Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Sweden Bans Aerosols

On January 29, 1978, Sweden made history by becoming the first nation to ban aerosol sprays, citing concerns over their harmful impact on the ozone layer. The decision was driven by mounting scientific evidence that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly used as propellants in aerosol cans, contributed to ozone depletion. At the time, international awareness of environmental issues was growing, but regulatory action remained limited. Sweden’s bold move set a precedent, signaling to the world that legislative measures were necessary to curb environmental harm.

The ban came in response to research published in the early 1970s, particularly studies by chemists Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, who identified CFCs as a major threat to the ozone layer. Their findings spurred global discussions about air pollution and climate change, but most governments hesitated to act. Sweden, however, took a proactive stance, prioritizing environmental protection over industry objections. The law prohibited the sale and use of aerosol sprays containing ozone-depleting substances, forcing manufacturers to seek alternative technologies.

Sweden’s action influenced other nations, including the United States and Canada, which imposed partial restrictions on CFCs in the late 1970s. Over time, growing international pressure led to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a landmark treaty aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting substances worldwide. Today, the ozone layer is gradually recovering, thanks in part to Sweden’s early leadership. The ban underscored the power of legal intervention in addressing global environmental crises and demonstrated how science-driven policy can lead to meaningful change.

Donald Trump’s aggressive efforts to reshape the federal government have thrown agencies into turmoil, with sweeping policy shifts and a push to consolidate control. The administration is offering buyouts to federal employees resistant to returning to in-person work while signaling broader workforce cuts. At the same time, a sudden freeze on federal grants and loans caused widespread confusion, prompting a federal judge to issue a temporary stay. Though the White House insisted individual benefits would not be affected, state and local governments scrambled to assess the potential fallout.

The spending freeze is part of a broader strategy to challenge congressional control over federal funding, with Trump’s allies arguing for expanded executive power. His administration has also targeted federal employees in diversity, equity, and inclusion roles, inspectors general, and Justice Department officials involved in previous investigations against him. Meanwhile, Trump has revived trade disputes, pardoned January 6 rioters, attempted to end birthright citizenship, and cut foreign aid.

Democrats, struggling to keep up, have called emergency meetings and press conferences, but Trump’s rapid moves have overwhelmed political opposition. Some Republicans, too, have expressed concern, particularly over the scope of the funding freeze. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits a president’s ability to block congressional spending, but Trump’s team argues that temporary pauses are legally permissible.

The administration is also targeting federal personnel, with officials compiling lists of employees deemed expendable. Amid these efforts, some initiatives have already faced legal setbacks, such as the birthright citizenship order. Trump has also yet to significantly address key issues like inflation and the war in Ukraine, leaving uncertainty over the administration’s broader policy direction.

Trump Buyouts, Spending Freezes Wreak Havoc Across Government

Former U.S. Senator Bob Menendez is set to be sentenced on Wednesday following his 2024 conviction on bribery and corruption charges. Found guilty on all 16 felony counts, including acting as a foreign agent, Menendez was accused of accepting bribes—such as gold bars, cash, and a luxury car—in exchange for political favors benefiting Egypt and New Jersey businessmen. Federal prosecutors have requested a 15-year prison sentence, arguing that Menendez abused his position to influence military aid, assist Qatar, and interfere in prosecutions.

Menendez, who served nearly two decades in the Senate, maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal. His defense team is seeking a significantly reduced sentence of around 2 years, citing his age, public service record, and financial ruin. The scandal forced him to resign from the Senate, marking a dramatic downfall for the former chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Two businessmen convicted alongside Menendez, Wael Hana and Fred Daibes, will be sentenced later this week, while his wife, Nadine Menendez, faces her own corruption trial in March. The case highlights ongoing concerns about political corruption and foreign influence in U.S. government affairs.

Bob Menendez to be sentenced in gold bar bribery case that ended US Senate career | Reuters

House Democrats Jamie Raskin and Gerald Connolly are demanding answers from the Trump administration regarding the abrupt firings and reassignments of career Justice Department prosecutors. In a letter to Acting Attorney General James McHenry, they expressed concern that the removals, which began immediately after Trump’s inauguration, undermine a merit-based system and may violate federal law. The lawmakers are requesting a full list of affected employees and an explanation for the actions.

Among those dismissed were more than a dozen prosecutors involved in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump’s handling of classified records and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Additionally, over 20 senior officials, including the top public integrity prosecutor and the department’s senior ethics official, were reassigned to a newly formed “sanctuary city” working group. The Public Integrity Section Chief, Corey Amundson, resigned in response.

Meanwhile, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Washington has launched an internal review of the felony obstruction charge used in January 6 prosecutions. Raskin and Connolly are also seeking clarity on whether the White House has examined career employees’ political views or social media activity. The Justice Department has yet to comment on these developments, which have intensified concerns about political interference within federal law enforcement.

U.S. House Democrats sound the alarm on firings and reassignments of career DOJ lawyers | Reuters

States are increasingly considering digital advertising taxes to generate revenue, but without coordination, they risk creating a compliance nightmare for businesses. Rhode Island is the latest state to propose such a tax, following Maryland’s model, which has already faced significant legal and administrative challenges. Other states, including Connecticut, Indiana, and Arkansas, have explored similar measures, with Massachusetts, New York, and Texas also showing interest.

Rhode Island’s plan, set to take effect in 2026, would impose a 10% tax on digital ad revenue from companies earning over $1 billion globally. This targets major players like Alphabet and Meta, but Maryland’s lower threshold of $100 million suggests future expansions could include smaller businesses. Advocates argue that taxing digital ads could help offset social costs linked to social media companies, further driving state interest in such measures.

However, an inconsistent state-by-state approach could entrench an oligopoly, favoring large corporations that can handle complex tax requirements while squeezing out smaller competitors. A uniform, collaborative approach—modeled on the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement—could help states maintain sovereignty while ensuring consistency. Standardized definitions, revenue thresholds, and sourcing rules would simplify compliance and reduce litigation risks.

Maryland’s legal battles highlight the dangers of an uncoordinated approach, making it crucial for states to learn from its experience. While a federal solution could provide uniformity, states are unlikely to cede control over taxation, making a state-driven compact the more viable option. By working together, states can create a sustainable, efficient digital ad tax framework that avoids the pitfalls of a fragmented system.

States Need a Uniform Solution to Accelerate Digital Ad Taxes