global environmental crises and demonstrated how science-driven policy can lead to meaningful change.

Donald Trump’s aggressive efforts to reshape the federal government have thrown agencies into turmoil, with sweeping policy shifts and a push to consolidate control. The administration is offering buyouts to federal employees resistant to returning to in-person work while signaling broader workforce cuts. At the same time, a sudden freeze on federal grants and loans caused widespread confusion, prompting a federal judge to issue a temporary stay. Though the White House insisted individual benefits would not be affected, state and local governments scrambled to assess the potential fallout.  

The spending freeze is part of a broader strategy to challenge congressional control over federal funding, with Trump’s allies arguing for expanded executive power. His administration has also targeted federal employees in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles, inspectors general, and Justice Department officials involved in previous investigations against him. Meanwhile, Trump has revived trade disputes, pardoned January 6 rioters, attempted to end birthright citizenship, and cut foreign aid.  

Democrats, struggling to keep up, have called emergency meetings and press conferences, but Trump’s rapid moves have overwhelmed political opposition. Some Republicans, too, have expressed concern, particularly over the scope of the funding freeze. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits a president’s ability to block congressional spending, but Trump’s team argues that temporary pauses are legally permissible.  

The administration is also targeting federal personnel, with officials compiling lists of employees deemed expendable. Amid these efforts, some initiatives have already faced legal setbacks, such as the birthright citizenship order. Trump has also yet to significantly address key issues like inflation and the war in Ukraine, leaving uncertainty over the administration’s broader policy direction.

Trump Buyouts, Spending Freezes Wreak Havoc Across Government

Former U.S. Senator Bob Menendez is set to be sentenced on Wednesday following his 2024 conviction on bribery and corruption charges. Found guilty on all 16 felony counts, including acting as a foreign agent, Menendez was accused of accepting bribes—such as gold bars, cash, and a luxury car—in exchange for political favors benefiting Egypt and New Jersey businessmen. Federal prosecutors have requested a 15-year prison sentence, arguing that Menendez abused his position to influence military aid, assist Qatar, and interfere in prosecutions.  

Menendez, who served nearly two decades in the Senate, maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal. His defense team is seeking a significantly reduced sentence of around 2 years, citing his age, public service record, and financial ruin. The scandal forced him to resign from the Senate, marking a dramatic downfall for the former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.  

Two businessmen convicted alongside Menendez, Wael Hana and Fred Daibes, will be sentenced later this week, while his wife, Nadine Menendez, faces her own corruption trial in March. The case highlights ongoing concerns about political corruption and foreign influence in U.S. government affairs.

Bob Menendez to be sentenced in gold bar bribery case that ended US Senate career | Reuters

House Democrats Jamie Raskin and Gerald Connolly are demanding answers from the Trump administration regarding the abrupt firings and reassignments of career Justice Department prosecutors. In a letter to Acting Attorney General James McHenry, they expressed concern that the removals, which began immediately after Trump’s inauguration, undermine a merit-based system and may violate federal law. The lawmakers are requesting a full list of affected employees and an explanation for the actions.  

Among those dismissed were more than a dozen prosecutors involved in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump’s handling of classified records and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Additionally, over 20 senior officials, including the top public integrity prosecutor and the department’s senior ethics official, were reassigned to a newly formed “sanctuary city” working group. The Public Integrity Section Chief, Corey Amundson, resigned in response.  

Meanwhile, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington has launched an internal review of the felony obstruction charge used in January 6 prosecutions. Raskin and Connolly are also seeking clarity on whether the White House has examined career employees’ political views or social media activity. The Justice Department has yet to comment on these developments, which have intensified concerns about political interference within federal law enforcement.

U.S. House Democrats sound the alarm on firings and reassignments of career DOJ lawyers | Reuters

States are increasingly considering digital advertising taxes to generate revenue, but without coordination, they risk creating a compliance nightmare for businesses. Rhode Island is the latest state to propose such a tax, following Maryland’s model, which has already faced significant legal and administrative challenges. Other states, including Connecticut, Indiana, and Arkansas, have explored similar measures, with Massachusetts, New York, and Texas also showing interest.  

Rhode Island’s plan, set to take effect in 2026, would impose a 10% tax on digital ad revenue from companies earning over $1 billion globally. This targets major players like Alphabet and Meta, but Maryland’s lower threshold of $100 million suggests future expansions could include smaller businesses. Advocates argue that taxing digital ads could help offset social costs linked to social media companies, further driving state interest in such measures.  

However, an inconsistent state-by-state approach could entrench an oligopoly, favoring large corporations that can handle complex tax requirements while squeezing out smaller competitors. A uniform, collaborative approach—modeled on the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement—could help states maintain sovereignty while ensuring consistency. Standardized definitions, revenue thresholds, and sourcing rules would simplify compliance and reduce litigation risks.  

Maryland’s legal battles highlight the dangers of an uncoordinated approach, making it crucial for states to learn from its experience. While a federal solution could provide uniformity, states are unlikely to cede control over taxation, making a state-driven compact the more viable option. By working together, states can create a sustainable, efficient digital ad tax framework that avoids the pitfalls of a fragmented system.

States Need a Uniform Solution to Accelerate Digital Ad Taxes

This Day in Legal History: Harlan F. Stone Appears Before Senate Judiciary Committee

On January 28, 1925, Harlan Fiske Stone became the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This marked a significant turning point in the judicial confirmation process, as prior nominees were not required to appear in person. Stone, a former Attorney General and respected legal scholar, was nominated by President Calvin Coolidge to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The decision to have him testify was unprecedented and came in response to concerns raised about his political independence and potential ties to Wall Street interests.  

During his appearance, Stone assured the committee of his commitment to judicial impartiality and independence. He addressed questions about his legal philosophy, his past work, and the role of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution. His calm demeanor and straightforward responses helped to dispel doubts and earned him bipartisan support. The hearing was also held publicly, setting a new standard of transparency in the confirmation process.  

Stone’s testimony contributed to his swift confirmation as an Associate Justice by the Senate, where he served with distinction. Later, in 1941, he became the Chief Justice of the United States, further cementing his legacy as one of the nation’s most respected jurists. This event set a precedent that has since become a critical part of the Supreme Court nomination process, allowing the Senate and the public to scrutinize nominees more thoroughly.  

The decision to include nominee testimony is seen as a key development in ensuring accountability and public trust in the judiciary. Stone’s appearance before the committee reflected a shift toward greater transparency in government, a principle that continues to shape the confirmation process today.

A transgender inmate, identified as "Maria Moe," has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order mandating federal recognition of only two unchangeable biological sexes. The order requires transgender women to be housed in men’s prisons and ends funding for gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated individuals. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, argues that the order violates the Fifth Amendment's due process clause by discriminating based on sex and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It also alleges a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by denying medically necessary care. 

Following the executive order, Moe was informed of her impending transfer from a women’s prison to a men’s facility, and her official prison records were altered to reflect a male designation. The lawsuit claims that such a transfer would expose Moe to heightened risks of violence and sexual assault. Additionally, Moe’s access to hormone therapy, which she has used since adolescence to treat gender dysphoria, is at risk of being discontinued. Moe’s legal team is seeking to block her transfer, maintain her medical treatment, and have the executive order declared unconstitutional. Both the U.S. Justice Department and Moe’s attorney declined to comment.

Transgender inmate sues over Trump's order curtailing LGBT rights | Reuters

Novo Nordisk has agreed to cap insulin prices as part of a settlement with Minnesota’s attorney general, who accused the company and two other major insulin manufacturers, Eli Lilly and Sanofi, of inflating insulin prices to unaffordable levels. Under the settlement, Novo Nordisk will limit out-of-pocket insulin costs to $35 per monthly prescription for cash-paying patients, regardless of insurance status, and will provide free insulin to low-income Minnesotans earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level (about $128,600 for a family of four). 

This agreement mirrors earlier settlements Minnesota reached with Eli Lilly and Sanofi in 2024. Together, the settlements are expected to cut insulin costs for patients by over 90%. While Novo Nordisk denied any wrongdoing, the settlement will remain in effect for five years pending court approval. Minnesota’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, criticized insulin makers for prioritizing profits over patients' lives, accusing them of artificially inflating list prices while negotiating rebates with pharmacy benefit managers. Insulin is a life-saving drug for individuals with diabetes, particularly type 1. Minnesota’s legal battle began in 2018 under Ellison’s predecessor, Lori Swanson.

Novo Nordisk to cap insulin prices in Minnesota settlement; joins Lilly, Sanofi | Reuters

President Donald Trump’s recent federal hiring freeze has disrupted career plans for thousands of law students seeking government jobs or internships. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the IRS, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have revoked permanent job offers to third-year law students accepted into prestigious honors programs. Additionally, hundreds of summer internships, both paid and volunteer, have been canceled, impacting over 2,000 positions in total. 

The DOJ, the largest legal employer among federal agencies, has rescinded job offers and canceled its summer programs, which typically place around 1,800 students annually. The hiring freeze has also led agencies to withdraw from law school recruiting events and remove job postings. Career services officials warn that these cancellations harm both federal agencies, which lose a critical pipeline of future talent, and students, who miss out on essential work experience often leading to full-time positions or judicial clerkships. Judicial clerkships, funded separately, are unaffected by the freeze. 

Law schools nationwide report significant disruptions, with many students left scrambling for alternative opportunities. Legal professionals and career advisors express concern over the long-term impact on government hiring and students’ career trajectories. The White House has not commented on the issue.

Trump's hiring freeze leaves thousands of law students out in the cold | Reuters