Legal News Mon 12/16 - ABC Settles with Sexual Abuser Trump, Judge Wynn Rescinds Retirement, Sen. Wyden Proposed Bill to Secure US Telecom

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Boston Tea Party

On this day in 1773, a turning point in American colonial history unfolded in Boston Harbor: the Boston Tea Party. A group of American colonists, members of the secretive resistance group known as the Sons of Liberty, disguised themselves as Mohawk Native Americans and boarded three ships of the British East India Company. Under the cover of night, they dumped 342 chests of tea into the icy waters of the harbor. This protest was a defiant response to what the colonists viewed as oppressive British taxation policies, most notably the Tea Act.

It is worth noting here that in one of the nation's most definitive acts of rebellion, the participants deliberately disguised themselves as Native Americans, a minority group already marginalized and subjected to colonial violence. This choice not only symbolized a rejection of British rule but also served as a strategic scapegoating mechanism—if the protest failed or was met with severe repercussions, blame could potentially be shifted onto an already vulnerable population. This act underscores a troubling dynamic: even in a moment of defiance against tyranny, the colonists perpetuated patterns of exploitation and misrepresentation, using Native identity as a convenient shield for their own rebellious actions.

The Tea Act of 1773 had been designed to prop up the struggling East India Company by allowing it to sell tea directly to the colonies, bypassing colonial merchants. While the tea itself was cheaper, the act maintained a tax on tea under the Townshend Acts, reaffirming Britain’s right to tax the colonies without their consent—a principle the colonists vehemently opposed as "taxation without representation."

The Boston Tea Party galvanized both sides of the Atlantic. In Britain, Parliament responded with a series of punitive measures known as the Coercive Acts, or as the colonists called them, the Intolerable Acts. These acts included:

* The Boston Port Act, which closed Boston Harbor to all shipping until restitution was made for the destroyed tea.

* Measures strengthening British authority in Massachusetts, effectively curtailing self-governance.

* The Quartering Act, forcing colonists to house British soldiers.

For the colonists, the Boston Tea Party symbolized both resistance and unity. While not all supported the destruction of property, the event rallied support for the growing revolutionary movement. In time, this protest—and the severe response it provoked—would become a turning point, pushing the colonies closer to open rebellion and eventually independence.

The Boston Tea Party remains a symbol of resistance to tyranny and an enduring moment in the history of legal and political dissent. It underscored the central conflict between the colonies and Britain: the issue of representation and the rights of subjects under the law, a conflict that would culminate in the American Revolution just two years later.

Fourth Circuit Judge James Wynn Jr. has reversed his decision to take senior status, effectively rescinding his semi-retirement and denying President-elect Donald Trump the chance to fill his seat. Wynn, an Obama appointee, initially announced his intention to step down contingent upon the confirmation of his successor, Ryan Park, whose nomination was later withdrawn due to a lack of Senate support under a bipartisan agreement. Wynn’s move follows similar reversals by two district court judges and has sparked criticism from Republican lawmakers, who allege the judges are politicizing the judicial retirement process to maintain Democratic-appointed seats. Ethical concerns have also been raised, with conservative groups filing misconduct complaints, claiming that reversing retirement decisions based on election outcomes could violate judicial ethics codes. Legally, there is no explicit prohibition against withdrawing retirement plans, but such actions are rare and can draw scrutiny if perceived as undermining the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

Of course, one might rightly wonder why conservatives would mind not having an opportunity to fill a vacant seat if they intended to fill it with an impartial appointee.

Judge Wynn Reverses Retirement Plans, Denies Trump Vacancy (2)\

ABC News has agreed to pay $15 million to former President Donald Trump’s presidential library to settle a lawsuit over statements made by anchor George Stephanopoulos during a March interview with Rep. Nancy Mace. The lawsuit, filed in March in Florida, alleged that Stephanopoulos falsely stated Trump was found liable for rape in the civil case brought by E. Jean Carroll, with malice and disregard for the truth. As part of the settlement, ABC News will also publish a clarification by Sunday retracting the statements made during the interview. Both parties have agreed to dismiss the case, according to court filings.

For clarity, Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in a civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. In May 2023, a jury in New York determined that Trump sexually abused Carroll during an encounter in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and later defamed her by publicly calling her allegations a "hoax" and making disparaging remarks about her character.

The jury did not find Trump liable for rape, as defined under New York law, but awarded Carroll $5 million in damages—$2 million for the sexual abuse claim and $3 million for defamation. This distinction is important because the claim of rape under the law involves specific criteria that the jury did not believe were met, even though they concluded that Trump had engaged in other non-consensual sexual conduct.

Put simply, if you were to state “Donald Trump was found liable for rape and is a rapist,” that would be incorrect – what you would want to make clear is that he was found civilly liable for sexual abuse.

ABC to pay $15 million to Trump library to settle lawsuit, court documents show | Reuters

Senator Ron Wyden’s Secure American Communications Act seeks to mandate the FCC to establish binding cybersecurity regulations for U.S. telecommunications providers, addressing vulnerabilities exposed by the Salt Typhoon hack, a Chinese state-sponsored cyberattack targeting U.S. communications networks. This attack reportedly compromised call records, live conversations, and personal communications of high-ranking officials, including President-elect Donald Trump.

The proposed bill requires telecom carriers to implement robust security measures, conduct annual vulnerability testing, and undergo independent audits, with results and compliance certifications submitted to the FCC. The legislation also seeks to address the FCC's longstanding failure to enforce a 1994 federal law mandating telecom providers secure systems from unauthorized interceptions.

Wyden's initiative is part of a broader strategy to bolster communications security, including proposed legislation for encrypted communications software and restricting the export of Americans’ data to adversarial nations. The draft emphasizes the need to protect Americans’ privacy, reduce reliance on insecure proprietary software, and counter advanced persistent threats like those seen in the Salt Typhoon breach. Consumer and privacy advocacy groups have endorsed the bill, calling it a critical step toward securing U.S. telecommunications infrastructure against foreign espionage.

Wyden Releases Draft Legislation to Secure U.S. Phone Networks Following Salt Typhoon Hack

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