Legal News for Thurs 7/11 - SCOTUS Bribery Decision Impacts IL Cases, Tesla Extended Time for Insurance Class Action, Harvard New GC from Grumman and Giuliani BK Updates

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Former President Taft Becomes Chief Justice

On July 11, 1921, William Howard Taft was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making history as the only person to have held both the presidency and the chief justiceship. Taft had previously served as the 27th President of the United States from 1909 to 1913. His appointment to the Supreme Court was a lifelong dream come true, as he had always preferred judicial work over executive duties.

During his tenure as Chief Justice, Taft made significant contributions to the federal judiciary. He advocated for judicial reforms and was instrumental in the creation of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which helped improve the administration of the courts. His leadership was marked by efforts to enhance the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.

Taft's unique perspective as a former president provided him with a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the branches of government. This experience enriched his contributions to the Court's decisions and its operations. His tenure as Chief Justice lasted until his retirement in 1930, leaving a lasting impact on the American legal system.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has impacted two significant Illinois public-corruption cases involving former state House Speaker Mike Madigan. The ruling in Snyder v. United States clarified that federal law criminalizes bribery when officials accept bribes before performing official acts, but not when they accept gratuities after the fact. Following this decision, defense lawyers in the cases involving Madigan and his associates are seeking acquittals or new trials.

Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District of Illinois requested updates from the lawyers involved. Meanwhile, attorneys in U.S. v. McClain indicated they would file motions to acquit or seek new trials for four defendants convicted of conspiring to solicit favors for Madigan. Michael McClain’s lawyer argued the Supreme Court's ruling showed the jury was misinformed on the law, potentially invalidating the conviction.

Madigan’s legal team plans to file motions related to the Snyder decision, while prosecutors maintain their original allegations. Even if some convictions are vacated, the government argues that other charges, such as falsifying records under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, are likely to stand. Former prosecutor Rachel Cannon noted that these additional charges might withstand the impact of the Snyder ruling.

The Snyder decision might also influence other prosecutions connected to the Madigan scandal. Besides McClain, Jay Doherty, John Hooker, and Anne Pramaggiore were also convicted and await sentencing, which has been postponed pending the Supreme Court's decision. These cases underscore the significant legal repercussions following the high court's interpretation of bribery statutes.

SCOTUS Bribery Ruling Offers Chance to Undo Illinois Convictions

A California judge has granted Tesla more time to prepare its defense against a proposed class action alleging it overcharged customers for insurance. The case, overseen by Judge Michael Markman of Alameda Superior Court, now has a hearing scheduled for October 2025 to determine whether it will proceed as a class action. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of drivers in 11 states, accuses Tesla of inflating insurance premiums based on false crash warnings instead of actual driving behavior, violating California’s unfair competition law and breaching contracts with drivers.

Tesla's attorney, Min Kang, cited delays in gathering defense information due to the involvement of multiple states and the recent departure of a key Tesla employee. This personnel change has complicated the process, with Tesla in the midst of hiring a replacement.

Tesla, which denies any wrongdoing, previously attempted to dismiss some claims but was unsuccessful. The company’s insurance program bases premiums on a "safety score," factoring in vehicle data such as hard-braking and forward collision warning alerts. Plaintiffs argue these scores are unfairly increased by false warnings, raising their premiums. This lawsuit has drawn attention from state regulators and plaintiffs' lawyers, highlighting broader concerns about Tesla's insurance practices.

Tesla gets more time to defend against driver class action over insurance | Reuters

Harvard University has appointed Jennifer O’Connor as its new general counsel, effective July 29. O’Connor previously held senior roles at Northrop Grumman and the US Department of Defense. This move comes as Harvard faces scrutiny over its policies on antisemitism and calls from some students to sever financial ties with military contractors. O’Connor brings extensive experience from large, complex organizations and has served as general counsel for the Department of Defense and held roles in the White House Counsel’s office. She is an alumna of Harvard College and earned her law degree from Georgetown.

Interim President Alan Garber praised her experience, emphasizing her readiness to manage Harvard's legal strategy amid congressional probes and lawsuits related to campus antisemitism and the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel. O’Connor will also address issues related to Harvard's admissions policies after a recent Supreme Court defeat. Neil Eggleston, who worked with O’Connor during the Obama administration, highlighted her familiarity with Washington’s political landscape, which will aid Harvard in navigating upcoming challenges.

O’Connor succeeds Eileen Finan, who has served as interim general counsel since March 1, following the retirement of Diane Lopez. This appointment aims to stabilize Harvard's legal department and address ongoing campus controversies.

Harvard Hires New Lawyer From Weapons Maker Northrop Grumman (1)

Rudolph Giuliani's personal bankruptcy case is likely to be dismissed by a federal bankruptcy judge by the end of the week after nearly seven months of inactivity. Judge Sean Lane of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York indicated during a hearing that he is inclined to dismiss the case entirely, with a final ruling expected on Friday. This dismissal would leave Giuliani without court protection from creditors, to whom he owes over $150 million. Giuliani’s lawyers have consented to the proposed dismissal.

The bankruptcy case has been fraught with disputes over missed deadlines and transparency issues regarding Giuliani’s financial affairs. Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in December, reporting $10.6 million in assets after a $148 million defamation judgment for false accusations against Georgia poll workers in the 2020 election. Wandrea’ Arshaye “Shaye” Moss, one of the poll workers, sits on an official creditors’ committee that has requested a trustee's appointment.

If dismissed, creditors would return to civil court to recover debts, and Giuliani would face continued lawsuits that were paused by his Chapter 11 filing. Attorney Rachel Strickland, representing the Georgia plaintiffs, criticized Giuliani’s lack of cooperation and suggested he might commit bankruptcy crimes. This prompted a heated exchange during the hearing, with Giuliani interrupting to refute Strickland’s claims.

The creditors’ committee opposes the dismissal, arguing that resolving the case within bankruptcy would benefit more creditors than civil court proceedings. Despite these arguments, the dismissal seems imminent, leaving significant creditors, particularly the Georgia poll workers, to seek recovery through other means.

Giuliani Bankruptcy Is Heading Toward Dismissal, Judge Says (1)

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