Legal News for Mon 7/15 - Trump Documents Case Dismissed, TN Horse Show Lawsuit in TX, Court Upholds TN Ban on Birth Certificate Sex Chance and OpenAI Whistleblower

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing Act Passed

On this day in legal history, July 15, 1949, Congress passed the Federal Housing Act, a pivotal piece of legislation that aimed to address the nation’s post-war housing crisis. This Act, also known as the Housing Act of 1949, was a key component of President Harry S. Truman’s Fair Deal program. It marked a significant federal commitment to improving living conditions for low-income Americans. The Act provided federal funding for slum clearance, urban renewal projects, and the construction of low-rent public housing.

Title I of the Act focused on urban renewal, authorizing the use of federal funds to clear blighted areas in cities. Title II aimed to increase the availability of low-rent public housing by providing subsidies for the construction of new units. The legislation intended not only to address the housing shortage but also to stimulate the economy by creating construction jobs.

The passage of the Federal Housing Act of 1949 reflected a growing recognition of the government's role in ensuring decent housing for all citizens. However, its implementation also sparked controversy and criticism, particularly regarding the displacement of communities and the effectiveness of urban renewal efforts. Despite these challenges, the Act laid the groundwork for subsequent federal housing policies and programs, shaping the landscape of American cities and the lives of countless families. This landmark legislation underscored the ongoing struggle to balance development, equity, and community preservation in urban policy.

A federal judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the criminal case against Donald Trump concerning his alleged illegal retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The ruling followed a hearing where Trump's legal team argued for dismissal, citing selective prosecution and political targeting by Democrats as Trump seeks the presidency again. They also referenced a Supreme Court decision granting the president immunity for official acts.

In contrast, President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence faced no criminal charges for their mishandling of classified documents, as both cooperated with investigators. Prosecutors had argued Trump's case was different due to allegations he obstructed the investigation by moving documents and discussing deceit with investigators. The dismissed charges had included 40 counts related to national security issues like nuclear capabilities and military vulnerabilities.

Florida judge dismisses criminal classified documents case against Trump

Following the Supreme Court's decision to limit federal regulators' powers, the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration Association and two show horse owners filed a lawsuit against a new USDA rule aimed at preventing horse soring. The case was strategically filed in Amarillo, Texas, to be heard by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, known for rulings against Biden administration policies. Plaintiffs argue the USDA rule, which bans devices and practices that can mask evidence of soring, will significantly devalue their horses, leading to a regulatory taking. The rule specifically targets Tennessee Walking Horses and Racking Horses, prohibiting chains, pads, wedges, and lubricants used to enhance their gait.

The lawsuit comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 28 decision to end Chevron deference, which had required courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. This case exemplifies the swift actions taken by anti-regulation groups to leverage the new regulatory landscape. Despite not explicitly mentioning Chevron or Loper Bright, the lawsuit challenges the USDA's authority under the Horse Protection Act, claiming the banned equipment does not cause soring based on scientific evidence.

Legal experts note the potential implications of this case, suggesting it could influence future regulatory policymaking. Critics argue the association is engaging in judge shopping to secure a favorable outcome. The plaintiffs seek to invalidate the rule and claim compensation for the anticipated loss in their horses' value, arguing the rule constitutes a regulatory taking. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent in the context of administrative law and regulatory challenges.

The concept of regulatory taking is central to this case. It refers to a situation where a government regulation limits the use of private property to such an extent that it effectively deprives the owners of its value, warranting compensation. This claim, if accepted by the court, could complicate future regulatory efforts by requiring compensation for loss in property value due to regulatory changes.

Tennessee Horse Show Picks Texas to Challenge Rule Post Chevron

A divided federal appeals court upheld Tennessee's longstanding policy prohibiting changes to the sex listed on birth certificates, rejecting a constitutional challenge by four transgender women. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution does not mandate Tennessee to amend birth certificates to reflect gender identity. The court concluded that Tennessee has the discretion to maintain records based on biological sex.

The plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex and transgender status. However, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, representing the majority, stated that there is no fundamental right to have a birth certificate reflect gender identity over biological sex. Tennessee's Republican attorney general, Jonathan Skrmetti, supported the ruling, emphasizing that any policy change must come from the state's residents.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan from Lambda Legal, expressed disappointment and indicated potential further actions. He highlighted that the ruling conflicts with a recent decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which revived a similar lawsuit in Oklahoma. Judge Helene White, who dissented, argued that Tennessee's policy relies on outdated generalizations about sex and gender, infringing on the plaintiffs' rights by forcing them to disclose their transgender status in situations requiring birth certificates.

Court upholds Tennessee ban on changing sex in birth certificates | Reuters

OpenAI whistleblowers have filed a complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), urging an investigation into the company's non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). These agreements allegedly required employees to waive their federal rights to whistleblower compensation. The whistleblowers, supported by Sen. Chuck Grassley's office, claim that OpenAI's policies suppress employees' rights to report concerns and receive compensation for protected disclosures.

The complaint requests the SEC to impose fines on OpenAI for each improper NDA and to inspect all contracts containing such agreements. The whistleblowers also highlight that OpenAI's NDAs lacked exemptions for disclosing securities violations and required prior company consent to disclose information to federal regulators.

Sen. Grassley emphasized the importance of whistleblower protections, especially as artificial intelligence continues to advance rapidly. The SEC has not commented on the existence of the whistleblower submission, and OpenAI has not responded to requests for comment. The complaint highlights concerns about OpenAI's restrictive practices amidst growing scrutiny over the safety and ethical deployment of AI technologies.

OpenAI whistleblowers ask SEC to investigate alleged restrictive non-disclosure agreements | Reuters

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