Legal News for Tues 3/11 - James Ho Speaks to Federalist Society, Quits FJA Over Politicization, SCOTUS Takes Case on CO Conversion Therapy Ban and Elite Colleges Fight Higher Taxes on Endowments

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Lend-Lease Act

On March 11, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Lend-Lease Act into law, fundamentally reshaping U.S. foreign policy during World War II. The legislation empowered the President to provide military aid to countries deemed essential to American national security, even if they could not immediately pay for the supplies. This marked a decisive shift from the nation’s prior isolationist stance, allowing Roosevelt to support the Allies without directly engaging in combat. Under the act, the United States sent over $50 billion in war materials to nations such as the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. The aid included weapons, vehicles, food, and other critical supplies, strengthening the Allied war effort against Axis forces. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill described the act as crucial to his country’s survival, calling it "the most unsordid act in the history of any nation."

The law also laid the groundwork for closer U.S.-Allied relations, ensuring American economic and military influence in global affairs. While many supported the act as a necessary step to combat fascism, isolationists in Congress criticized it as a step toward war. Their fears proved correct when Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 led to full U.S. involvement in the conflict. Lend-Lease remained in effect until September 1945, helping to shape the postwar world order. The program reinforced the role of the United States as the "Arsenal of Democracy," a term Roosevelt had coined to describe its industrial and military production for the Allied cause.

The principles behind Lend-Lease also influenced future U.S. foreign aid programs, including the Marshall Plan. By prioritizing strategic alliances and military support, the act cemented America’s role as a dominant force in international relations.

U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho resigned from the Federal Judges Association (FJA) over its recent statement addressing rising threats, criticism, and violence against the judiciary. Ho, a Trump-appointed judge and potential Supreme Court nominee, objected to what he saw as a selective concern for judicial independence. The FJA, which represents over 1,100 federal judges, warned against "irresponsible rhetoric" and security risks but did not name specific cases or threats.

The statement came amid increasing attacks on judges from figures like Elon Musk and Trump allies, particularly targeting those blocking conservative policies. FJA President Judge Michelle Childs cited growing threats, including intimidation and impeachment efforts, as challenges to judicial independence. Ho criticized the group for not issuing similar warnings when conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, faced threats, arguing that defending only certain judges politicizes the judiciary. He announced his resignation at a Federalist Society event, framing his departure as a stand against perceived bias. The FJA did not respond to requests for comment.

Fun fact about Judge Ho, he was sworn in to the 5th Circuit by Justice Clarence Thomas at a library owned by Harlan Crow. Longtime readers of Minimum Competence will remember I featured Crow in a column back in 2023:

We’ve learned much about Crow over the past few weeks—as a friend and benefactor of Justice Clarence Thomas, a collector of Hitlerania and garden gnome versions of history’s greatest monsters, and a holder of a “cashport” (I’m coining that term here) to St. Kitts and Nevis, another country that is well known as a tax haven.

Some call them golden visas, but that’s a euphemism intended to give the entire process the air of legitimacy. James Bond carries a golden visa, Harlan Crow buys a cashport.

Trump-appointed judge quits judicial group over warning about threats | Reuters

Golden Visas Let People Like Harlan Crow Keep Too Much Hidden (2)

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on "conversion therapy" for minors, brought by Christian therapist Kaley Chiles. Chiles argues the 2019 law violates her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to counsel clients in line with her religious beliefs. Colorado officials maintain that the law regulates professional conduct, not speech. Lower courts upheld the ban, citing evidence that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective.

The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case follows its recent pattern of ruling in favor of religious interests over LGBT protections. The Court previously declined to hear a similar case from Washington state, though conservative justices dissented. The case will be argued in the Court’s next term, starting in October. The ruling could have nationwide implications, as over two dozen states have similar bans. The Court is also considering other cases on LGBT and religious rights this term, with decisions expected by June.

US Supreme Court to hear challenge to Colorado gay 'conversion therapy' ban | Reuters

Wealthy U.S. colleges are ramping up efforts to fight potential tax increases on their large endowments amid growing Republican scrutiny. The Trump administration’s recent decision to cut federal funding to Columbia University over alleged antisemitism is just one example of political pressure elite schools are facing. Universities like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT are intensifying lobbying efforts, with leaders traveling to Washington to protect their multibillion-dollar funds.

Critics argue that these institutions, which already benefit from tax advantages, should not be allowed to accumulate vast wealth tax-free while tuition remains high. Some proposals in Congress seek to raise the current 1.4% endowment tax or expand it to include schools with smaller per-student endowments. Universities warn that higher taxes could reduce financial aid and deter donors, affecting students who rely on scholarships.

The fight comes as Congress prepares for a major tax policy debate in 2025, with Republican lawmakers pushing for broader tax reform. Some smaller institutions, like Wabash College, fear they could be unfairly targeted despite having far fewer resources than elite schools. Meanwhile, top universities continue to brace for further financial and political attacks, with some implementing hiring freezes in response to federal funding threats.

Wealthiest Colleges Fight to Protect Their Riches From Taxation

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