Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Bloody Sunday

On March 7, 1965, a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement unfolded in Selma, Alabama. A group of 525 peaceful demonstrators, led by activists like John Lewis and Hosea Williams, began a march to Montgomery to demand voting rights for Black Americans. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met by Alabama state troopers and local law enforcement, who brutally attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas.

The violent crackdown, later known as "Bloody Sunday," left at least 65 people injured and shocked the nation. Television broadcasts of the assault galvanized public support for civil rights, prompting federal intervention. After securing court protection, a second attempt on March 9, led by Martin Luther King Jr., was turned around peacefully to avoid further violence. Finally, under federal protection, thousands of marchers resumed the journey on March 21, arriving in Montgomery on March 25 with 25,000 people. The march directly contributed to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. "Bloody Sunday" remains a defining moment in the struggle for racial justice in America, symbolizing both the brutality of oppression and the power of collective resistance.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP, citing the firm’s role in commissioning the Steele dossier during the 2016 election and its diversity hiring practices. The order suspends security clearances for Perkins Coie employees and directs federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm and its business partners. It also instructs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Justice Department to investigate racial discrimination policies at major law firms, referencing Perkins Coie’s past use of racial hiring quotas. The directive extends to restricting Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and limiting their engagement with government officials.

Trump’s move comes after similar actions against Covington & Burling for its representation of former special counsel Jack Smith. The executive order frames Perkins Coie as a national security risk, linking its past election law litigation to alleged threats against democratic integrity. It also mandates that federal contractors disclose business ties to the firm, aiming to cut off government funds to entities associated with it. The order’s broader scope signals heightened scrutiny of “Big Law” firms, especially those engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Trump’s administration has pushed back against race-conscious hiring practices, aligning the order with prior efforts to dismantle DEI policies in education and employment.

Perkins Coie, a longtime legal adviser to Democrats, denounced the order as unlawful and vowed to challenge it. The firm has been at the center of Republican criticism over election-related litigation and its former attorneys’ ties to Democratic campaigns. The administration’s focus on law firms suggests a broader effort to reshape the legal industry’s relationship with the federal government.

Trump Targets Law Firms Over Steele Dossier, Diversity Moves (1)

A federal judge reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), ruling that former President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire her. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found Trump’s dismissal of Wilcox violated legal protections for independent agency members, emphasizing that the president’s removal powers are not absolute. Howell’s decision strongly reaffirmed Humphrey’s Executor v. United States(1935), which upheld restrictions on presidential firings of independent agency officials.

The ruling restores the NLRB’s quorum, allowing it to issue decisions again, but the Trump administration immediately appealed, seeking to block Wilcox’s return. Howell’s opinion included a sharp rebuke of Trump’s attempts to assert unchecked presidential authority, stating, “An American President is not a king.” She pointed to longstanding legal precedent that limits the president’s power to remove officials from multi-member independent agencies, dating back to the Interstate Commerce Commission’s creation in 1887.

Trump’s legal team argued that Wilcox’s firing was justified under the Supreme Court’s 2020 Seila Law v. CFPB decision, which expanded presidential removal power over single-agency heads. However, Howell rejected this claim, noting that NLRB members’ powers resemble those of the Federal Trade Commission members protected under Humphrey’s Executor. The ruling marks the third time a court has reversed Trump’s firings of agency officials, signaling a broader legal battle over executive authority that may reach the Supreme Court. Wilcox’s attorney praised the decision as a victory for the independence of federal agencies, while the Justice Department has not yet commented.

Fired NLRB Member Reinstated in Decision Nixing Trump Move (4)

A coalition of 20 Democrat-led states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, has sued the Trump administration over mass firings of federal workers. Filed in a Maryland federal court, the lawsuit argues that President Donald Trump illegally dismissed tens of thousands of employees without proper notice or justification. The states seek to reinstate the workers and block further terminations.

Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce have already faced legal pushback. A judge recently reinstated a National Labor Relations Board member fired by Trump, and another court temporarily halted the administration’s directive to fire new hires en masse. Additionally, a federal workforce board reinstated thousands of employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have framed the firings as part of a campaign to eliminate government inefficiency and waste. However, critics, including the states in this lawsuit, argue that the dismissals violate labor laws and undermine public service. The case adds to mounting legal challenges against Trump’s sweeping efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy.

Democrat-led states join legal fight over Trump's mass firings of federal workers | Reuters

The Trump administration is planning to shut down nearly a dozen U.S. diplomatic missions, primarily in Western Europe, as part of a broader effort to reduce government spending and reshape foreign policy. The State Department is also considering merging several Washington-based expert bureaus focused on human rights, refugees, and global criminal justice. Additionally, U.S. embassies worldwide have been instructed to cut at least 10% of their American and locally employed staff.

The proposed closures include consulates in Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, and Portugal, though officials say some locations may be spared. The administration argues these cuts align with Trump’s “America First” agenda and his campaign promise to reduce the so-called "deep state." Critics warn that reducing the U.S. diplomatic presence, along with cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), could weaken American global influence and create openings for adversaries like China and Russia.

Congress has been notified of the plan to close the U.S. consulate in Gaziantep, Turkey, a key hub for Syrian humanitarian aid. In Washington, dozens of State Department contractors have been terminated, including those handling Afghan refugee resettlement. Diplomats working on Asian affairs have been asked to justify their missions’ alignment with Trump’s policies. The administration’s deep cuts to foreign aid and staffing have already resulted in thousands of USAID workers being laid off and billions in humanitarian aid being eliminated.

Trump administration weighs closure of nearly a dozen diplomatic missions abroad | Reuters

This week’s closing theme is by Maurice Ravel.

Our theme is Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel, a composer known for his shimmering orchestration and masterful blend of classical form with modern harmonies. Born on March 7, 1875, Ravel was a key figure in early 20th-century music, often associated with Impressionism, though he resisted the label. His Piano Concerto in G, composed between 1929 and 1931, reflects his fascination with jazz, which he encountered during a trip to the United States. The first movement, Allegramente, is bright and rhythmic, opening with a whip-crack that sets the tone for its energy and playfulness. Ravel weaves in blues-inspired harmonies, rapid piano flourishes, and sparkling orchestral textures, creating a piece that feels both spontaneous and carefully crafted. Despite its liveliness, the movement is meticulously structured, showcasing Ravel’s precision and attention to detail. The concerto as a whole balances virtuosic brilliance with lyricism, particularly in the dreamy second movement. Ravel himself admitted he aimed for a work that was “light and brilliant,” rather than deep or profound. Yet, in its elegance and wit, the concerto captures the vibrancy of early 20th-century musical innovation. As the spirited Allegramente unfolds, it serves as a fitting farewell to the week—playful, energetic, and bursting with color.

Without further ado, Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel. Enjoy!