Legal News for Thurs 10/17 - DLA Piper Defends Against Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit, SpaceX Sues Over Launch Limits, Judiciary's Future Post-24 and Election Legal Battles Spool Up

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: President Carter Restores Jefferson Davis’ Citizenship

On October 17, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed legislation restoring the U.S. citizenship of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederate States of America. Davis had been stripped of his citizenship after the Civil War due to his leadership role in the Confederacy, and the move to restore it came more than a century later. The decision was seen by some as a gesture of national reconciliation, symbolically healing old wounds between the North and South. However, it was also a controversial move, as Davis was not only a secessionist but an ardent defender of slavery.

Carter’s choice to sign this bill retroactively raised questions about how the country should deal with figures who represented divisive and morally fraught causes. Critics argued that reinstating Davis’s citizenship whitewashed his role in leading a rebellion against the United States and preserving the institution of slavery. Supporters, on the other hand, claimed it was a necessary act of unity, separating Davis’s legacy from the Confederacy’s defense of slavery and focusing on broader themes of forgiveness.

Given Carter’s strong commitment to human rights, his decision to restore Davis’s citizenship seems somewhat incongruous with his principles. The act largely ignored the deep racial implications of Davis's legacy, particularly at a time when the civil rights movement had recently reshaped America’s consciousness. By focusing on reconciliation over accountability, Carter risked downplaying the significance of Davis's actions and the values for which the Confederacy stood.

DLA Piper argues that Anisha Mehta, a former senior associate, was terminated due to significant performance issues, not because of her pregnancy, and is seeking to dismiss her lawsuit. Mehta claims she was fired six days after requesting maternity leave, alleging pregnancy discrimination, leave interference, and retaliation in violation of federal and state laws. The firm counters that her dismissal was based on a series of errors, including failing to comply with federal procedural rules and nearly making a major trademark filing mistake.

DLA Piper asserts that partners were supportive of Mehta’s pregnancy and have provided evidence of her poor performance. They argue that Mehta has not shown any evidence of discrimination. The case is pending before Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York, with Wigdor LLP representing Mehta and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP representing DLA Piper.

DLA Piper Says Associate Fired Over Performance, Not Pregnancy

SpaceX is suing the California Coastal Commission for voting against an increase in rocket launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base, claiming the decision was politically biased against CEO Elon Musk. The commission voted 6-4 to deny a U.S. military request to raise SpaceX's permitted annual launches from 36 to 50.

SpaceX alleges the vote was influenced by Musk’s political views, specifically his support for Donald Trump, and included remarks by commissioners criticizing Musk's public statements. The lawsuit argues that the commission overstepped its authority and retaliated against SpaceX for Musk's constitutionally protected speech. SpaceX is seeking a court order to prevent the commission from interfering with its launch program, asserting federal law preempts the agency's decision. The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

SpaceX Claims Political Bias Against Musk on California Launches

Regardless of who wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election—Kamala Harris or Donald Trump—both will have fewer opportunities to significantly reshape the federal judiciary. By the end of Joe Biden's term, he and Trump together will have appointed nearly half of all federal judges over eight years, including a major generational shift with younger appointees. The supply of judges eligible for semi-retirement, which creates new vacancies, is shrinking, and many judges time their retirements based on the political party of the sitting president. As a result, the next president will likely have fewer judicial appointments than Trump or Biden had. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, is also unlikely to see significant changes unless justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, or Sonia Sotomayor retire. The president's ability to appoint judges could also depend on Senate control. Trump's second term could see more conservative judges like Aileen Cannon, while Harris is expected to continue Biden's focus on demographic and professional diversity in appointments. Both sides see the next presidency as pivotal for the judiciary's future.

Harris or Trump, next president will have less impact on shape of US judiciary | Reuters

Republicans are preparing for potential legal challenges to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, filing lawsuits across various states, which forces Democrats into a defensive position to protect the election’s legitimacy. Republicans claim these suits are aimed at ensuring proper vote counting and preventing illegal voting, echoing the unfounded fraud claims from Donald Trump’s 2020 loss. Democrats, including Kamala Harris's campaign, defend the election processes as fair, citing expansions in mail-in and early voting in key swing states. They largely rely on existing election systems and judicial rulings to safeguard voting procedures. Recent legal battles in states like Georgia and Arizona demonstrate the Democrats' focus on preventing efforts they see as undermining the electoral process, such as hand-counting ballots or questioning voter eligibility. While some local officials have resisted certifying elections since 2020, courts and state officials have consistently intervened to uphold results. Both parties view the certification process as a critical battleground heading into the election.

As Republicans prepare to contest election, Democrats play defense | Reuters

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