Legal News for Mon 11/11 - Judge Merchan Ruling on Trump Hush Money, Challenges Facing Trump's Dereg Push, Record Law Firm Profits and NLRB Restricts Unionization Threats

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Lockerbie Bombing Indictments

On November 11, 1991, indictments were formally announced in the notorious Lockerbie bombing case, marking a significant milestone in international criminal justice. U.S. and U.K. prosecutors indicted two Libyan nationals—Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah—in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The attack took place on December 21, 1988, when the plane exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people on board and 11 residents on the ground. This tragedy led to a complex, multi-year investigation involving multiple countries and was one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the West prior to September 11, 2001.

The indictments represented a significant moment in the use of international legal cooperation to address terrorism, as both the U.S. and U.K. sought justice for their citizens. The two men were accused of planting a bomb in the cargo hold, allegedly on behalf of Libyan intelligence services. However, for nearly a decade after the indictments, Libya resisted extradition requests, prompting years of diplomatic pressure and international sanctions.

Finally, in 1999, Libya agreed to turn over Megrahi and Fhimah for trial in a specially created Scottish court seated in the Netherlands. This arrangement respected Libyan sovereignty while ensuring an impartial setting for the trial. After extensive proceedings, Megrahi was found guilty in 2001 of the murders, receiving a life sentence, while Fhimah was acquitted. The trial itself remains a significant example of international criminal law in action, setting a precedent for how nations can pursue justice in politically sensitive, cross-border terrorism cases. The Lockerbie bombing case also raised ongoing questions about evidence reliability and political influences in terrorism prosecutions, as Megrahi’s conviction remained controversial, leading to a compassionate release in 2009 due to his terminal illness.

This legal landmark underscored both the complexities of prosecuting international terrorism and the power of coordinated legal frameworks to address global threats.

A New York judge, Justice Juan Merchan, will soon decide if President-elect Donald Trump's criminal conviction for falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels should be overturned. This decision follows a July U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which Trump’s lawyers argue should apply to his case, asserting that the conviction should be dismissed. Merchan is also considering whether to proceed with sentencing Trump on Nov. 26, although legal experts believe this is unlikely before his Jan. 20 inauguration. If Merchan rules favorably on immunity or delays sentencing, Trump may assume the presidency without immediate legal encumbrances.

Meanwhile, federal cases against Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith are expected to be paused due to Justice Department policies against prosecuting sitting presidents. However, a separate Georgia state case remains unresolved. Trump, who maintains his innocence in all four cases, argues these prosecutions are politically motivated. Manhattan prosecutors counter that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision doesn’t apply since Trump's case involves non-official conduct, not covered by presidential immunity. Experts note that even if the conviction stands, Trump’s team will likely seek to delay sentencing, which could potentially involve up to four years in prison, although fines or probation are more likely.

Judge to decide whether Trump's hush money conviction can stand | Reuters

Donald Trump’s upcoming administration aims to drastically cut federal regulations, but recent Supreme Court rulings, including the end of Chevron deference, could complicate these efforts. Chevron deference, which previously allowed agencies flexibility in interpreting vague laws, was struck down in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Without this precedent, Trump’s regulatory changes may face increased legal scrutiny, with courts more likely to question whether agencies are acting beyond Congress’s intent. Despite these obstacles, Trump will likely have Senate support for his deregulation goals, especially as the ruling requires more specific legislative language—a challenge in a closely divided Congress.

Lobbyists expect Trump’s administration to focus on rolling back labor, environmental, and financial regulations. However, advocacy groups are poised to use the Supreme Court’s ruling to defend Biden-era rules, arguing against the administration’s authority under the revised legal framework. Trump may opt for informal guidance, like advisory memos or circulars, rather than formal rule-making, as these are harder to legally challenge. Corporate and industry groups generally support deregulation, though the ongoing legal and policy shifts could create near-term uncertainty. To establish lasting changes, Trump and Congress would need to pass new legislation, avoiding the “ping pong effect” of policies fluctuating with each administration change.

Trump's Push to Deregulate Faces Challenges in Post-Chevron Era

Law firms saw a substantial profit increase of 11.2% in the third quarter of 2024, largely due to high lawyer productivity, strong billing rates, and controlled expenses, as reported by the Thomson Reuters Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index. This index, which aggregates financial metrics from 195 large and midsize firms, recorded its second-highest score since inception, highlighting broad-based demand growth across multiple practice areas. Litigation demand rose by 4%, with gains also in corporate, real estate, labor, employment, and bankruptcy practices, while only intellectual property showed a slight decline.

The report contrasts 2024’s strong, diversified demand with the post-2021 demand slump, suggesting more stable long-term profitability for law firms. With Donald Trump’s recent election win, firms anticipate additional work in areas such as regulation, compliance, antitrust, and energy. Although declining inflation may limit future billing rate increases, firms remain optimistic about the potential for new legal work stemming from significant regulatory changes expected in early 2025.

Law firm profits soared in third quarter of 2024, report finds | Reuters

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has overturned a 40-year-old precedent, ruling that employers can no longer generally warn workers that unionization will harm their relationship with management. This ruling came from a case involving Starbucks, where the company allegedly made unlawful threats to employees during a union drive at its Seattle Roastery, warning them that unionizing could lead to reduced benefits and suggesting it would be futile. The board's decision revisits the 1985 Tri-Cast Inc. ruling, which had allowed employers to legally imply that unionizing would alter employees' direct relationships with management.

Although the NLRB ultimately found that Starbucks’ statements encouraging a "no" vote to maintain open communication with managers did not directly violate the law, it changed the standards for such statements going forward. The board’s Democratic majority explained that the earlier precedent was incorrect in permitting nearly any statement that unionizing would affect the employee-manager relationship. This decision reinforces the NLRB’s recent actions against Starbucks in its efforts to unionize over 500 locations nationwide, requiring the company to stop unlawful behavior and delete certain social media posts.

NLRB Tosses 40-Year Stance on Manager Unionization Threats

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