This Day in Legal History: Martial Law Post-Great Chicago Fire

On October 9, 1871, in the immediate aftermath of the Great Chicago Fire, the city’s mayor, Roswell B. Mason, declared a form of martial law by handing control of the city to U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan. Though no formal martial law order was issued, Sheridan exercised sweeping authority over Chicago, including the deployment of troops and armed patrols to maintain order, protect property, and enforce curfews. The fire had devastated the city, destroying thousands of buildings and leaving over 100,000 residents homeless. Amid fears of looting and social collapse, civic leaders turned to the military rather than civil institutions to reestablish control.

This decision represents a critical episode in the uneasy balance between civil liberties and emergency powers. There was no legal precedent or formal legislative act granting the mayor authority to transfer governance to a military figure, raising significant constitutional concerns. The use of military force to police civilians, absent explicit legal authorization, blurred lines between civilian and military jurisdiction. While contemporary accounts often depict Sheridan’s leadership as effective, his presence underscored a mistrust in the city’s own law enforcement and judicial institutions.

No court review or legislative inquiry ever addressed the legality of this transfer of power, setting a troubling precedent for extrajudicial emergency actions. It also reinforced the broader 19th-century trend of informal martial law declarations, especially during moments of urban unrest or disaster. Chicago’s experience in 1871 reflects how crises can be used to justify the suspension of normal legal processes, often without public accountability. This ad hoc militarization of city governance, though temporary, highlighted the fragility of civil authority in moments of panic—and how quickly constitutional norms can be cast aside.

Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The indictment alleges he misled lawmakers in 2020 about authorizing an FBI employee to leak information related to an unspecified investigation—believed to concern Hillary Clinton. The case was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist with no prior prosecutorial experience, recently installed as U.S. attorney after her predecessor was removed for refusing to pursue Trump’s political adversaries.

The charges are seen as politically motivated, coming after Trump publicly pressured the Justice Department to act against Comey and others. Career attorneys reportedly opposed the indictment due to a lack of evidence, and prosecutors from outside the district were brought in to proceed with the case. The move has drawn sharp criticism, including from over 1,000 former DOJ officials across party lines who labeled it an attack on the rule of law.

Trump has long threatened to imprison rivals, but this is the first grand jury indictment against one of them.

Ex-FBI chief Comey pleads not guilty to charges brought under pressure from Trump | Reuters

A Florida man has been arrested for allegedly setting the Pacific Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, a January blaze that killed 12 people, destroyed roughly 6,000 structures, and caused an estimated $150 billion in damage. Federal investigators from the ATF, LAPD, and LAFD concluded the fire was deliberately started near a hiking trail in a state park overlooking the Palisades. The suspect faces three federal charges and will be extradited to California. Because the fire was ruled intentional and led to multiple deaths, prosecutors could pursue life imprisonment or the federal death penalty under President Trump’s 2025 executive order directing harsher penalties for severe crimes.

Man arrested as suspect in setting California’s deadly Palisades Fire, official says | Reuters

President Trump called for the arrest of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, both Democrats, as his administration prepared to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago over their opposition. Neither official faces criminal allegations, but both have criticized Trump’s immigration policies and his use of federal troops in Democratic-led cities. Trump accused them of failing to protect ICE officers after Johnson declared Chicago an “ICE Free Zone.” Pritzker denounced Trump’s remarks as authoritarian. Meanwhile, hundreds of Texas National Guard troops have gathered outside Chicago ahead of deployment, despite state lawsuits seeking to block the move. The president has also threatened to invoke federal powers to override court orders limiting troop deployments, part of a broader pattern of using federal authority against political opponents.

Trump calls for jailing Democratic leaders as troops prepare for Chicago deployment | Reuters

Elon Musk’s X Corp has reached a settlement with four former Twitter executives—including ex-CEO Parag Agrawal—who claimed they were owed $128 million in severance after being fired following Musk’s 2022 takeover. The settlement’s terms were not disclosed, but a federal judge delayed case deadlines to allow finalization. The executives alleged Musk falsely accused them of misconduct to avoid paying severance that included a year’s salary and stock options. The deal follows a separate $500 million settlement with laid-off Twitter employees and is one of several legal disputes stemming from Musk’s acquisition and mass restructuring of the company.

Musk’s X settles ex-Twitter executives’ $128 million severance pay lawsuit | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann Indicted

On October 8, 1934, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was indicted for the murder of 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., the son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The case, often referred to as the “Crime of the Century,” began in March 1932 when the child was kidnapped from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey. Despite a ransom being paid, the boy’s body was found weeks later, less than five miles from the house, sparking a national outcry and a complex investigation.

The break in the case came in 1934 when marked ransom money was traced to Hauptmann, a German carpenter living in the Bronx. A search of his home turned up over $14,000 of the ransom cash, along with tools and wood experts claimed matched the homemade ladder used in the abduction. Though Hauptmann maintained his innocence, insisting the money belonged to a now-deceased friend, the evidence was enough for a grand jury to indict him for kidnapping and murder.

His trial, which began in January 1935, was a media sensation, held in Flemington, New Jersey under intense public scrutiny. The prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, handwriting analysis, and expert testimony regarding the ladder construction. The defense challenged much of the state’s forensic claims, but Hauptmann was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in the electric chair in 1936, despite appeals and ongoing doubts about the strength of the case.

The Hauptmann trial shaped public perceptions of forensic science, media influence, and due process, and contributed to the passage of the Federal Kidnapping Act, also known as the Lindbergh Law, which made kidnapping a federal crime when victims are taken across state lines.

Former FBI Director James Comey is set to appear in federal court this Wednesday on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional investigation. The case, viewed by many as politically motivated, is the first brought by the Trump-aligned Justice Department against one of Trump’s high-profile critics. Comey is accused of lying during a 2020 Senate hearing by denying he authorized FBI employees to anonymously leak information about an unspecified federal investigation, which is believed to be connected to Hillary Clinton.

The charges were filed after Trump installed Lindsey Halligan—a former insurance attorney with no prior prosecutorial experience—as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan reportedly proceeded despite career prosecutors advising against it due to lack of evidence. Two outside prosecutors were assigned to handle the case, suggesting internal pushback.

Comey maintains his innocence and has demanded a trial. Legal observers and over 1,000 former DOJ officials from both parties have condemned the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack on the rule of law. The indictment comes after years of Trump publicly demanding prosecutions of his political enemies, including Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton. Comey was previously fired by Trump while leading the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—an action that led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Ex-FBI chief Comey to face charges brought under pressure from Trump | Reuters

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who previously blocked a Trump administration plan for mass federal layoffs, will now preside over a new lawsuit challenging potential layoffs tied to the ongoing partial government shutdown. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) successfully argued that this new case involves the same legal issues and parties as their earlier suit, warranting Illston’s continued oversight.

The unions argue that laying off federal workers during a shutdown is unlawful and not an “essential government service.” They’re seeking to block such layoffs, warning that allowing the administration to move forward without court intervention could result in conflicting legal rulings if handled by different judges. Illston’s previous ruling in May held that President Trump could not reorganize or downsize federal agencies without congressional approval, but that decision was paused by the Supreme Court in July. In response, the administration scaled back the layoffs after many workers accepted early retirement or buyouts.

In the current case, the unions claim new memos from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully permit agencies to lay off staff during the shutdown. The Trump administration has not yet implemented the threatened firings, but has blamed Democrats for the funding lapse. The White House and DOJ have not commented on the ongoing litigation.

US judge who blocked Trump’s mass firings will hear case over shutdown layoffs | Reuters

In September 2025, during a meeting at the White House, Turkish officials proposed a $100 million settlement to resolve the U.S. criminal case against state-owned Halkbank, sources told Reuters. The settlement offer reportedly included a key condition: Halkbank would not have to admit guilt. The bank is facing serious charges in the U.S., including fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy, for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions by funneling billions through illicit financial channels.

The case, brought in 2019, has long strained U.S.-Turkey relations, which were already damaged after Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems led to U.S. sanctions and its removal from the F-35 fighter jet program. While the Trump-Erdogan meeting signaled warmer diplomatic ties, it’s unclear how U.S. officials responded to the settlement offer, or whether discussions have continued.

On October 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Halkbank’s appeal, allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed. In response, the bank stated it was still pursuing a diplomatic resolution and emphasized ongoing talks aimed at reconciliation between the U.S. and Turkey. Erdogan has publicly denounced the charges and raised the issue during his recent visit with Trump.

Prosecutors allege Halkbank transferred over $20 billion in restricted Iranian funds, disguised transactions through front companies, and fabricated documents to mask oil-for-gold trades as food shipments. Although the floated settlement amount is far lower than previous penalties levied against European banks for similar offenses, legal experts suggest a final deal, if reached, could involve a much larger payment.

Turkey floated $100 million Halkbank settlement idea at White House last month, sources say | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Moves to First Street

On October 7, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court officially began hearing cases in its permanent home on First Street NE in Washington, D.C. For nearly 150 years prior, the Court lacked a dedicated building, conducting business in borrowed or shared spaces—including the U.S. Capitol and even a basement chamber. The move to an independent structure marked a significant moment in the institutional evolution of the federal judiciary. Designed by architect Cass Gilbert in a neoclassical style, the building was conceived as a physical expression of judicial authority, dignity, and permanence. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously served as President, championed the idea, believing the judiciary deserved a stature equal to the executive and legislative branches.

The building’s design was deliberately grand, with symbolic elements such as the phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” engraved above the main entrance. The construction cost approximately $9 million and took four years to complete, funded entirely by Congress. Despite its marble grandeur, some justices were skeptical of the move, including Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who reportedly referred to it as “almost bombastically pretentious.” Still, the relocation marked the start of a new era for the Court—one defined by institutional independence and enhanced public visibility.

The first arguments heard in the new building concerned labor and property rights, underscoring the Court’s increasing role in mediating modern economic tensions. The structure has since been the site of many landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. Over time, the Supreme Court building has become not just a seat of legal authority, but a symbol of the constitutional system itself, anchoring the judiciary firmly within the federal government’s tripartite structure.

Illinois filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago. The legal action follows a similar move by a federal judge in Oregon, who temporarily halted the deployment of troops to Portland. Illinois’ complaint targets the federal government’s decision to activate up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard—against Governor J.B. Pritzker’s objections—and bring in an additional 400 troops from Texas.

The state argues that the deployment is illegal and part of what it calls a broader, politically motivated campaign by Trump against Democratic-led jurisdictions. The White House has not commented on the lawsuit. This marks the latest in a series of military deployments by Trump during his second term, including the use of troops at the southern border and in anti-narcotics operations off Venezuela. National Guard units have also been sent to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and Trump has expressed willingness to send them elsewhere, even without state approval. The Illinois case raises significant constitutional questions about federal authority, state sovereignty, and the domestic use of military forces.

Illinois sues to block Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago | Reuters

The union representing over 13,000 U.S. air traffic controllers has urged its members to remain on duty during the ongoing partial government shutdown, despite being required to work without pay. In a statement on Monday, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) warned that any job action or protest could be considered illegal and result in termination from federal service. The union emphasized the importance of maintaining professionalism and avoiding conduct that could damage their credibility or that of the aviation system.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and NATCA leadership held a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport to address the shutdown’s impact on air travel. Newark, a major hub, is particularly sensitive to staffing disruptions. About 50,000 TSA employees are also working without pay.

The current situation echoes the 2019 shutdown, when increased worker absences slowed air travel and pressured Congress to act. Airline industry groups are warning that flight efficiency could decline if staffing becomes unstable. The FAA is already facing a severe shortage of air traffic controllers—roughly 3,500 short of target—which has led to widespread mandatory overtime. Despite recent congressional approval of $12.5 billion for a five-year system upgrade, the shutdown threatens to further strain an already fragile workforce.

Union urges air traffic controllers to remain on job despite shutdown | Reuters

My column for Bloomberg this week looks at the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Humana MarketPoint, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, a case that underscores a growing shift in how states approach corporate income tax sourcing. The court ruled that tax liability can be based not on where services were performed or contracted, but where they were ultimately “received”—even if indirectly, by a customer’s customer. In this case, Minnesota taxed income from pharmacy benefit services provided to a Wisconsin insurer because individual plan members picked up prescriptions in Minnesota.

I argue this ruling highlights a troubling lack of statutory clarity. The court interpreted Minnesota’s law—which sources services to where they are “received”—as encompassing end users, not just contractual customers. That interpretation hinged on the absence of the word “directly” in the statute. As I see it, courts shouldn’t be in the business of stretching ambiguous language to support expansive tax liability, especially when legislatures haven’t clearly articulated such intent.

What’s most concerning is the unpredictability this creates. If states don’t codify market-based sourcing explicitly, courts may keep filling in gaps case by case, leaving companies unable to forecast where they’re subject to tax. That’s a serious compliance issue for businesses with complex, multi-jurisdictional operations. I argue that if states want to prioritize economic presence over contractual reality, they must write it into law—with clear definitions and limits. Otherwise, taxpayers are left navigating a patchwork of post hoc interpretations that undermine the predictability essential to sound tax policy.

This Day in Legal History: Anita Hill

On October 6, 1991, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, dramatically shifting the course of his confirmation process. Hill, who had previously worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged that Thomas made repeated sexually inappropriate comments during their professional relationship. Her allegations were leaked to the press after the Senate Judiciary Committee had already voted to send Thomas’s nomination to the full Senate. In response, the Committee reopened the hearings, and Hill testified publicly on October 11, describing in detail the behavior she claimed to have experienced. Her testimony was televised nationally, drawing intense media coverage and sparking widespread public debate about sexual harassment, gender dynamics, and power in the workplace.

The hearings were often contentious, with Hill subjected to sharp questioning from senators, many of whom expressed skepticism about her motives. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, famously calling the proceedings a “high-tech lynching” during his own testimony. Despite the controversy, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a 52-48 vote on October 15, one of the closest margins in modern confirmation history. Hill’s testimony, however, had a lasting impact beyond the nomination itself.

The episode galvanized public awareness of workplace sexual harassment and is often credited with sparking a surge in women seeking elected office in 1992, dubbed the “Year of the Woman.” It also led to changes in how such allegations were addressed in professional and legal contexts. The legacy of the hearings continues to influence discussions of gender and accountability in government and law.

The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today with a docket that includes significant cases related to President Donald Trump’s exercise of executive power. Key cases center on Trump’s efforts to impose tariffs and remove certain federal officials—moves that could test the constitutional boundaries between presidential authority and congressional control. The Court has already sided with Trump in several emergency rulings this year, including a June decision that curtailed judges’ ability to block presidential policies nationwide.

In addition to executive power disputes, the justices will take up cases touching on contentious social issues, including the legality of a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, rights of transgender student athletes, gun control, and race-related policies. The Court’s conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump appointees, is expected to play a crucial role in shaping these outcomes.

Other notable cases this term involve a Texas murder conviction potentially violating the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and a malpractice suit that questions whether federal courts must apply state laws requiring expert affidavits in medical negligence claims. The justices will also consider a campaign finance case involving Vice President JD Vance and a law allowing lawsuits over property seized by the Cuban government.

US Supreme Court opens new term, with major Trump cases in store | Reuters

A federal judge in Oregon, Karin Immergut, has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying any National Guard troops—whether from Oregon or other states—to Portland. The order, issued on Sunday, follows an earlier ruling by the same judge that stopped Trump from sending 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In response, the administration tried to redirect troops from California and Texas, arguing that their prior federalization allowed for deployment anywhere. Judge Immergut rejected that argument, stating there was no justification for military presence given the current protest activity in Portland.

Oregon officials accused the administration of legal “gamesmanship,” calling the attempt to bypass the initial order an affront to the court’s intent. The ruling will remain in place until at least October 19 while broader legal challenges play out. The Pentagon had planned to send troops to support federal agencies like ICE and protect federal property. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had also called up Texas troops for deployment in multiple cities, including Chicago and Portland.

National Guard units are generally controlled by state governors unless federalized, a point central to Oregon’s legal argument that Trump was overreaching by seizing control of state resources. Governor Gavin Newsom of California called the deployment an abuse of power, echoing broader concerns about the erosion of state sovereignty. Judge Immergut emphasized that presidential military authority, while broad, is not unlimited and cannot override facts on the ground or constitutional limits.

US judge blocks Trump from sending any National Guard troops to Portland for now | Reuters

A coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups has filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a recent proclamation by President Donald Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The plaintiffs, including the United Auto Workers, the American Association of University Professors, and others, argue that Trump exceeded his legal authority by unilaterally altering a visa program created and regulated by Congress. They claim the president cannot impose such a fee without congressional approval, calling the move unconstitutional and a misuse of executive power.

The H-1B visa program, widely used by tech companies and other industries to hire skilled foreign workers, currently costs employers between $2,000 and $5,000 per application. Trump’s new order blocks new visa recipients from entering the U.S. unless their sponsoring employer pays the additional $100,000. The administration claims the measure is necessary to protect American jobs, prevent wage suppression, and safeguard national security.

Critics of the new policy say it amounts to a “pay-to-play” system that grants exemptions only at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, opening the door to arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs also accuse government agencies of failing to follow proper administrative rulemaking procedures and warn that the excessive fee could stifle innovation and deter employers from hiring needed talent. The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions over the scope of executive authority in shaping immigration policy and regulating labor markets.

Trump’s $100,000 fee for H-1B worker visas challenged in lawsuit | Reuters

What’s a Government Shutdown and Why Are We In One?

A government shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass annual spending bills or a stopgap continuing resolution (CR) to keep agencies funded. No funding = no authority to operate = federal workers furloughed, services paused, and chaos for agencies and contractors.

The House has passed a CR that would fund the government through November 21, but the Senate has rejected it three times. That CR keeps spending at current levels and buys Congress more time to negotiate a full budget. Think of it as saying, “We’ll work out the details later, but in the meantime, keep the lights on.”

So why the rejection? The sticking points are:

* Democrats want the bill to include an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, which are about to expire.

* They also want to block the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from continuing to cut previously appropriated funds—something they see as a power grab.

* Senator Rand Paul is the only Republican joining Democrats in opposing the House CR, but most Senate Democrats have voted it down.

What Has to Happen to End the Shutdown?

There are four main steps to reopening the government:

* Negotiate a compromise CR. Either Republicans agree to ACA and OMB language, or Democrats back off.

* Secure bicameral agreement. If the Senate changes the bill, it has to go back to the House.

* Presidential approval. Trump has hinted he won’t sign anything that includes ACA subsidies or limits on the OMB.

* Implementation. Once signed, agencies resume normal operations and furloughed workers return.

Two likely paths out of the shutdown:

* Republicans stand firm → Democrats allow a CR vote without ACA or OMB demands, hoping to negotiate later.

* A compromise CR is passed → includes ACA subsidies and OMB limits → enough Senate Democrats back it → risk of Trump veto remains.

Why Is This So Complicated?

The shutdown highlights a procedural gap between the House and Senate:

* In the House, Republicans have a majority and can pass CRs with zero Democratic votes.

* In the Senate, most bills need 60 votes to end debate (invoke cloture) and move to a final vote. Republicans don’t have the numbers.

Republicans could try to change Senate rules—eliminate the filibuster for budget bills and go with a simple majority—but that would be a massive institutional shift with long-term consequences.

Until a resolution is reached, the government remains partially closed and the policy fight over ACA funding and executive power continues.

What Happens If Republicans Do Make the Change?

If Senate Republicans decide to invoke the so-called “nuclear option”—changing the chamber’s rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for spending bills—the legislative and political landscape could shift immediately and dramatically.

Immediate consequences:Republicans could pass the House-approved continuing resolution with no Democratic support, reopening the government on their terms. That means no extension of ACA subsidies, no restrictions on the Office of Management and Budget, and no need to negotiate across the aisle.

Medium-term effects:The rule change would permanently alter how Congress handles appropriations. Any party with a Senate majority and House control could pass funding bills unilaterally, sidestepping the need for bipartisan coalitions. This could speed up the process—but also deepen partisan divides in budget negotiations.

Long-term implications:Effectively, it would mean the end of the filibuster for all spending legislation. Shutdowns might become less frequent, since fewer votes are needed to keep the government open—but funding priorities could swing wildly every time control of Congress changes hands. One Congress could expand programs and hike spending; the next could cut deeply, all with a simple majority.

In short, while the nuclear option would solve the immediate standoff, it would reshape the Senate’s role in fiscal policymaking—and shift power further toward the majority party.

Why Can’t Republicans Just Pass a Budget Bill?

If you’ve been hearing people say, “Just pass it as a budget bill—no filibuster needed,” here’s why that’s not happening.

The Senate does have a special process called budget reconciliation, which allows certain bills to pass with just 51 votes—no filibuster, no 60-vote threshold. But there are some important catches:

* It can only be used once per fiscal year.Technically, reconciliation instructions can cover three areas—spending, revenue, and the debt limit—but Congress usually combines them into a single package. That bill has already been used this year (for the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), so the reconciliation tool is off the table until the next fiscal year.

* The content of the bill is strictly limited.Under the Byrd Rule, reconciliation bills must directly relate to taxing or spending. Any provision that doesn’t have a direct budgetary effect, or that increases the deficit beyond a 10-year window, gets stripped out—or the whole bill risks being disqualified.

That’s why the current CR probably couldn’t go through reconciliation even if that option remained available this fiscal year. It likely includes provisions that violate the Byrd Rule—and certainly would if the OMB limitation Democrats want was included. Those elements either aren’t strictly budgetary or would impact the long-term deficit.

So even though Republicans hold a Senate majority, they can’t simply slap a “budget” label on this bill and pass it with 51 votes. That procedural door is closed for now.

If they want to bypass the filibuster, their only real option would be to change Senate rules—a dramatic move that would eliminate the 60-vote requirement for spending bills altogether. Otherwise, they’ll need to cut a deal that clears the 60-vote threshold—or accept a prolonged shutdown.

That is the current state of the shutdown – we’ll see you back here on Monday for our usual daily news shows.

This Day in Legal History: O.J. “Not Guilty”

On October 3, 1995, a Los Angeles jury returned one of the most controversial and widely watched criminal verdicts in American history: O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. The trial, which lasted more than eight months, captivated the nation with its blend of celebrity, race, police misconduct, and media spectacle. The prosecution presented DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene, while the defense, led by Johnnie Cochran, argued that Simpson was framed by a racist LAPD, particularly Detective Mark Fuhrman.

Cochran’s now-famous line — “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” — referred to a moment when Simpson tried on gloves allegedly worn during the murders, and they appeared not to fit. The defense used that moment to cast further doubt on the prosecution’s case. The jury deliberated for less than four hours before acquitting Simpson, prompting strong reactions across racial and social lines.

The case exposed deep divisions in American society, particularly around race and policing. It also helped usher in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and reality-style courtroom coverage, with networks like CNN and Court TV devoting extensive airtime to the trial. The not-guilty verdict did not end Simpson’s legal troubles: in 1997, a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages.

Apple confirmed it has removed the ICEBlock app and similar tools from its App Store following pressure from the Trump administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi. ICEBlock allowed users to report and track the locations of ICE officers through crowdsourced data. Bondi stated the app endangered law enforcement officers and crossed a line by facilitating potential violence.

The Department of Justice supported the move, citing safety concerns. This action followed an exposé by right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who outed the creator of a similar app, Red Dot, and accused the platforms of enabling violence against ICE agents. Loomer also claimed that a recent deadly shooting at a Dallas ICE facility involved the use of such tracking apps.

Apple defended its decision, stating it aims to keep the App Store a “safe and trusted” space, and that ICEBlock violated policies by potentially enabling harm to law enforcement. The app’s developer, Joshua Aaron, criticized the removal, comparing it to how apps like Apple Maps crowdsource speed trap locations. He argued that his app was protected by the First Amendment and that Apple’s action was a concession to authoritarian demands.

Tech Giant Apple Bows to MAGA Demands and Removes ICE Tracking Apps

OpenAI filed a motion in federal court to dismiss a trade secret lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, accuses OpenAI of deliberately poaching xAI employees to gain access to confidential information about Grok, xAI’s chatbot, which the company claims surpasses ChatGPT in performance.

OpenAI rejected the allegations, calling them baseless and part of Musk’s “ongoing harassment” campaign against the company. In its filing, OpenAI argued that employees are free to leave xAI and work wherever they choose, and that it is within its rights to hire them. The company suggested xAI’s legal actions are designed to cover up its internal struggles and inability to retain talent.

This case is one of several legal battles unfolding between Musk and OpenAI. Musk has also filed a separate suit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its original nonprofit mission. In turn, OpenAI has countersued Musk for harassment. Meanwhile, xAI has sued Apple, claiming it colluded with OpenAI to suppress competition—an accusation both companies deny and are also seeking to dismiss.

OpenAI’s legal response characterized xAI’s complaint as a distraction from its own failings and a tactic to slow down competitors in the heated race for dominance in the AI industry.

OpenAI asks court to dismiss trade-secret lawsuit from Musk’s xAI | Reuters

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon recused himself from a case challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy Oregon’s National Guard to Portland. The Trump administration had raised concerns over public comments made by Simon’s wife, Representative Suzanne Bonamici, criticizing the deployment as a “gross abuse of power.” To avoid any appearance of bias, Judge Simon opted to step aside, stating the case should remain focused on its core constitutional and legal questions.

The lawsuit, filed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, seeks to block Trump’s use of state National Guard troops, arguing it is illegal and driven by political motives. The complaint alleges Trump is exaggerating protest threats to justify federal overreach and seize control of state forces. The case has been reassigned to Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee.

Bonamici, whose district includes much of Portland, made her critical remarks during a press conference with Oregon Governor Tina Kotek. The Department of Justice cited her comments in its request for Simon’s recusal, arguing they could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday on Oregon’s request for a temporary restraining order. Similar legal challenges are underway in California and Washington, D.C., where federal troop deployments have also faced pushback. A California judge previously ruled Trump’s actions unlawful, but that decision is currently on hold pending appeal. The D.C. case remains unresolved.

Judge recuses himself from Oregon National Guard case | Reuters

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

This week, we close with Franz Liszt’s transcription (S. 464) of the first movement—Allegro con brio—from Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21. Originally premiered in 1800, this symphony marked Beethoven’s formal debut in the genre, and even in its first movement, we hear the young composer testing the boundaries of the Classical form inherited from Haydn and Mozart. The opening chords start in the “wrong” key—a bold harmonic gesture that signaled Beethoven’s intent to shake things up, even as he worked within a familiar structure.

Liszt, the great 19th-century virtuoso and composer, took on the monumental task of transcribing all nine of Beethoven’s symphonies for solo piano. The transcription of the First Symphony, catalogued as S. 464, is part of that sweeping project. These arrangements were not simply meant to showcase Liszt’s pianistic brilliance (though they certainly do); they were a way to bring Beethoven’s orchestral works into the drawing rooms and salons of Europe—before widespread orchestral performance or recording technology.

In Liszt’s hands, the Allegro con brio becomes a brilliant piano showpiece, retaining the symphony’s rhythmic drive, thematic clarity, and structural ingenuity. He translates orchestral texture into ten fingers with remarkable fidelity, using tremolos, arpeggios, and dramatic dynamic shifts to recreate the energy of strings, winds, and brass. The transcription is virtuosic but never flashy for its own sake—it’s an homage from one revolutionary to another.

Beethoven’s First Symphony bridges the Classical and Romantic eras, and Liszt’s solo piano version builds a new bridge, connecting orchestral grandeur to the intimacy of a single performer. It’s a reminder of both composers’ commitment to pushing musical expression forward. As you listen, you may forget it’s just one person at a piano—Liszt makes the entire orchestra sing.

We leave you this week not only with Beethoven’s bold opening statement to the symphonic world, but with Liszt’s brilliant act of translation—a distillation of power, wit, and elegance, all under a single keyboard.

Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1 in C major, Op. 21 – the first movement. Enjoy!

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren Appointed

On October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.

Under Warren’s leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court’s moral authority.

His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.

According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.

This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA’s federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.

New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | Reuters

Apple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI’s suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple’s integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk’s Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.

Apple’s lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk’s legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI’s shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.

OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.

Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk’s suit over competition claims | Reuters

Lawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London’s High Court, suggest that confidential details about William’s 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.

Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.

The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants’ favor on that issue.

Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.

Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry lawsuit | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: First Governmental Recognition of Same-sex Relationships

On October 1, 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex relationships through its Registered Partnership Act. The law allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that granted nearly all of the same legal protections and responsibilities as marriage, except for adoption rights and access to religious marriage ceremonies. The Danish parliament had passed the legislation earlier that year with a strong majority, marking a historic shift in global LGBTQ+ rights.

The law was the result of more than a decade of activism by Danish LGBTQ+ rights organizations, particularly the group LBL (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske), which had been advocating for legal recognition since the 1970s. Public support in Denmark was relatively high by the late 1980s, aided by a culture of social liberalism and the country’s strong welfare state. When the law took effect, eleven male couples and one female couple registered their partnerships at Copenhagen City Hall in a widely publicized ceremony.

International reaction was mixed. Many human rights organizations hailed the Danish move as groundbreaking, while conservative and religious groups elsewhere condemned it. Still, Denmark’s action inspired a gradual but undeniable trend. Over the next few decades, many other countries—including Norway, Sweden, and eventually the United States—adopted laws recognizing same-sex unions or full marriage equality.

The Registered Partnership Act remained in place until Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, at which point existing partnerships could be converted into marriages. The 1989 law is now widely regarded as the legal foundation for modern same-sex union legislation worldwide, proving that structural legal change can begin in small, progressive nations and ripple outward.

A high-stakes redistricting hearing began October 1, 2025, in El Paso, Texas, where a panel of three federal judges will decide whether the state’s new congressional map—redrawn mid-decade—can be used in the 2026 midterms. At issue is whether the map was motivated by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering or permissible political considerations. Texas defends the redraw as a purely partisan move to benefit Republicans, which, while potentially unethical, may be legally protected under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), a Supreme Court ruling that bars federal courts from reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.

The plaintiffs, a coalition of minority and voting rights groups, argue that the map violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination, citing a July letter from the DOJ which had warned that the 2021 map was unlawfully racially gerrymandered. Texas initially used that letter to justify the special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, but has since pivoted to a political defense, potentially undercutting its earlier rationale. The court has set a fast-paced schedule, allowing no opening statements and warning that it will not tolerate delays.

Seven lawmakers are expected to testify, and the panel includes judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump. This same trio heard a race-based challenge to the 2021 map earlier in the year, which became moot after the legislature preemptively redrew the map. Experts say proving racial motivation will be difficult but critical, as plaintiffs cannot legally challenge maps solely for being politically gerrymandered.

Texas’ Political Aims on Trial as Redistricting Hearing Begins

The U.S. government officially shut down on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass a funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. The standoff has quickly become a political battle, with President Donald Trump blaming Democrats for pushing a $1.5 trillion agenda and Democrats accusing Trump of sabotaging negotiations and gutting federal programs. Trump’s administration is reportedly planning mass terminations of federal workers, going beyond typical furloughs, as part of its long-standing effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

This shutdown flips the usual script: Republicans now seek a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open, while Democrats are demanding healthcare-related provisions and curbs on Trump’s spending discretion. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are focusing on extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, but unity within the party remains fragile. Trump has escalated tensions by sharing inflammatory, AI-generated content targeting Democratic leaders, prompting backlash and accusations of racism.

Polling suggests that blame is spread, with a third of voters holding both parties responsible. Markets are already reacting to the uncertainty, and concerns are rising about delayed economic data. Some Republicans, including Trump allies, warn that the shutdown could politically backfire on the president, as it did during his 2018 border wall standoff.

Trump, Democrats Grapple for Edge as Government Shutdown Begins

A federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah is not lawfully serving as Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney, dealing another blow to the Trump administration’s approach to appointing interim federal prosecutors. Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Chattah’s appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Specifically, the Attorney General’s method of designating her as a “first assistant” to qualify her for the acting role was not consistent with congressional intent under the statute.

This decision echoes a similar August ruling in New Jersey, where Alina Habba was also found ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney under the same legal reasoning. Courts have rejected the idea that the Attorney General can bypass standard succession rules to install political allies into key prosecutorial roles.

Though Chattah’s appointment was struck down, Judge Campbell denied motions to dismiss cases she oversaw, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorneys maintain independent authority and that defendants failed to show any prejudice to their cases. Additional legal challenges are still pending, including in the Central District of California against Bill Essayli, another controversial Trump acting appointment.

Nevada Acting US Attorney Chattah Disqualified by US Judge (1)

A California jury has found Uber not liable in the first U.S. trial over claims that one of its drivers sexually assaulted a passenger. The plaintiff, known as Jessica C., alleged that in 2016, her Uber driver pulled off the road and assaulted her during a ride. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in implementing safety measures, it concluded that the company’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault.

This civil trial, held in San Francisco Superior Court, was the first bellwether case out of over 500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California state court. Another 2,500 related cases are proceeding in federal court. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help guide broader litigation strategy or inform settlements in mass tort cases.

The plaintiff’s lawyers sought up to $1.2 million in compensatory damages per year of her life but did not request a specific amount in punitive damages. They argued Uber failed to take obvious safety steps, like assigning female riders to female drivers or requiring dash cams, despite knowing about widespread assault risks.

Uber denied liability for the criminal acts of its drivers and pointed to improvements in its safety protocols, such as enhanced background checks, safety reports, and in-app security tools. Nonetheless, Uber remains under scrutiny. A recent congressional inquiry and ongoing criticism highlight lingering concerns about the company’s handling of rider safety.

Uber found not liable in first US trial over driver sexual assault claims | Reuters

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Supports Women’s Suffrage

On September 30, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson took the unprecedented step of addressing the U.S. Senate directly to urge passage of a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote. The House of Representatives had already approved the amendment earlier that year, but the measure had stalled in the Senate. Wilson’s speech came during the final months of World War I, a context he used strategically—arguing that women had proven their patriotism and value to the nation through their labor, sacrifice, and civic contributions during wartime.

Framing suffrage as a war measure and an issue of national unity, Wilson stated that denying women the vote was an injustice that undermined American democratic ideals. He contended that the world was watching and that the U.S. could not claim to fight for democracy abroad while denying it to half its citizens at home. The speech was notable both for its timing and for the fact that it came from a president who had previously been lukewarm on the issue.

Wilson’s appeal was a calculated political move, reflecting both the growing power of the women’s suffrage movement and the need to maintain national morale. Though his speech failed to immediately sway enough senators—the amendment would not pass the Senate until June 1919—it marked a pivotal shift in executive support. Wilson’s endorsement helped legitimize the movement and apply pressure on reluctant lawmakers.

The Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited the denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex, was finally ratified in August 1920. Wilson’s 1918 address thus stands as a key moment in the long legal and political battle for women’s suffrage in the United States, symbolizing the growing alignment of public sentiment, executive advocacy, and legislative momentum that would eventually culminate in constitutional change.

In an exclusive from Reuters, federal drug prosecutions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in decades, as the Trump administration shifts law enforcement priorities toward immigration enforcement. A Reuters analysis of nearly 2 million federal court records reveals that prosecutions for drug offenses are down 10% from the same period in 2024, with money laundering charges—often linked to high-level traffickers—dropping by 24%. These declines mark the slowest rate of federal drug enforcement activity since at least the late 1990s.

The shift stems from President Trump’s directive shortly after taking office to reallocate thousands of federal agents toward immigration-related efforts, including assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in daily raids. This redirection of resources has disrupted traditional drug enforcement operations, with agents reporting that long-term investigations have stalled and critical cases are going “stagnant.” Even fentanyl-related investigations have been sidelined due to agents being pulled into immigration duties.

Despite promises of a tough-on-drugs approach—including calls for the death penalty for some dealers—the administration’s actions have hollowed out the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and rerouted DEA and ATF agents to support deportation operations. These agents, often unfamiliar with immigration law, are now tasked with support roles such as transportation and crowd control during raids, sometimes simply for the sake of producing social media-friendly imagery.

Meanwhile, prosecutions tied to drug importation and conspiracies have declined 6% and 15%, respectively, and gun charges associated with drug crimes have also fallen. Officials warn that the impact of this reprioritization could deepen over time, as investigations delayed today will not yield prosecutions for months or years. Nearly half of all federal criminal charges this year involve immigration violations, and over 700 federal prosecutors have been reassigned to immigration matters.

While the White House defends the shift as a successful effort to reduce the flow of drugs by targeting violent criminals and cartels, law enforcement officials describe a chaotic, politically driven enforcement regime that sacrifices complex criminal investigations for visible, short-term wins. The resulting system raises concerns not only about public safety but about the long-term effectiveness of federal law enforcement priorities.

Exclusive: Federal drug prosecutions fall to lowest level in decades as Trump shifts focus to deportations | Reuters

The Pentagon has deployed 200 Oregon National Guard troops under federal authority after President Donald Trump announced plans to send military forces into Portland, Oregon. The move, aimed at protecting federal immigration facilities from what Trump called “domestic terrorists,” immediately triggered a legal challenge from the state. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a federal lawsuit against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing that the federal deployment infringes on the state’s sovereign authority over its own law enforcement and National Guard.

The lawsuit describes Trump’s justification as exaggerated and unsupported, noting that protests against ICE in Portland have remained relatively small and peaceful since June. It also highlights a sharp decline in violent crime in the city—homicides are reportedly down 51% compared to the same time last year—raising further questions about the necessity of military intervention.

The deployment order took even top Pentagon officials by surprise, with several describing it as a “bolt from the blue.” Defense Secretary Hegseth’s memo authorizing the deployment was later attached as evidence in Oregon’s lawsuit. Portland officials, including Mayor Keith Wilson, were not informed of the plan in advance and reportedly learned about it via social media.

Trump’s rhetoric about using “full force” remains ambiguous, with no clarification on whether that includes authorization of lethal force or under what conditions it could be used. Historically, U.S. troops deployed domestically are only permitted to use force in self-defense. The sudden move has heightened tensions, particularly following a recent shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas that left one detainee dead and two others injured. Critics argue the administration’s increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement risks politicizing the military and provoking unnecessary conflict in U.S. cities.

Pentagon calls up 200 National Guard troops after Trump Portland announcement | Reuters

In my column for Bloomberg this week, I explore a recent tariff investigation. The investigation into computer peripheral manufacturer Anker Innovations’ alleged tariff evasion highlights how modern tariff enforcement has evolved into a sprawling, bureaucratic effort that diverts taxpayer resources toward compliance rather than bolstering domestic industry. Rather than serving as effective tools of economic nationalism, tariffs often end up creating work for customs officials, trade lawyers, and compliance consultants. Each adjustment to tariff classifications triggers complex administrative networks that contradict the ideal of limited government.

This system’s irony deepens when considering that agencies like the IRS are underfunded, even as policymakers lean more on tariffs—a less efficient and more easily manipulated revenue source. The result is a compliance-heavy environment that benefits well-resourced firms while leaving smaller importers at a disadvantage. Investigating potential violations can be costly and time-consuming, encouraging selective enforcement and fostering a procedural limbo where discretion and inefficiency thrive.

The current approach, which places tariff power largely in the executive branch, introduces volatility and undermines predictability in trade policy. Companies may invest heavily in litigation over classification issues, only to see the rules change mid-process. This undermines confidence in the system and raises the risk of corruption and favoritism. I argue that returning tariff authority to Congress and reinvigorating corporate tax enforcement would make the system more equitable and effective.

This Day in Legal History: John André Convicted

On September 29, 1780, Major John André of the British Army was convicted by a Continental Army court martial for his role in a conspiracy with American General Benedict Arnold. André had been captured behind American lines near Tarrytown, New York, carrying incriminating documents that detailed Arnold’s treasonous plan to surrender the key American fort at West Point to the British. Disguised in civilian clothes and using a false passport, André was found to be operating as a spy rather than a conventional enemy officer.

General George Washington ordered the formation of a board of senior officers, including Generals Nathanael Greene and Marquis de Lafayette, to determine André’s fate. The court martial found him guilty of acting under false pretenses and ruled that he should be hanged as a spy rather than shot as a soldier—a distinction of enormous symbolic and legal consequence. Despite André’s honorable conduct and appeals for a more dignified execution, Washington upheld the sentence.

André’s execution, carried out on October 2, 1780, marked a turning point in the American Revolution’s approach to wartime law, espionage, and loyalty. It also crystallized the betrayal of Benedict Arnold, whose escape to British lines allowed him to avoid prosecution. The case highlighted how military justice operated during wartime, often blending evidentiary hearings with moral and strategic considerations. The outcome emphasized the seriousness with which the Continental Army treated the laws of war, especially in cases of clandestine operations and treason.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to withhold roughly $4 billion in foreign aid despite Congress having already appropriated the funds. The aid was intended for programs including United Nations peacekeeping and global democracy-promotion efforts. The ruling came after a lower court, led by Judge Amir Ali, had ordered the administration to release the funds, siding with aid groups that filed the lawsuit. In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court questioned whether those groups had legal standing and warned that enforcing the lower court’s ruling could infringe on the president’s authority over foreign policy.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan criticizing the majority for undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers. She argued that once Congress passes appropriations laws, the executive branch is legally required to carry them out unless Congress acts to change them. The Trump administration defended its actions as aligned with its “America First” foreign policy, claiming the spending conflicted with current U.S. interests. To withhold the funds, it used a “pocket rescission” strategy—an obscure method to delay spending long enough for the funds to expire.

This decision reflects a broader trend of the Supreme Court supporting Trump-era policies, especially those halted by lower courts. Critics warn the ruling could set a precedent that weakens congressional control over federal spending. Legal scholars note that Trump’s withholding of appropriated funds through this method is without historical precedent and could have significant humanitarian consequences globally.

US Supreme Court lets Trump withhold $4 billion in foreign aid | Reuters

The Texas Supreme Court issued a preliminary opinion suggesting that the American Bar Association (ABA) should no longer control which Texas law schools qualify to send graduates to the state bar exam. Under proposed rule changes, that authority would shift to the Texas Supreme Court itself. The court would use what it calls “simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” such as bar passage rates, rather than relying on the ABA’s existing standards.

While the justices don’t expect immediate changes to the current list of approved schools, the proposal marks a significant shift in how legal education could be regulated in Texas. Public comments will be accepted through December 1, with the rules potentially taking effect on January 1, 2026. The move comes amid broader conservative criticism of the ABA, particularly its diversity and inclusion standards, which have drawn opposition from the Trump administration and other Republican-led states like Florida and Ohio.

Texas Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock criticized the ABA for lacking ideological neutrality, saying it no longer represents the views of all lawyers. In response, eight out of ten Texas law school deans warned that severing ties with the ABA could damage national reputations and reduce access to quality legal services in the state.

ABA Accreditation Should End in Texas, Justices Say Tentatively

President Trump has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, directly challenging longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. His proposal would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. This represents a sharp departure from over a century of constitutional understanding, which has granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ status.

Trump’s legal team argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to children of those fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction—namely, citizens or lawful permanent residents—not to the children of temporary visa holders or undocumented immigrants. The administration is appealing a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the executive order as an unconstitutional reinterpretation of settled law.

This appeal marks the first time the Supreme Court is being asked to rule directly on the legality of such a restriction. In past cases, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court upheld citizenship for those born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents. Trump’s team is also asking the Court to consider a related case brought by individual plaintiffs, even though it hasn’t reached the appellate level, in hopes of securing a broad ruling.

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Curb Birthright Citizenship (1)