Épisodes

  • Legal News for Fri 12/19 - Trump Takes Aim at Green Card Lottery, ICE Blocking Judge Convicted, Epstein File Drama and No Tax on Car Loans is Bogus

    Legal News for Fri 12/19 - Trump Takes Aim at Green Card Lottery, ICE Blocking Judge Convicted, Epstein File Drama and No Tax on Car Loans is Bogus
    Dec 19 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Entrapment as DefenseOn December 19, 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sorrells v. United States, a case that reshaped how American courts evaluate government conduct in criminal investigations. The case involved a Prohibition-era prosecution in which a federal agent repeatedly pressured the defendant to obtain illegal liquor. The Court held that criminal convictions should not stand when the government induces a crime that the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to commit. This decision formally recognized entrapment as a valid defense under federal law.Rather than focusing only on the defendant’s actions, the Court emphasized the importance of limiting improper law enforcement tactics. The majority opinion reasoned that Congress could not have intended criminal statutes to be enforced through deception that manufactures crime. As a result, courts were instructed to examine whether the criminal intent originated with the government or the accused. The ruling reflected growing concern about aggressive policing methods during Prohibition. Over time, Sorrells became a foundational case cited whenever defendants challenge undercover operations. The decision also highlighted the judiciary’s role in supervising executive conduct in criminal prosecutions.The Trump administration has suspended the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program—commonly known as the green card lottery—following two high-profile campus attacks. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the move, stating that the suspect in the fatal shootings of a Brown University student and an MIT professor had entered the U.S. through the program. The shooter, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, a 48-year-old Portuguese national and former Brown student, was found dead in an apparent suicide. Noem said the pause is necessary to prevent further harm from what she called a “disastrous program.”The lottery program, which grants up to 50,000 green cards annually, has long been a target of Trump’s immigration agenda, which links violent incidents to immigration policy failures. This suspension follows earlier actions by the administration, including visa restrictions after a separate shooting by an Afghan national and a proposal to impose a $100,000 application fee for H-1B work visas, which are heavily used in the tech industry.Trump’s broader immigration crackdown also includes enhanced social media vetting for tourists, expanded ICE operations in major cities, and the development of large-scale immigration detention centers known as “mega centers.” These moves align with Trump’s campaign promises to tighten border controls and execute large-scale deportations.Trump Suspends US Green Card Lottery After Brown, MIT AttacksTrump administration officials are scrambling to meet a Friday deadline to release a large cache of documents related to the Justice Department’s investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. The release was mandated by a recently passed law, supported by both parties in Congress, following months of political pressure and public frustration over the administration’s resistance to transparency. Though President Trump initially opposed the legislation, he reversed course shortly before the vote amid growing dissent from his own supporters.The new law permits the Justice Department to withhold certain details, including victims’ identities and information tied to ongoing investigations. Attorneys in the department’s National Security Division have been racing to redact sensitive data, raising internal concerns about the risk of mistakes, especially regarding private information. The tight timeline has disrupted other DOJ casework since Thanksgiving.Trump’s handling of the Epstein matter has dented his support among Republicans, with only 44% approving of his actions, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll. This contrasts sharply with his broader 82% approval within the party. Critics argue that Trump’s past friendship with Epstein and his failure to follow through on a 2024 campaign promise to declassify the records have fueled suspicions of a cover-up. While Trump has denied knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has not been accused of wrongdoing, past email disclosures have added to the controversy.As more emails emerge—some implying Trump’s involvement, others suggesting no direct misconduct—the administration has tried to redirect attention toward figures like Bill Clinton and JPMorgan. But with midterms approaching, the Epstein file release may remain a political liability.Trump administration officials race to meet Friday deadline for Epstein files | ReutersWisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of obstructing a federal proceeding for aiding a migrant in avoiding an immigration arrest at the courthouse, marking a significant legal win for the Trump administration’s intensified immigration enforcement efforts. The jury acquitted Dugan on a lesser charge of ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    11 min
  • Legal News for Thurs 12/18 - Courts Block Trump CFPB Firings, Doctors Sue RFK Jr. HHS Over Vaccines, DC Guard Deployment Remains and Trump Ballroom Moves Forward

    Legal News for Thurs 12/18 - Courts Block Trump CFPB Firings, Doctors Sue RFK Jr. HHS Over Vaccines, DC Guard Deployment Remains and Trump Ballroom Moves Forward
    Dec 18 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Trump ImpeachedOn December 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump, marking the third presidential impeachment in American history. The impeachment followed a months-long investigation centered on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. House Democrats alleged that the president abused the powers of his office by pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival. A second article charged Trump with obstruction of Congress for directing executive branch officials not to comply with House subpoenas. The votes largely split along party lines, reflecting deep political polarization.Impeachment itself did not remove Trump from office, but instead formally accused him of constitutional wrongdoing. Under the Constitution, the House holds the sole power of impeachment, functioning similarly to a grand jury. Once impeached, the process shifted to the Senate, which is responsible for conducting a trial. Chief Justice John Roberts later presided over the Senate proceedings, as required when a president is tried. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in February 2020, falling short of the two-thirds vote needed for conviction. Despite the acquittal, the impeachment reinforced Congress’s oversight authority over the executive branch. The episode also highlighted ongoing debates about the limits of presidential power and the role of impeachment as a constitutional check.A federal appeals court in Washington reversed an earlier ruling that would have allowed the Trump administration to move forward with mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Sitting as a full bench, the court blocked plans to cut as much as 90% of the agency’s workforce and agreed to rehear the administration’s appeal of a lower court order that had paused efforts to dismantle the bureau. As a result, the administration remains temporarily barred from gutting the agency while litigation continues. The legal fight has stretched on for months, during which the CFPB has been largely sidelined. Congress originally created the CFPB after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices by banks, lenders, and other financial companies. Its mission includes enforcing federal consumer financial laws and preventing the kinds of predatory conduct that helped trigger the financial collapse. Supporters of the agency, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, praised the ruling as necessary to shield families from financial harm.Critics within the Trump administration have argued the CFPB is politically motivated (as protecting consumers from predatory financial practices is political, apparently) and should be eliminated, though they have also claimed in court that some version of the agency would remain. Complicating matters further, the CFPB faces a funding dispute over whether it can draw money from the Federal Reserve, raising concerns that it could run out of operating funds.US appeals court tosses decision allowing Trump mass firings at consumer bureau | ReutersFull DC Circuit Will Review Trump’s Bid to Dismantle CFPB (2)A group of leading medical organizations asked a federal judge to allow their lawsuit challenging vaccine policy changes under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to move forward. The groups argue that recent actions by Kennedy and the Department of Health and Human Services will reduce vaccination rates and endanger public health. They point to a directive removing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and children without advance notice or explanation. The lawsuit also challenges Kennedy’s decision to dismiss 17 experts from a CDC advisory panel and replace them with members more aligned with his views. That reconstituted panel later voted to scale back broad vaccine recommendations, including limiting COVID-19 shots to shared decision-making with doctors and eliminating universal recommendations for certain childhood vaccines.The plaintiffs claim the panel was unlawfully reshaped in violation of federal law requiring advisory committees to be balanced and free from improper influence. Government lawyers argue the medical groups lack standing because the CDC’s guidance merely advises consultation with doctors and does not directly harm them. The plaintiffs counter that they have been injured by having to divert resources to help doctors navigate confusing and abrupt policy shifts. The judge indicated skepticism toward the government’s standing argument, particularly in light of statements suggesting doctors could face liability for deviating from CDC guidance. A ruling on whether the case can proceed is expected before a scheduled January hearing.US medical groups urge judge to allow challenge to Kennedy-backed vaccine policies to proceed | ReutersA federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., to...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    7 min
  • Legal News for Weds 12/17 - A Judge Revisits Trump's Deportation Policy, Judge Thapar's Xenophobia as "Constitutional Theory," and a $500m Avatar Suit

    Legal News for Weds 12/17 - A Judge Revisits Trump's Deportation Policy, Judge Thapar's Xenophobia as "Constitutional Theory," and a $500m Avatar Suit
    Dec 17 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Project Blue Book EndsOn this day in legal history, December 17, 1969, the U.S. Air Force officially terminated Project Blue Book, its two-decade-long investigation into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Launched in 1952 during a peak in UFO sightings and Cold War anxiety, Project Blue Book reviewed over 12,000 reports of aerial phenomena. The Air Force concluded that most sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, aircraft, or hoaxes, and found no evidence of extraterrestrial activity or threats to national security. With its closure, the government effectively stepped back from public-facing UFO investigations, although some believe military interest continued behind closed doors.Legally, the end of Project Blue Book catalyzed decades of litigation and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as citizens, journalists, and researchers sought access to government-held UFO data. The skeptical legal view has often emphasized that classified information typically relates to military technology or surveillance programs, not alien spacecraft. Despite popular culture’s fixation on extraterrestrials, courts have routinely deferred to executive branch claims of national security in resisting full transparency.While the project’s conclusion did not trigger direct legislation, it helped shape a legal culture around government secrecy, classification standards, and the public’s right to know. It also fueled persistent legal tension between conspiratorial narratives and evidentiary standards. As UFOs—now reframed as “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAPs)—have resurfaced in congressional hearings in recent years, Blue Book remains a touchstone for the limits of disclosure and the enduring gap between public curiosity and provable claims.Skepticism remains warranted: decades later, no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim of extraterrestrial contact—despite tens of thousands of pages released and re-litigated under FOIA.U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston expressed openness to again striking down a Trump policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that permit deportation to countries other than a migrant’s country of origin, often with as little as six hours’ notice. Judge Murphy had previously issued an injunction in April to halt such deportations, arguing they violated due process, but the Supreme Court paused that order in June via its “shadow docket” without providing detailed reasoning.Despite acknowledging the likely involvement of the Supreme Court again, Murphy indicated that he may still rule on the merits of the case, though any decision would likely be temporarily stayed. The lawsuit, a class action, targets a DHS memo from March and guidance from July that permits deportations based on “credible” diplomatic assurances. Plaintiffs argue these policies fall short of constitutional protections, while the Justice Department insists migrants already have opportunities to raise objections during proceedings. The judge criticized the lack of clarity from the Supreme Court’s earlier intervention and emphasized the importance of due process in removal proceedings.US judge open to again striking down Trump policy on third-country deportations | ReutersA Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge has argued that constitutional rights do not extend to immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully, a position he laid out in a partial dissent in a Second Amendment case. Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar agreed with upholding a federal ban on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants but rejected the majority’s reasoning. Instead, he argued the case should have been resolved by declaring that only U.S. citizens are included in “the people” protected by the Constitution. Thapar relied heavily on the Constitution’s preamble and an originalist reading of history, asserting that the Founders never intended constitutional protections to apply to non-citizens, especially those unlawfully present.The majority opinion rejected that framing, pointing to Supreme Court precedent recognizing that non-citizens who develop substantial connections to the country may invoke constitutional rights. Thapar went further, suggesting that even the First and Fourth Amendments were not originally meant to protect non-citizens. The case arose from a challenge by a Guatemalan national convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms, but Thapar’s reasoning reached far beyond gun regulation. His dissent echoes arguments long advanced by the Trump administration and aligns with his status as a former Trump Supreme Court shortlist candidate.From my perspective, this is a racist, xenophobic, and profoundly ahistorical take that threatens to usher in a shameful new...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    7 min
  • Legal News for Tues 12/16 - No Tax on Overtime is Bogus, Trump's $10b Lawsuit, Law School Enrollment Way Up, Ball Room Court Fight and SNAP Deadline Ruling

    Legal News for Tues 12/16 - No Tax on Overtime is Bogus, Trump's $10b Lawsuit, Law School Enrollment Way Up, Ball Room Court Fight and SNAP Deadline Ruling
    Dec 16 2025
    This Day in Legal History: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court’s approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State’s minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court’s posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court’s conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt’s controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it’s a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida’s unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC’s position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump’s legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    10 min
  • Legal News for Mon 12/15 - Judge on Trial over ICE Obstruction, CA Suing Trump Admin Over Trucker Language Rules, Setback for DOJ in Comey Case and $40m Verdict in J&J Trial

    Legal News for Mon 12/15 - Judge on Trial over ICE Obstruction, CA Suing Trump Admin Over Trucker Language Rules, Setback for DOJ in Comey Case and $40m Verdict in J&J Trial
    Dec 15 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Bill of Rights RatifiedOn December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was officially ratified, marking a foundational moment in American legal history. With Virginia becoming the crucial eleventh state to approve the measure, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution achieved the three-fourths majority required for adoption. These amendments were crafted in response to fears that the newly formed federal government might trample on individual freedoms, a concern strongly voiced by the Anti-Federalists during the Constitution’s ratification debates. Drafted primarily by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was intended to secure essential civil liberties and limit government power.The amendments enshrine core protections such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also provide important rights to those accused of crimes, including the right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. At the time, these provisions applied only to the federal government, but their scope was later expanded through the Incorporation Doctrine using the Fourteenth Amendment.The ratification of the Bill of Rights represented a political compromise but ultimately became a defining element of American constitutional identity. Over the centuries, courts have invoked these amendments in countless rulings, from free speech cases to gun rights and due process protections. The Bill of Rights not only shapes modern legal debates but also remains a symbol of the nation’s enduring commitment to individual liberty and the rule of law. Its ratification on this day in 1791 continues to influence how justice is understood and delivered in the United States.Judge Hannah Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is on trial for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest in her courtroom, a case seen as a test of Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies. Federal prosecutors accuse Dugan of helping a Mexican migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade arrest by redirecting ICE agents and escorting the defendant through a non-public exit after his hearing. Dugan, who has been suspended from the bench, has pleaded not guilty to charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings.Prosecutors claim she acted corruptly and misled law enforcement, allegedly showing anger when she learned of ICE’s presence and insisting a judicial warrant was needed. Dugan’s defense argues she acted in good faith, following courthouse policy designed to handle ICE encounters after previous controversial arrests. The trial highlights growing legal and political tensions around courthouse arrests, which critics say intimidate immigrants and undermine trust in the legal system. The outcome could influence how far judges and local officials can go in pushing back against federal immigration actions.Wisconsin judge faces trial for stopping courtroom arrest of migrant in Trump crackdown | ReutersCalifornia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting over $33 million in federal grants intended for commercial vehicle safety programs. The U.S. Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Sean Duffy, justified the funding termination by claiming California failed to properly enforce English proficiency requirements for truck drivers. California argues its standards align with federal rules and called the decision unlawful and harmful to public safety and the economy.The lawsuit comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to crack down on non-English-speaking and non-U.S. citizen truck drivers. This includes halting commercial driver visas and threatening similar funding cuts in states like New York and Minnesota. The administration has also targeted Democrat-led states for other transportation-related penalties. In California’s case, the withheld funds were designated for safety inspections, audits, traffic enforcement, and education programs.California contends that its licensed drivers are involved in significantly fewer fatal crashes than the national average, challenging the administration’s justification. The legal dispute reflects escalating tensions between federal agencies and Democratic states over immigration and transportation enforcement.California sues Trump administration over terminated transportation grants | ReutersA federal judge ruled that evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former attorney for ex-FBI Director James Comey, was wrongfully retained by prosecutors, presenting a hurdle for any new charges against Comey. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the Department of Justice to return the files but allowed a sealed copy to remain with the court should prosecutors later obtain a valid warrant. Richman had filed a lawsuit claiming the DOJ had improperly held onto materials seized ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    7 min
  • Legal News for Fri 12/12 - Trump Law Firm FOIA Lawsuit, Blocked ICE Detention for Abrego Garcia, Trump Loses on FEMA, and Threatens States on AI Regulations

    Legal News for Fri 12/12 - Trump Law Firm FOIA Lawsuit, Blocked ICE Detention for Abrego Garcia, Trump Loses on FEMA, and Threatens States on AI Regulations
    Dec 12 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Bush v. GoreOn December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Bush v. Gore, effectively ending the Florida recount and resolving the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The per curiam opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for ordering a manual recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to inconsistent standards across counties. The Court also ruled that there was not enough time to implement a constitutionally valid recount before the deadline for certifying electors.The decision was one of the most controversial in the Court’s history. It was split 5-4 along ideological lines, with the majority—led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O’Connor—arguing that allowing the recount to continue would irreparably harm Bush. The dissent, written by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter, criticized the majority for intervening in a state election process and undermining public confidence in judicial neutrality.The ruling effectively awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes to Bush, giving him 271 electoral votes—one more than needed to win the presidency—despite losing the national popular vote to Al Gore. The case remains a flashpoint in debates over judicial activism, the politicization of the courts, and the role of federal courts in state election matters. It also raised enduring questions about election integrity and the limits of judicial power in resolving political disputes.The watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Commerce and Justice Departments, demanding records of legal arrangements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms. The group had submitted eight Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in October seeking details about agreements in which the firms pledged to provide nearly $940 million in pro bono or discounted legal services to the federal government. After receiving inadequate responses, the group took legal action to compel the release of any related contracts, communications, or internal legal analyses.The agreements were announced by Trump earlier in the year on social media, shortly after he issued executive orders targeting law firms for their previous political and diversity-related work. American Oversight is particularly concerned about whether the deals were transparent and whether they might have influenced government policy or enforcement decisions. Several firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps—were reported to have been involved in trade matters or other projects with the administration. None of the firms or the agencies responded to requests for comment.This lawsuit follows a similar legal action by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, which alleged in October that related federal record requests had been improperly denied. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also asked several of the firms to explain their government work, but the firms declined, citing client confidentiality and discretion in matter selection.Trump administration sued for records of law firm deals | ReutersA federal judge blocked a renewed attempt by immigration authorities to detain Kilmar Abrego, just one day after his court-ordered release from ICE custody in Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had previously ordered Abrego’s temporary release, but an immigration judge quickly issued a new directive requiring him to report back to detention by the following morning. In response, Abrego’s attorneys filed an emergency request to stop the re-detention, which Xinis granted.In her ruling, Judge Xinis emphasized that judicial decisions must be respected and cannot be reversed hastily without due process. Abrego’s case has drawn national attention, serving as a high-profile example of what critics view as the Trump administration’s heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics. Originally deported in March to El Salvador under disputed circumstances, Abrego was returned to the U.S. in June to face charges related to human smuggling.Supporters argue his case reflects serious due process violations, while administration officials have maintained he poses a public safety risk. The legal tug-of-war over Abrego’s detention has become emblematic of broader legal and political conflicts surrounding immigration enforcement and civil liberties under the Trump administration.Judge blocks new effort to detain Kilmar Abrego | ReutersA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it attempted to terminate a FEMA program designed to help states prepare for natural disasters. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns sided with a coalition of 20 mostly Democratic-led states, finding that the administration overstepped its authority by trying to cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    12 min
  • Legal News for Thurs 12/11 - Judge on Trial Over ICE Obstruction, Trump Wants His Face on Park Passes, No Tax On Social Security is a Lie and new AI Homicide Litigation

    Legal News for Thurs 12/11 - Judge on Trial Over ICE Obstruction, Trump Wants His Face on Park Passes, No Tax On Social Security is a Lie and new AI Homicide Litigation
    Dec 11 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Madoff ArrestedOn December 11, 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested by federal agents and charged with securities fraud, marking the start of one of the most consequential white-collar crime cases in American legal history. Madoff, a former NASDAQ chairman and respected figure in the investment world, confessed to running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors—individuals, charities, and institutional clients—out of an estimated $65 billion. The legal scheme unraveled when Madoff admitted to his sons that the business was “one big lie,” prompting them to alert authorities. Prosecutors swiftly brought charges under multiple statutes, including securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, perjury, and false statements.The Department of Justice pursued criminal charges while the SEC, heavily criticized for prior inaction, launched civil enforcement actions under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Madoff waived indictment and pleaded guilty on March 12, 2009, to 11 felony counts without a plea deal. He was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison—the statutory maximum—and ordered to forfeit $170.8 billion, reflecting the full scope of the fraud. The case catalyzed intense scrutiny of the SEC’s oversight failures and led to internal reforms within the agency, including new whistleblower protections and enhanced enforcement procedures.In the bankruptcy proceedings under SIPA (Securities Investor Protection Act), trustee Irving Picard was appointed to recover funds for victims, using clawback lawsuits under fraudulent transfer laws to retrieve ill-gotten gains from those who had profited—wittingly or not. The legal theories underpinning those suits, including the application of actual and constructive fraud standards, sparked complex litigation that continues to shape bankruptcy and securities jurisprudence. Madoff’s arrest also prompted Congress to review gaps in financial regulation, laying groundwork for reforms later codified in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.Jury selection began in the federal trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping a Mexican migrant avoid arrest by U.S. immigration agents. The case, brought by the Trump administration’s Justice Department, charges Dugan with concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings, alleging she deliberately diverted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and allowed the migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to exit through a non-public courthouse door following a domestic violence hearing.Federal prosecutors argue that Dugan acted corruptly, citing her visible anger upon learning that ICE agents were present and her claim that a judicial warrant was required for the arrest—an assertion prosecutors say was false. Flores-Ruiz was ultimately arrested outside the courthouse after a brief chase.Dugan’s defense contends that she was navigating unclear rules around courthouse immigration enforcement and had sought guidance from court leadership days earlier. Her legal team maintains she was not trying to obstruct justice but rather to understand what rules applied.The case illustrates the broader tension between local judicial discretion and federal immigration enforcement under Trump’s expanded deportation policies, which have included more aggressive operations in local courthouses. Critics argue such tactics deter immigrants from accessing courts and undermine public confidence in the legal system.Dugan, a judge since 2016 and formerly head of Catholic Charities in Milwaukee, has been suspended from the bench pending the outcome of the trial. Her prosecution echoes an earlier Trump-era case against a Massachusetts judge accused of similar conduct—charges that were later dropped during the Biden administration.Wisconsin judge on trial as Trump administration targets immigration enforcement resistance | ReutersThe Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department to block its decision to feature President Donald Trump’s image on the 2026 America the Beautiful national parks annual pass. The group argues the move violates the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act of 2004, which requires the pass to display the winning photograph from a public contest depicting natural scenery or wildlife in a national park or forest.This year’s winning photo—a landscape of Glacier National Park—was allegedly discarded in favor of a close-up image of Trump, posed beside George Washington, without any new contest or congressional approval. The lawsuit calls the switch an unlawful act of self-promotion and criticizes it as an attempt to turn a public symbol into a personal branding tool.Adding to the controversy, the lawsuit claims that the Glacier photo was demoted to a new $250 pass for foreign visitors, part of Trump’s newly introduced “...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    9 min
  • Legal News for Weds 12/10 - Endangered Species in More Danger, Death Row Intellectual Disability Case, Jack Smith New Gig and DOJ Charges in Russian Cyberattacks

    Legal News for Weds 12/10 - Endangered Species in More Danger, Death Row Intellectual Disability Case, Jack Smith New Gig and DOJ Charges in Russian Cyberattacks
    Dec 10 2025
    This Day in Legal History: Gregory v. ChicagoOn this day in legal history, December 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gregory v. City of Chicago, a case involving the arrest of civil rights demonstrators under a local disorderly conduct ordinance. The demonstrators, led by comedian and activist Dick Gregory, had peacefully marched from Chicago’s City Hall to the home of Mayor Richard J. Daley to protest school segregation. Though the march itself remained nonviolent, an unruly crowd of onlookers gathered, prompting police to demand that the demonstrators disperse. When they refused, Gregory and others were arrested and later convicted of disorderly conduct.The key legal issue before the Court was whether the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights had been violated when they were punished for the hostile reactions of bystanders. In a per curiam opinion issued the following year, the Court reversed the convictions, holding that the peaceful demonstrators could not be held criminally liable for the disruptive behavior of others. Justice Black, concurring, emphasized that the First Amendment protects peaceful expression even in the face of public opposition or discomfort.The case is a critical reaffirmation of the “heckler’s veto” doctrine — the principle that the government cannot suppress speech simply because it provokes a hostile reaction. It underscored the constitutional duty to protect unpopular or provocative speech, especially in the context of civil rights protests. The Court’s decision also reinforced the due process requirement that criminal statutes must be applied in a way that is not arbitrary or overbroad.Gregory v. City of Chicago remains a foundational case in First Amendment jurisprudence and protest law, balancing public order concerns against the fundamental rights of assembly and expression.The Trump administration’s proposed repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) definition of “harm” could significantly weaken protections for imperiled species in federally managed forests, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The change would limit the ESA’s scope to cover only direct physical injury to species, excluding habitat destruction from regulation. Environmental groups argue this could devastate species like the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, both of which depend on old-growth forests increasingly targeted for logging under recent federal mandates. Legal experts warn that without habitat protections, ESA enforcement becomes largely ineffective, as species cannot survive without suitable environments. The rollback is expected to reduce permitting requirements for developers and extractive industries, a move welcomed by business groups but opposed by conservationists.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initially defined “harm” in 1981 to include habitat degradation, but now argues that interpretation overextends the ESA’s intent. Logging has already surged in owl and murrelet habitats, especially in Oregon, with timber sales up 20% in 2025. Population declines among spotted owls—down 70% since 1990—are linked to habitat loss and competition from invasive barred owls. Critics of the repeal emphasize that previous conservation plans, like the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, successfully slowed species decline by curbing old-growth logging. Industry groups argue the ESA has been “weaponized” to block necessary forest management and wildfire prevention. Meanwhile, lawsuits are brewing on both sides: environmentalists are expected to challenge the rollback, while timber interests seek to overturn broader habitat protections.Trump’s Changes to What Harms Species Adds Risk in Logging AreasThe U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case involving Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama death row inmate whose death sentence was overturned after a federal court found him intellectually disabled. The dispute centers on how courts should interpret multiple IQ scores and other evidence when determining whether someone meets the legal criteria for intellectual disability. This analysis is critical because, in 2002’s Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.Smith, now 55, was sentenced to death for the 1997 killing of Durk Van Dam during a robbery. His IQ scores have ranged from 72 to 78, but the lower court applied the standard margin of error, concluding his true score could fall below 70. The court also found substantial, lifelong deficits in adaptive functioning, including challenges in social skills, independent living, and academics. These findings led the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the decision to set aside his death sentence.Alabama officials argue the courts erred by evaluating Smith’s IQ scores collectively rather than individually. The Supreme Court previously asked the 11th ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    8 min