Episodios

  • Legal News for Thurs 5/22 - PowerSchool Hacker Plea, Judge Rejects Vanguard Settlement, Trump Admin Fights DOGE Transparency at SCOTUS

    Legal News for Thurs 5/22 - PowerSchool Hacker Plea, Judge Rejects Vanguard Settlement, Trump Admin Fights DOGE Transparency at SCOTUS
    May 22 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln, InventorOn May 22, 1849, Abraham Lincoln was awarded U.S. Patent No. 6,469 for an invention designed to lift boats over shoals and other obstacles in shallow waterways. The device involved a system of bellows attached to the hull of a boat, which could be inflated to lift the vessel over obstructions. Lincoln conceived the idea after witnessing firsthand how flatboats became stranded on sandbars during his travels on the Mississippi River. Though the invention was never manufactured, Lincoln's patent represents a rare intersection of legal, political, and technological history.Lincoln’s detailed model, which he carved himself, is now preserved at the Smithsonian Institution. His application demonstrated a firm grasp of both mechanics and the legal requirements of patent law, including the novelty and utility standards necessary for approval. Lincoln’s interest in patents was not merely personal—he viewed the patent system as a key driver of American innovation and economic growth. In an 1858 lecture, he praised the patent system as adding "the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."This episode in Lincoln’s life underscores the connection between law and invention in the 19th century. The U.S. patent system, formalized under the Patent Act of 1790 and modified several times by Lincoln’s era, provided crucial protections to inventors during a time of rapid industrial development. Lincoln’s engagement with the system as both an inventor and a lawyer reflects the broader legal culture of self-improvement and technological optimism in antebellum America.Matthew Lane, a 19-year-old student at Assumption University in Massachusetts, has agreed to plead guilty to charges stemming from a significant data breach at PowerSchool, a cloud-based education software company. Federal prosecutors allege Lane accessed PowerSchool’s network in September 2024 using stolen contractor credentials, obtaining sensitive data on more than 60 million students and 10 million teachers. This data, including Social Security numbers and addresses, was later used in a $2.85 million bitcoin ransom demand.Lane transferred the stolen data to a server in Ukraine before the extortion attempt, which caused alarm among parents and school districts. The breach, which PowerSchool disclosed in January 2025, was reportedly linked to earlier extortion efforts targeting a telecommunications company, from which Lane and others attempted to extract a $200,000 ransom. The case marks the first public identification of a suspect in the PowerSchool breach, which has impacted numerous school districts.PowerSchool admitted to paying a ransom to prevent public exposure of the data. Lane faces charges including cyber extortion, aggravated identity theft, and unauthorized access to protected computers. If convicted, he will serve at least two years in prison. His attorney has not commented.Massachusetts college student to plead guilty to PowerSchool data breach | ReutersA federal judge in Philadelphia has rejected Vanguard Group’s proposed $40 million settlement with investors who claimed they were hit with unexpected tax bills from its target-date mutual funds. U.S. District Judge John Murphy ruled that the deal provided "no value" to investors because it duplicated benefits already secured through a $135 million settlement Vanguard reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) earlier this year.In that SEC settlement, investors were promised compensation without having to pay legal fees or waive future claims. By contrast, the proposed class action settlement would have reduced investor payouts due to more than $13 million in attorneys’ fees. Judge Murphy sided with an objecting class member who argued the SEC accord already gave investors the same benefits, making the class settlement redundant and financially disadvantageous.Both settlements stem from Vanguard’s 2020 move to lower the minimum investment threshold for its lower-cost institutional target-date funds. This triggered a mass migration from higher-cost retail funds, prompting large redemptions that led to capital gains being passed on to remaining investors.Vanguard argued that rejecting the settlement might discourage firms from resolving regulatory and civil actions simultaneously. However, the court emphasized fairness to the class over procedural convenience.US judge rejects Vanguard $40 million mutual fund settlement, cites SEC accord | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a lower court order requiring it to provide documents and testimony about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a White House office linked to Elon Musk’s federal reform initiative. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit seeking transparency about DOGE’s operations, arguing that it should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)....
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Legal News for Weds 5/21 - State AGs Sue Trump Over Tariffs, DOJ Probe into Cuomo, Judge Tosses Treasury's Case Against IRS Worker Union

    Legal News for Weds 5/21 - State AGs Sue Trump Over Tariffs, DOJ Probe into Cuomo, Judge Tosses Treasury's Case Against IRS Worker Union
    May 21 2025
    This Day in Legal History: House of Representatives Passes 19th AmendmentOn this day in legal history, May 21, 1919, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. The amendment stated simply: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After decades of organizing, lobbying, and protest by suffragists—including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul—this marked a major legislative victory in the long fight for women's suffrage.The amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878 but languished for over 40 years before gaining sufficient political traction. The context of World War I played a pivotal role; as women took on new roles in the workforce and public life during the war, their contributions made it politically difficult to deny them voting rights. President Woodrow Wilson, initially lukewarm on the issue, eventually lent his support, which helped sway key votes.Following the House vote on May 21, 1919, the amendment proceeded to the Senate, where it was passed on June 4, 1919. Ratification by the states took just over a year, with Tennessee becoming the decisive 36th state to ratify on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was officially certified on August 26, 1920.This moment was a turning point in constitutional law regarding civil rights and voting equality, setting the stage for later expansions through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and ongoing debates over voter access and gender equality.Twelve U.S. states, led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Illinois, and Oregon, are challenging President Donald Trump's recently imposed "Liberation Day" tariffs in federal court. The states argue that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on imports from countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits. They claim the law doesn't authorize tariffs and that a trade deficit does not qualify as a national emergency.The case will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan, which also recently heard a similar lawsuit from small businesses. Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs were harming consumers and small businesses, estimating an extra $3,800 per year in costs for the average family. The Justice Department contends that the states’ claims are speculative and that only Congress can challenge a president's national emergency declaration under IEEPA.Trump’s tariff program began in February with country-specific measures and escalated to a 10% blanket tariff in April, before being partially rolled back. His administration defends the tariffs as necessary for countering unfair trade practices and reviving U.S. manufacturing. Multiple lawsuits—including ones from California, advocacy groups, businesses, and Native American tribes—are challenging the tariff regime.US states mount court challenge to Trump's tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department is investigating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, now a leading Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, over Republican allegations that he misled Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic while in office. The inquiry reportedly stems from a referral by a GOP-led House subcommittee, which cited Cuomo’s closed-door testimony before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.Cuomo's campaign says it was not notified of the probe and denounced the investigation as politically motivated "lawfare" driven by Trump allies. Critics argue the Justice Department is being used to target political opponents, while Trump and his supporters maintain that prior cases against him were politically biased. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 following a state attorney general report accusing him of sexual misconduct—which he denies—is the presumed frontrunner in the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary.He is set to face incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent after facing and being cleared of federal charges. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed or commented on the Cuomo probe, and his spokesperson insists the former governor testified truthfully and transparently.US Justice Department investigating former New York governor Cuomo, sources say | ReutersA federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit by the U.S. Treasury Department that aimed to cancel a labor contract with IRS workers in Covington. Judge Danny Reeves ruled that the Treasury lacked legal standing to bring the suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 73. This marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration’s broader attempt to weaken federal employee union rights through an executive order.The administration had filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Texas following Trump’...
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Legal News for Tues 5/20 - State AGs as AI Policymakers, Trump v. Letitia James, Trump Cutting off Investments in Red States

    Legal News for Tues 5/20 - State AGs as AI Policymakers, Trump v. Letitia James, Trump Cutting off Investments in Red States
    May 20 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Blue Jeans PatentedOn May 20, 1873, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Patent No. 139,121 to Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss for an innovation that would revolutionize American workwear and fashion: the use of copper rivets to reinforce the stress points on men's work pants. Davis, a tailor from Reno, Nevada, originally developed the concept after customers complained about the durability of their trousers. He lacked the funds to file for a patent on his own, so he partnered with Strauss, a San Francisco dry goods merchant who had been supplying him with fabric. The riveted pants were constructed from denim—a sturdy cotton twill that Strauss already sold—which was tough enough for laborers, miners, and cowboys during the American Westward Expansion.The legal protection granted by the patent secured exclusive rights for Strauss and Davis to produce the reinforced trousers, giving them a significant advantage in the market. This protection enabled Levi Strauss & Co. to expand rapidly and establish itself as a dominant force in durable clothing for manual laborers. The patent also illustrates how intellectual property law can incentivize practical innovation by providing a framework for commercial exclusivity.While the original patent expired in 1890, the riveted jean had by then become an entrenched part of American identity. The evolution of the product—from utilitarian workwear to a global fashion staple—highlights how a simple legal instrument can underpin lasting commercial success. The legal recognition of their invention helped formalize what would become a uniquely American contribution to the world’s wardrobe. Strauss and Davis's patent remains one of the most iconic examples of how intellectual property law intersects with design, utility, and culture.As federal AI regulation lags, state attorneys general (AGs) are stepping into the void by using existing laws—such as consumer protection, privacy, and anti-discrimination statutes—to govern the use of generative AI technologies. Although only California, Colorado, and Utah have passed AI-specific legislation, AGs across other states are issuing formal guidance and taking enforcement actions to address AI misuse. Key concerns include the use of personal data, deepfakes, fraudulent representations, and algorithmic bias in sectors like hiring, healthcare, and lending.California AG Rob Bonta has warned that AI tools causing misleading or discriminatory outcomes may violate state law, especially in sensitive fields like health and employment. Massachusetts AG Joy Campbell cautioned that misrepresenting AI capabilities or using AI-generated content to deceive consumers could breach the state’s Consumer Protection Act. Oregon’s guidance focuses on transparency, privacy, and anti-discrimination concerns, requiring consent for data use and allowing opt-outs from significant AI-based decisions. New Jersey’s AG launched a Civil Rights and Technology Initiative targeting algorithmic bias, noting that even third-party tools can trigger liability under anti-discrimination laws. Texas AG Ken Paxton reached a settlement with an AI health tech firm over potentially misleading marketing, marking the first known AG enforcement action under consumer protection law involving generative AI.A Reuters column by Ashley Taylor of Clayton Friedman and Gene Fishel of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP emphasizes that companies cannot assume regulatory immunity simply because AI tools are new or complex. Liability can arise from disparate impacts alone, even absent intent to discriminate. Firms must carefully audit their AI systems, clarify marketing claims, and ensure fair and secure implementation across jurisdictions. Given the fragmented legal landscape, businesses should involve legal and technical leadership early in AI deployment to reduce risk exposure.State AGs fill the regulatory voidThe long-running feud between Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James has escalated sharply with a federal investigation now targeting James herself. Trump, having returned to the White House, now has the Justice Department behind him, while James continues to lead Democratic opposition through lawsuits challenging his policies. Both known for their combative styles, the two have clashed over ideology, politics, and Trump's business practices.The new front in their battle involves allegations that James committed mortgage fraud, based on documents where she allegedly misrepresented her primary residence and misstated details about her Brooklyn property. The Justice Department, acting on a referral from a federal housing agency, is investigating the claims through its offices in Virginia and New York. James’s lawyer denies wrongdoing, saying the filings were accurate in context and reflect long-standing property use.James has framed the investigation as retaliation for her successful legal actions against Trump, including a...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Mon 5/19 - SCOTUS Halts Trump Deportations under AEA, Looming Ruling on Religious Rights, Court Curbs Federal Unions and "Best Auctioneer in the Ozarks"

    Legal News for Mon 5/19 - SCOTUS Halts Trump Deportations under AEA, Looming Ruling on Religious Rights, Court Curbs Federal Unions and "Best Auctioneer in the Ozarks"
    May 19 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Ratified On May 19, 1848, Mexico formally ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, officially bringing an end to the Mexican-American War. Signed earlier that year on February 2, the treaty had already been ratified by the United States, but it required approval from both nations to take effect. With Mexico's ratification, the war that had begun in 1846 concluded, marking a major shift in North American territorial boundaries. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded approximately 525,000 square miles—about half its national territory—to the United States. This land included present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of several other states.In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. The treaty also included provisions promising to protect the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, though these promises were inconsistently honored. The ratification reshaped the map of North America and solidified U.S. continental expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny.Legally, the treaty became a foundational document for interpreting property rights, citizenship claims, and cross-border disputes in the American Southwest. It also remains a focal point for understanding the U.S.-Mexico relationship and the historical roots of immigration and land disputes in the region. The ratification marked not just the end of a war but the beginning of complex legal and cultural transformations that still reverberate today.The U.S. Supreme Court extended a block on the Trump administration’s attempt to deport roughly 176 Venezuelan detainees under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), citing due process concerns. The justices, in a largely unsigned decision, criticized the government for providing less than 24 hours' notice of removal without informing the men how to challenge it. The Court noted the administration’s failure to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a previous Supreme Court directive.Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, saying the Court acted prematurely, bypassing lower courts. However, the majority justified the intervention by pointing to a district judge’s delayed response to an emergency request, which they said risked irreparable harm to the detainees.Though Trump claimed the AEA is needed to address a national security “invasion” by alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, the Court did not rule on whether his invocation of the AEA was lawful. The decision leaves that question to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, while preserving the temporary injunction during ongoing litigation.Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to support judicial review before any deportation under the AEA, and the Court emphasized that immigration enforcement must align with constitutional protections. The ACLU called the ruling a rebuke of efforts to deport people without adequate process, particularly to harsh conditions like those in El Salvador’s prisons.Supreme Court Extends Halt of Trump Venezuelan Deportations - BloombergThe U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue rulings in three significant cases that could further expand religious rights and diminish the separation between church and state. Each case centers on the First Amendment’s religion clauses—specifically the tension between the “establishment clause,” which prevents government endorsement of religion, and the “free exercise clause,” which protects individual religious practice.One case involves an attempt to launch the nation’s first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma. The state’s Supreme Court blocked the school, but conservative justices appeared open to the argument that rejecting it solely due to its religious nature violates the free exercise clause.A second case concerns Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland seeking the right to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBT-themed storybooks. Lower courts denied the request, but the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the parents’ religious freedom claims.The third case addresses whether Catholic Charities in Wisconsin should be exempt from unemployment insurance taxes. The state denied the exemption, arguing the organization was mainly charitable rather than religious. Conservative justices again signaled support for the religious exemption.Legal scholars suggest the Court may continue its trend of elevating the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause. Recent rulings have shifted from restricting government support for religious institutions to affirming their right to receive public funds. This trend suggests the Court may increasingly allow religious organizations access to public programs traditionally limited to secular institutions.US Supreme Court may broaden religious rights in looming ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Fri 5/16 - Intel Fights EU Fine, Trump Tests Humphrey's Executor, SEC Staff Cuts Risk Harms and Meta Challenges FTC Monopoly Case

    Legal News for Fri 5/16 - Intel Fights EU Fine, Trump Tests Humphrey's Executor, SEC Staff Cuts Risk Harms and Meta Challenges FTC Monopoly Case
    May 16 2025
    This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency’s funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB’s continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress’s annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court’s treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB’s future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency’s funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission’s 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel’s actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel’s turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president’s constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump’s legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision’s reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don’t align with the administration’s agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey’s Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have...
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Legal News for Thurs 5/15 - EPA Rolls Back PFAS Rules, RFK Jr. Swims in Filth and Defends HHS Layoffs Amid Measles Outbreaks, and More Companies Eye "Dexit"

    Legal News for Thurs 5/15 - EPA Rolls Back PFAS Rules, RFK Jr. Swims in Filth and Defends HHS Layoffs Amid Measles Outbreaks, and More Companies Eye "Dexit"
    May 15 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Standard Oil Breaks UpOn May 15, 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, finding that Standard Oil had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in monopolistic practices. The Court unanimously ruled that Standard Oil’s dominance over the oil industry—achieved through aggressive acquisitions, predatory pricing, and exclusive agreements—constituted an illegal restraint of trade. As a remedy, the Court ordered the breakup of Standard Oil into 34 separate and independent companies, a dramatic reshaping of the American oil landscape. Among the entities created were companies that would later become industry giants in their own right, including Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and Amoco.The decision was a defining moment in U.S. antitrust enforcement, signaling the federal government’s willingness to confront corporate consolidation. It aimed to restore competition and prevent the recurrence of monopolistic control in vital sectors of the economy. However, over the next century, many of the separated entities gradually reconsolidated. Notably, Exxon and Mobil merged in 1999 to form ExxonMobil, while Chevron absorbed both Gulf Oil and Texaco, and BP later acquired Amoco.Today, a majority of the original 34 companies—or their direct successors—are now part of just a few massive corporations. This reconsolidation serves as a cautionary tale: without vigilant antitrust enforcement post-breakup, market dominance can re-emerge in new forms. The Standard Oil saga demonstrates not only the power of antitrust law but also its limitations if not actively maintained. It underscores that breaking up monopolies is only one step—the preservation of competition requires ongoing oversight.The EPA announced it will weaken several Biden-era regulations on PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in drinking water. Specifically, the agency plans to rescind enforceable limits on three types of PFAS—PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (also known as GenX)—as well as on combinations of those and PFBS. At the same time, the EPA is giving water systems two extra years, until 2031, to comply with limits on PFOA and PFOS, the two most well-known and studied PFAS chemicals, citing the challenges especially for smaller and rural systems.The original Biden administration rule had set an enforceable limit of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and a non-enforceable goal of zero exposure due to their cancer and health risks. The EPA says it will revisit its regulatory decisions on the other PFAS types it is now rolling back. Administrator Lee Zeldin framed the delay as necessary flexibility while maintaining protections against the most harmful chemicals, but environmental groups like the Environmental Working Group blasted the move as a concession to industry that puts public health at risk. Some state-level regulators expressed caution and said more time is needed to evaluate the impact of rescinding the additional PFAS limits.EPA Moves to Weaken Biden-era PFAS Limits for Drinking WaterU.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared before Congress for the first time in his new role, facing bipartisan scrutiny over his department’s proposed 2026 budget, mass layoffs, and his response to a growing measles outbreak. Since taking office in February, Kennedy has overseen the dismissal of roughly 10,000 workers across major health agencies, aligning with broader Trump administration efforts to downsize the federal government. His budget plan calls for deep cuts, including $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health and $3.6 billion from the CDC.Lawmakers questioned Kennedy’s controversial stance on vaccines—particularly during an outbreak that has resulted in over 1,000 infections and three deaths, largely among unvaccinated populations. Representative Rosa DeLauro accused Kennedy of promoting misinformation and endangering public health. Senator Bill Cassidy, who supported Kennedy’s confirmation based on promises to uphold vaccine access and collaborate with Congress, emphasized the need for transparency and reassurance amid sweeping departmental changes.Kennedy defended the workforce reductions as a return to pre-COVID staffing levels and projected $1.8 billion in annual savings. Still, critics view the cuts as harmful to the country’s public health infrastructure. His personal conduct also drew scrutiny after posting photos of himself swimming in Rock Creek, a site banned for public use due to unsafe water conditions.US health chief Kennedy faces lawmakers' questions on mass firings, measles | ReutersA growing number of major U.S. companies are proposing to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation—a trend being called “Dexit”—following Elon Musk’s public fallout with Delaware courts. At least nine publicly traded companies, each valued over $1 billion, are preparing shareholder votes to move their legal...
    Más Menos
    6 m
  • Legal News for Weds 5/14 - Section 199A Tax Breaks for Rich, Harvard Federal Funding Fight, New Sentence for Menendez Bros and WI Judge Indicted

    Legal News for Weds 5/14 - Section 199A Tax Breaks for Rich, Harvard Federal Funding Fight, New Sentence for Menendez Bros and WI Judge Indicted
    May 14 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Arrival of Constitutional DelegatesOn May 14, 1787, delegates from several states began arriving in Philadelphia for what would become the Constitutional Convention, a pivotal moment in American legal history. Originally convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, the gathering quickly evolved into a full-scale effort to draft a new framework of government. Only a handful of delegates were present on the 14th, but their arrival marked the start of weeks of foundational debate and compromise.The Convention was held at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as Independence Hall, a site already steeped in revolutionary significance. Delegates represented a range of political and economic interests, and their regional differences would shape much of the debate to come. The eventual goal was to create a system that balanced federal and state authority while preventing tyranny through a series of checks and balances.While May 14 was the scheduled opening, a quorum was not achieved until May 25, delaying formal proceedings. Nonetheless, early arrivals used the time to strategize and lay the groundwork for proposals. Among them was James Madison, whose extensive preparation and later contributions earned him the title "Father of the Constitution."The Convention would ultimately produce the United States Constitution, replacing the Articles of Confederation and establishing the three branches of government. This foundational legal document remains the supreme law of the land, with its principles guiding American governance to this day.In a new analysis, the Tax Law Center critiques the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposal to expand the section 199A pass-through business income deduction, calling it a costly move that deepens existing inequities in the tax code. Originally enacted under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, section 199A allows qualifying owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their income. This benefit is already skewed heavily toward the top 1% of earners and industries such as law and lobbying. The provision, which expires after 2025 under current law, has not shown evidence of boosting economic activity and has instead encouraged tax avoidance strategies.The new proposal would raise the deduction rate from 20% to 23% and remove the income cap that currently limits eligibility for higher earners in certain industries. This change would particularly benefit high-income professionals whose pass-through income makes up a large share of their earnings. For example, under the proposed rules, a law firm partner earning $247,300 could receive a deduction of nearly $20,000—whereas they would get nothing under current 2025 law.The revised rules would also alter how phase-outs are calculated, increasing the value of the deduction for top earners while reducing it for some taxpayers whose income includes a mix of wages and pass-through business earnings. The analysis warns that these changes may incentivize further reclassification of income to exploit the deduction. Additionally, the proposal extends the favorable treatment to interest income received through Business Development Companies (BDCs), providing a new tax break for certain investment structures favored by private funds.Ways and Means proposes making costly 199A “pass-through” deduction more generous and valuable to high-income earnersHarvard University has broadened its lawsuit against the federal government, escalating a legal dispute over the termination of billions in federal funding. The amended complaint, filed in federal court in Boston, follows a new wave of agency letters formally cutting off $450 million in grants and reaffirming the earlier freeze of over $2.2 billion. The government attributes the funding halt to Harvard's alleged failure to address antisemitic incidents on campus.Harvard argues that the funding freeze is an unconstitutional retaliation for its refusal to cede academic control to federal authorities. The university maintains that these actions violate its First Amendment rights, particularly in relation to academic freedom and decision-making in areas like faculty hiring and student admissions. The complaint asserts that the administration is effectively punishing Harvard for not aligning with its political and ideological expectations.The dispute has wide-ranging implications, threatening numerous research initiatives and sectors dependent on Harvard’s federal support. Agencies including the NIH, USDA, DOE, DOD, and HUD have all issued letters stating the university's recent conduct undermines federal priorities, leaving no room for corrective action.Harvard President Alan Garber has condemned the funding cuts as political overreach, warning they jeopardize core institutional freedoms. Meanwhile, a federal task force countered with a public rebuke of Harvard’s leadership, accusing it of fostering discrimination and failing to protect Jewish students.A...
    Más Menos
    7 m
  • Legal News for Tues 5/13 - Trump Ousts Copyright Office Chief After AI Report Critical of Musk Position, Texas Hands $1b to Private Schools and Starves Public Ones, Trump Undercuts Tax Compliance

    Legal News for Tues 5/13 - Trump Ousts Copyright Office Chief After AI Report Critical of Musk Position, Texas Hands $1b to Private Schools and Starves Public Ones, Trump Undercuts Tax Compliance
    May 13 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Brady v. MarylandOn May 13, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Brady v. Maryland, fundamentally reshaping criminal procedure and the obligations of prosecutors. The case involved John Brady, who was convicted of murder in Maryland state court. Although he admitted involvement, he claimed he did not commit the actual killing. During the trial, the prosecution withheld a statement from Brady’s co-defendant that supported this claim. After Brady was sentenced to death, his attorneys discovered the statement and appealed, arguing that suppression of such exculpatory evidence violated his constitutional rights.The Supreme Court agreed, holding in a 7–2 decision that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process, regardless of whether the prosecution acted in good faith or bad faith. This principle became known as the Brady Rule, and it remains one of the cornerstones of a fair trial in American criminal justice. The Court emphasized that the goal of a trial is not to win a case but to ensure justice is done.The Brady decision led to a broader understanding of prosecutorial obligations and placed enforceable limits on government discretion. Over time, it has been extended and clarified through subsequent cases, shaping what material must be disclosed and when. Still, Brady violations continue to arise in courts, often forming the basis for appeals or post-conviction relief. The ruling reflects a deep constitutional commitment to due process and underscores the state’s duty to act not only as an advocate but also as a guardian of fairness.President Donald Trump abruptly fired Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights, on May 10, 2025, just two days after also dismissing Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, who had appointed Perlmutter in 2020. The U.S. Copyright Office confirmed the termination via a statement, noting that Perlmutter received an email from the White House informing her that her role was ended “effective immediately.” The administration has not publicly explained the firing, and Perlmutter has not commented.The move came shortly after the Copyright Office released a report addressing how generative AI models interact with copyright law. The report urged caution on government intervention and emphasized the importance of voluntary licensing systems. It drew a line between research-related uses of AI, which are unlikely to harm copyright holders, and commercial uses that replicate copyrighted content, especially when done through unauthorized access—arguing the latter may exceed fair use.Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) condemned the dismissal, calling it an "unprecedented power grab" and linking it to Perlmutter’s refusal to support Elon Musk’s push to use copyrighted material for AI training. The timing of her removal, coming one day after the report’s release, has intensified speculation about political motives behind the firing.Trump Terminates US Copyright Office Director in New Shakeup (1)Everything is bigger in Texas, including policy failures. The latest—an expensive exercise in public policy theater that trades taxpayer dollars for ideological victory laps. With Governor Greg Abbott poised to sign Senate Bill 2 into law, Texas is now on track to funnel $1 billion away from public education and into private schools, starting in the 2026-27 school year. And make no mistake: this isn’t about "school choice"—it’s about abandoning public schools under the rhetorical cover of parental empowerment.Supporters say it’s about letting families choose the education that “fits their child’s path,” but the real fit here is between a regressive policy and a Republican donor wishlist. Up to 20% of the funds will be available to families earning over $160,000—so yes, the state is subsidizing private tuition for households that already have the means. Meanwhile, the public schools left behind are told to make do with less.Texas already ranks 38th in the nation in per-student funding, and public schools are still reeling from the $7.6 billion lawmakers withheld last session to hold them hostage for this very proposal. Districts have been cutting staff, closing campuses, and hiring uncertified teachers to stay afloat. Now they’re being told they can have their crumbs—so long as a chunk of the loaf goes to private institutions that aren’t accountable to the same standards, can't be compelled to admit students, and won’t have to administer the same state tests used to judge public schools.This is a policy that spends public money without public accountability. It privileges private choice over public obligation. And it’s being sold with the same warmed-over talking points that ignore what the data keeps telling us: vouchers don’t reliably improve academic outcomes, especially not for the low-income students lawmakers claim to be championing.But the most ...
    Más Menos
    7 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_T1_webcro805_stickypopup