Legal News for Weds 1/8 - CFPB vs. Experian, TikTok at SCOTUS, Alaska Lawsuit on Arctic Drilling and Column Tuesday on Pittsburg 'Jock Tax'

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: District of Columbia Suffrage Act

On this day in legal history, January 8, 1867, the U.S. Congress overrode President Andrew Johnson's veto to enact the District of Columbia Suffrage Act. This landmark legislation granted African American men the right to vote in the nation's capital, making it the first federal law to extend voting rights to Black men. This milestone occurred three years before the ratification of the 15th Amendment, which would prohibit racial discrimination in voting nationwide.

The Act was a significant step during the Reconstruction era, as the United States grappled with integrating millions of formerly enslaved individuals into its civic life. By enfranchising Black men in Washington, D.C., Congress set an example for the expansion of voting rights elsewhere in the country. However, the process was not without contention. President Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat, opposed the bill, reflecting his broader resistance to Reconstruction policies that aimed to promote racial equality.

Congress’s decision to override Johnson's veto demonstrated its determination to lead Reconstruction efforts and address the injustices of slavery. This vote also highlighted the tensions between the legislative and executive branches over how best to rebuild the nation after the Civil War.

The District of Columbia Suffrage Act stands as a pivotal moment in the fight for civil rights, symbolizing the beginning of federal measures to ensure greater political inclusion for African Americans during a transformative period in American history.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a lawsuit against Experian Plc, alleging the credit reporting company failed to properly investigate consumer disputes and ensure the accuracy of information on credit reports. According to the CFPB, Experian did not adequately collect or relay dispute information to data furnishers, sometimes accepting illogical or unreliable responses from credit card companies and debt collectors. These practices led to inaccurate information on credit reports, which negatively impacted consumers’ credit scores, potentially resulting in higher loan interest rates, limited housing opportunities, and employment challenges.

The CFPB accused Experian of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by conducting inadequate dispute investigations. Director Rohit Chopra criticized Experian for "sham investigations" and emphasized the importance of compliance with federal laws.

Experian has denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit an example of regulatory overreach and claiming the agency did not respond to prior communications. The company highlighted its history of working with the CFPB to improve dispute processes.

The lawsuit builds on prior CFPB actions against Experian, including a $3 million fine in 2017 for misleading consumers about its credit scores. The current case alleges persistent systemic failures in Experian’s dispute handling and reporting processes.

Experian Sued by CFPB for Botching Consumer Data Disputes (2)

A Supreme Court case this week could determine TikTok's future in the United States, pitting national security concerns against free speech rights. President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Court to block a pending U.S. ban on the app, citing First Amendment concerns, while many Republican lawmakers and state attorneys general argue for upholding the ban. The law, passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, requires TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban by January 19, over fears of Chinese government access to American user data.

TikTok and ByteDance contend the law infringes on free speech, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for banning platforms with foreign ties. Trump, in a reversal of his earlier stance, now opposes a ban and sees TikTok as politically valuable. The Justice Department defends the law, citing national security risks, while Republican attorneys general argue that TikTok's ties to China pose significant dangers.

The Court's decision could have far-reaching implications for digital platform regulation and internet freedom in the U.S. and beyond. If upheld, experts warn other foreign-backed platforms, such as Telegram, could face similar scrutiny. Meanwhile, tech giants Apple and Google have been asked to prepare for TikTok’s removal from app stores, potentially rendering the app obsolete over time without updates.

TikTok's fate divides Trump and fellow Republicans as Supreme Court action looms | Reuters

The state of Alaska has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, alleging violations of a Congressional mandate to permit oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The lawsuit challenges the Interior Department's December 2024 decision to impose restrictive conditions on drilling leases in the refuge's coastal plain, arguing the limits make development impractical on the 400,000 acres set for auction. Alaska seeks to overturn the decision and prevent the leases from being issued with the restrictions.

Governor Mike Dunleavy criticized the Biden administration’s stance, claiming it undermines U.S. energy independence by restricting access to domestic resources. Alaska argues the restrictions, combined with the administration's earlier cancellations of leases granted during Donald Trump’s presidency, significantly reduce expected revenue from ANWR development.

The Biden administration has prioritized environmental protection for the 19.6-million-acre refuge, home to species like polar bears and caribou. This legal dispute is the latest in a series of lawsuits from Alaska opposing federal efforts to limit drilling in ANWR. The battle reflects ongoing tensions between environmental priorities and energy development in the region, a long-standing political flashpoint.

Alaska sues Biden administration over oil and gas leases in Arctic refuge | Reuters

In my column for this week, I talk about a facility fee charged for nonresident performers and athletes in Pittsburgh. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of Pittsburgh’s so-called “jock tax,” a 3% fee imposed on income earned by nonresident athletes and entertainers at publicly funded venues. This case raises complex questions about tax uniformity under the state constitution, as opponents argue the fee unfairly targets a specific group of workers.

The city contends the fee achieves fairness by equalizing tax burdens between nonresidents and residents, who already pay a combined 3% in local taxes. Without this fee, nonresident performers would enjoy a tax advantage over residents, who contribute to funding public infrastructure and services that benefit everyone using the city’s venues.

Critics claim the tax violates uniformity principles by singling out nonresidents in certain professions, and asking them to pay 3% despite not receiving access to services ostensibly paid for by the tax like the local school system. But taxation has never operated strictly as a direct exchange for services rendered. Much like H.L.A. Hart’s “No Vehicles in the Park” thought experiment, interpreting “uniformity” in taxation requires considering intent. The fee’s purpose is to ensure nonresidents contribute their fair share for the public resources they use, aligning with broader fairness goals rather than rigid formalism.

Rejecting the fee would create an inequitable system where nonresidents effectively have their use of public resources subsidized by residents. For Pittsburgh and other cities balancing local budgets, the facility fee represents a practical, equitable solution that respects the principles of shared responsibility.

Pittsburgh 'Jock Tax' Facilitates Parity and Should Be Upheld

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