Legal News for Weds 7/17 - Biden Eyes SCOTUS Term Limits and Ethics Code, Judge Kindred Conflicts, Gun Permit Ruling in MN, Tesla Changes Legal Teams and ex-Judge Jones Updates

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln Signs the Second Confiscation Act

On July 17, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act into law, marking a significant legal development during the Civil War. This act allowed for the seizure of property owned by individuals engaged in rebellion against the Union. Unlike previous measures, it did not require due process or provide an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. The act targeted Confederate supporters, intending to weaken the rebellion by stripping resources from those aiding the Confederate cause.

The legislation also declared that enslaved people who escaped from rebel owners or were captured by Union forces would be considered free. This move was a precursor to the Emancipation Proclamation and signaled a shift in Union policy towards a more aggressive stance against slavery. The Second Confiscation Act was controversial, as it raised significant legal and constitutional questions regarding property rights and due process. Critics argued it overstepped executive powers and violated the Fifth Amendment.

Despite these concerns, the act was a critical step in undermining the Confederate war effort and advancing the Union’s moral and strategic objectives. It reflected the growing commitment of the Lincoln administration to not only preserve the Union but also to end slavery. The Second Confiscation Act thus played a pivotal role in the broader legal and political landscape of the Civil War.

President Joe Biden is preparing to introduce proposals for significant Supreme Court reforms, including imposing term limits on justices, who currently serve for life. This marks a notable shift for Biden, who has previously resisted such reforms despite pressure from within his party. The proposals also include an enforceable ethics code for justices and a constitutional amendment to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision granting broad immunity to presidents for official actions.

However, these changes are expected to face considerable challenges in becoming law, especially with Congress unlikely to address major legislation before the upcoming election. Biden’s proposals come amidst a tight race against former President Donald Trump, who leads in public opinion polls. Congressional Republicans are expected to oppose the reforms, viewing the current conservative Supreme Court as a significant political achievement.

The White House has yet to consult with key lawmakers about the plans, and Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has declined to comment. Biden hinted at these proposals in a recent call with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, aiming to garner support after a poor performance in a presidential debate. The Democratic push for Supreme Court reform has grown following several controversial rulings, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the rejection of Biden’s student loan cancellation plan.

Justice Clarence Thomas has also faced scrutiny for not disclosing expensive gifts from conservative donors. The court’s decision granting presidential immunity for official acts has further complicated efforts to prosecute Trump. Biden criticized this decision, arguing it contradicts the founders' intentions. In response, Trump accused Democrats of undermining the Supreme Court and interfering in the presidential election.

Biden to Propose Supreme Court Reforms, Including Term Limits

Biden seriously considering proposals on Supreme Court term limits, ethics code, AP sources say

Federal prosecutors in Alaska have identified 23 criminal cases with potential conflicts of interest involving former U.S. District Judge Joshua Kindred, who resigned following sexual misconduct allegations. The 9th Circuit Judicial Council reprimanded Kindred for creating a hostile work environment and engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a law clerk. Although the clerk did not work on cases before Kindred, potential conflicts existed in other cases.

Bryan Wilson, head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s criminal division, detailed the conflicts in an email to Alaska’s federal public defender. These conflicts included interactions between Kindred and several attorneys, such as a senior prosecutor who sent him nude photos and another attorney who exchanged flirtatious texts. These undisclosed conflicts could lead defense lawyers to challenge convictions or sentences from cases Kindred oversaw.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office had taken steps to mitigate conflicts since late 2022 by notifying the district’s chief judge and reassigning cases from Kindred. However, Federal Public Defender Jamie McGrady criticized the office for not disclosing the conflicts sooner and noted that the recusal of Kindred did not eliminate prejudice against defendants. Her office plans to investigate all cases involving attorneys who interacted with Kindred to ensure justice.

Former Alaska judge had potential conflicts in 23 cases, prosecutors say | Reuters

A federal appeals court ruled that Minnesota's law requiring individuals to be at least 21 to obtain a permit to carry a handgun in public for self-defense is unconstitutional. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law violated the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing for the panel, emphasized that the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit.

The court upheld a previous ruling in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which had challenged the law. The decision referenced the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a new standard for evaluating firearm regulations, stating they must align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Judge Benton noted that Minnesota failed to show that 18- to 20-year-olds posed specific risks that justified the age restriction. Despite this, the Supreme Court had recently upheld a federal ban on gun possession for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, indicating that certain modern firearm restrictions could be valid without historical precedent.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison expressed disappointment with the ruling, arguing it complicates efforts to reduce shootings and enhance public safety. This decision is part of a broader trend of gun rights groups challenging age-based firearm restrictions in various states.

Minnesota cannot bar adults under 21 from carrying guns, court rules | Reuters

Tesla has replaced its long-time law firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in a California class action antitrust case. This change, noted in court records, comes as Tesla faces allegations of monopolizing the market for vehicle parts and services, which has purportedly led to consumers paying higher prices. The reason for the switch was not disclosed, and neither Tesla nor the involved law firms commented.

The class action case saw a significant development in June when a judge refused to dismiss the claims against Tesla. Shortly thereafter, Wilmer attorneys made their debut appearance for Tesla, continuing to deny the plaintiffs' allegations. Tesla and Musk have a history of legal representation by both Cravath and Wilmer in various high-profile cases.

Musk is also represented by Cravath in a Delaware lawsuit challenging his $56 billion pay package, a case that faced a setback in January when a judge invalidated the compensation. Despite a shareholder vote in favor of Musk's pay in June, the Delaware litigation continues, with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan recently joining the defense team.

Wilmer is defending Tesla in another antitrust lawsuit in New Orleans, where it seeks to overturn a ban on direct-to-consumer car sales. The new Wilmer team for the California case includes partners David Gringer and Ari Holtzblatt, while the departing Cravath team comprised David Marriott and Vanessa Lavely.

Tesla swaps law firms in antitrust case as Cravath exits | Reuters

The questioning of former bankruptcy judge David R. Jones, who resigned after revealing a secret relationship with a partner at Texas law firm Jackson Walker, has been postponed. The US Trustee's office is investigating to recover over $13 million in fees Jones approved for Jackson Walker without disclosing the relationship. Chief Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez of the Houston bankruptcy court is deliberating on whether the questions about Jones' recusal decisions and his relationship with the attorney violate judiciary policy.

Jones, who resigned last year, had a relationship with Elizabeth Freeman, who left Jackson Walker in late 2022. The deposition, originally set for July 18, is on hold until Judge Rodriguez determines the appropriateness of the questions. Jones' attorney, Benjamin I. Finestone, argues that questions about Jones' conduct are a distraction and that the focus should be on what Jackson Walker knew about the relationship.

Jackson Walker's attorney, Jason Lee Boland, asserts that understanding the timeline of Jones and Freeman's relationship is crucial for defending against the US Trustee's efforts to reclaim the fees. Judge Rodriguez emphasized the complexity of addressing questions about judges' recusal decisions, stating that such decisions should not be publicly questioned. US Trustee attorney Laura Steele argued that Jones' public statements about his recusals allow for relevant inquiries.

The case, known as Professional Fee Matters Concerning the Jackson Walker Law Firm, continues as the court navigates the boundaries of questioning a judge's conduct and recusal decisions.

Bankruptcy Court Likely to Pare Back Probe into Ex-Judge Romance

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe