Law and Legislation

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares14 Views

    Top Law Firms Defend Overhaul of America’s Business Court

    by

    After backlash from Elon Musk and companies like Meta, Big Law is publicly supporting a bill seeking to reform the Delaware Court of Chancery.As Delaware lawmakers prepare to hold hearings tomorrow about a bill that could reshape corporate America, some of the biggest corporate law firms are coming out in favor of it.On Tuesday, 21 law firms — including Simpson Thacher and Bartlett; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — will publish a letter strongly supporting legislation that would override a series of decisions by the Delaware Court of Chancery. These rulings have prompted backlash from companies and led many, including Meta, to contemplate moving their incorporation outside the state.The bill is “an important step in maintaining Delaware’s status as the jurisdiction of choice for sophisticated clients when they create companies,” the law firms write.Delaware has been ensnared in controversy after several rulings, including Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s decision last year to nullify a big payout for Elon Musk at Tesla. While Mr. Musk’s ire over that decision brought attention to the chancery court, many corporate lawyers say they’re more broadly frustrated with the court’s treatment of companies with controlling shareholders, arguing that it has been overly deferential to noncontrolling shareholders.Given how corporate America fuels Delaware’s budget, a group of Delaware state senators proposed a bill last month to amend the state constitution that would effectively override years of case law by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The group sidestepped the usual process for proposing bills, allowing it to move swiftly — but critics say that it also left out early input from key members of the influential Delaware bar.The issue was a major topic at Tulane University’s Corporate Law Institute conference, a big gathering of deal makers held last week in New Orleans. “We are disempowering Delaware courts,” said Ned Weinberger, a partner at the plaintiffs’ law firm Labaton Keller Sucharow, arguing that the amendment would erode the voice of minority shareholders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares26 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy

      by

      Colorado, like more than 20 other states, bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors in their care.The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will hear a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law banning professional counseling services engaged in conversion therapy intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.More than 20 states have similar laws, which are supported by leading medical groups. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, challenged the constitutionality of the Colorado law in federal court, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.The challenged law prohibits licensed therapists in Colorado from performing conversion therapy, which it defines to include efforts “to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” That includes trying “to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”The law, adopted in 2019, allow treatments that provide “acceptance, support and understanding.” It exempts therapists “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”Ms. Chiles’s lawyers told the justices in her petition seeking review that as “a practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”In her lawsuit, Ms. Chiles said she wanted to help her clients achieve their goals, which can include “seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares33 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Wants to Kill Carried Interest. Wall Street Will Fight to Keep It.

      by

      President Trump has been trying to eliminate the tax loophole, which benefits Wall Street, but Congressional Republicans may stand in the way.Nearly a month has passed since President Trump last spoke publicly of his desire to kill the carried interest loophole. (Yes, we know, some of you don’t consider it a “loophole.”) And yet the private equity industry, which stands to lose big if the president upends the tax break, is still bracing for a fight.This is the biggest challenge to the provision since it was nearly neutered three years ago under former President Joe Biden, Grady McGregor writes for DealBook.A reminder: the carried interest rule means that executives at hedge funds and P.E. and venture capital firms pay roughly 20 percent tax on their profits, a rate that’s so low it’s drawn criticism from Warren Buffett and from progressive senators like Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.One Washington lawyer described the lobbying effort to DealBook as “significant,” a sign of the escalating stakes.Consider what’s happened in the past month: The American Investment Council, the private equity lobbying group, is reportedly circulating memos on Capitol Hill reminding lawmakers that private equity is a jobs creator. Venture capitalists, seemingly omnipresent in Trump’s Washington, grumble that they have to keep returning to Congress to “educate lawmakers” about the rule’s benefits. So-called free market groups, meanwhile, have banded together to ask Congress to maintain the status quo.“They’ll fight tooth-and-nail on any sort of change,” said Jessica Millett, a tax partner at Hogan Lovells.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares75 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Said to Be Preparing Order That Aims to Eliminate Education Dept.

      by

      President Trump is preparing to sign an order that would instruct Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling her agency, setting the stage for a potential power struggle with Congress and another round of legal challenges from opponents.An administration official said the order could be signed as soon as Thursday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about private deliberations.No modern president has ever tried to unilaterally shut down a federal department. The Education Department was created by an act of Congress in 1979, and federal lawmakers would likely have to approve eliminating it.Mr. Trump’s order was expected to spark another legal fight for the administration, which is already embroiled in multiple lawsuits over actions in its first six weeks.The American Federation of Teachers noted in a statement late Wednesday that the Education Department was “legally required” to distribute federal funds — money approved for poor students, those with disabilities and others — to states.“Any attempt by the Trump administration or Congress to gut these programs would be a grave mistake, and we will fight them tooth and nail,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the union.A draft of Mr. Trump’s order circulated in Washington on Wednesday ahead of a potential announcement. The Wall Street Journal first reported that Mr. Trump could sign the order as soon as Thursday.Mr. Trump has been blunt about his desire to do away with the department entirely. He remarked recently that he hoped Ms. McMahon would effectively put herself out of a job.He told reporters last month that the Education Department was “a big con job” and that “I’d like to close it immediately.”Ms. McMahon’s first action as education secretary was to email the department’s staff about its “final mission,” an indication of how she planned to fulfill Mr. Trump’s goal of shuttering the department. More

    • 125 Shares69 Views

      in Elections

      What Can House Republicans Cut Instead of Medicaid? Not Much.

      by

      The math of the G.O.P.’s goals makes the move almost unavoidable.The House passed a budget resolution Tuesday night after the speaker, Mike Johnson, persuaded several Republican lawmakers, including those who have expressed reservations about possible Medicaid cuts, to support the bill.In theory, the budget, which kicks off the process of passing an extension of tax cuts enacted in 2017 and up to $2 trillion in spending cuts meant to partly offset them, could become law without significant cuts to Medicaid. But it won’t be easy. More

    • 100 Shares102 Views

      in Elections

      Government Watchdog Moves to Protect Probationary Federal Workers

      by

      A government watchdog lawyer whose dismissal by President Trump has been stalled by the courts announced on Monday that his office would seek to pause the mass firings of some probationary federal workers.The lawyer, Hampton Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel, a government agency that protects whistle-blowers, said his office had determined that the firings might violate the law.In a statement posted to the agency’s website, Mr. Dellinger said that the decision to fire probationary employees en masse “without individualized cause” appeared “contrary to a reasonable reading of the law,” and that he would ask a government review board to pause the firings for 45 days.The move marks an attempt by federal workers to use the levers of government to push back against the mass firings by the Trump administration, led by Elon Musk’s team. A spokesman for Mr. Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Mr. Dellinger’s move, which was reported earlier by Government Executive, a trade publication, also highlights the many layers of government officials who have been targeted by the Trump administration. At every level of the case, the officials reviewing the firings have themselves been dismissed and are using other legal means to fight to hold on to their jobs.The Office of Special Counsel, which was created in 1979, is not connected to the special counsels who are appointed by the Justice Department.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares103 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Has the Same Idea in Mind for Ukraine and the Department of Justice

      by

      I grew up a Reagan Republican in the middle of the Cold War, and I never thought I’d see the day when the president of the United States became the world’s most prominent and effective Russian propagandist.Yet that’s exactly what happened last week, when President Trump began a diplomatic offensive against the nation of Ukraine and the person of President Volodymyr Zelensky.This month, the administration couldn’t seem to get its message straight. First it seemed to want to offer unilateral concessions to the Russian government — including by taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table and recognizing Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine — only to walk back the concessions days (or hours) later.The cumulative effect was confusing. What was the administration’s position on Ukraine? Last week, however, the words and actions of the administration left us with no doubt — the United States is taking Russia’s side in the conflict.What other conclusion should we draw when Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, begins peace negotiations with Russia without Ukraine or any of our NATO allies at the table, dangling “historic economic and investment opportunities” for Russia if the conflict ends?What other conclusion should we draw when Trump demands ruinous economic concessions from Ukraine to compensate America for its prior aid? He’s demanding a higher share of gross domestic product from Ukraine than the victorious Allies demanded from Germany after World War I.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares135 Views

      in Elections

      Hegseth Fires Military’s Top JAG Lawyers in Pursuit of ‘Warrior Ethos’

      by

      The defense secretary has repeatedly derided the military lawyers for war crime prosecutions and battlefield rules of engagement.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to fire the top lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force represents an opening salvo in his push to remake the military into a force that is more aggressive on the battlefield and potentially less hindered by the laws of armed conflict.Mr. Hegseth, in the Pentagon and during his meetings with troops last week in Europe, has spoken repeatedly about the need to restore a “warrior ethos” to a military that he insists has become soft, social-justice obsessed and more bureaucratic over the past two decades.His decision to replace the military’s judge advocate generals — typically three-star military officers — offers a sense of how he defines the ethos that he has vowed to instill.The dismissals came as part of a broader push by Mr. Hegseth and President Trump, who late Friday also fired Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the country’s top military officer, as well as the first woman to lead the Navy and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force.By comparison, the three fired judge advocate generals, also known as “JAGs,” are far less prominent. Inside the Pentagon and on battlefields around the world, military lawyers aren’t decision makers. Their job is to provide independent legal advice to senior military officers so that they do not run afoul of U.S. law or the laws of armed conflict.Senior Pentagon officials said that Mr. Hegseth has had no contact with any of the three fired uniform military lawyers since taking office. None of the three — Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer and Rear Adm. Lia M. Reynolds — were even named in the Pentagon statement announcing their dismissal from decades of military service.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares170 Views

      in Elections

      Senate G.O.P. Passes Budget Resolution, and Punts on Tough Questions

      by

      The budget plan that Republicans pushed through the Senate early Friday was a necessary first step toward enacting President Trump’s ambitious domestic goals, but it punted the most difficult and divisive questions about how Congress will do so.On a largely party-line vote, 52-48, Senate Republicans won adoption of a blueprint that calls for a $150 billion increase in military spending and $175 billion more for border security over the next decade.How will they pay for it? That’s a question for another day. What about the huge tax cuts they and Mr. Trump have promised? We’ll figure that out later, senators say.Over in the House, Republicans have been agonizing to come up with at least $2 trillion in spending cuts to pay for Mr. Trump’s fiscal agenda and placate their most conservative members. Their plan, which G.O.P. leaders hope to put to a vote as early as next week, loads vast tax cuts and policy changes into one huge package and calls for slashing government programs deeply to finance it all. But it faces a perilous road through the closely divided House, where Republicans hold a razor-thin majority.Republicans in the Senate have essentially delayed any decision on those thorny details, focusing instead on delivering an early win to Mr. Trump in the form of money for his hard-line anti-immigration agenda. They said they would address questions of spending and tax cuts later in a separate bill.“We’ve decided to front-end load security,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee. “We want to make the tax cuts permanent. We’re going to work with our House colleagues to do that. They expire at the end of the year, but we have time to do that. It is the view of the Republican Senate that when it comes to border security, we need not fail. We should have the money now to keep that momentum going.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More