Legal News for Mon 1/6 - SCOTUS Could Hinder Trump Admin, Biden's Offshore Drilling Ban, TikTok's Legal Fight Continues and Venu Sports' Ongoing Antitrust Battle

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Charles I Placed on Trial

On January 6, 1649, the English Parliament took a momentous step by voting to place King Charles I on trial for high treason. This decision came in the wake of the English Civil War, a prolonged conflict between Royalists, loyal to the king, and Parliamentarians seeking to limit monarchical power. Leading up to the trial, the New Model Army, under Oliver Cromwell, orchestrated "Pride’s Purge," expelling Members of Parliament likely to oppose the trial. The remaining assembly, known as the Rump Parliament, convened and authorized the creation of the High Court of Justice, an unprecedented legal body tasked with trying a sitting monarch.

The trial marked a dramatic shift in the balance of power, challenging the divine right of kings—a cornerstone of monarchical rule. Charles I was accused of subverting the laws of England and waging war against his own people, charges that he denied, arguing that no court held legitimate authority to judge a king. Despite his defense, the court convicted Charles on January 27, 1649, sentencing him to death. His execution on January 30 sent shockwaves throughout Europe, signaling the emergence of parliamentary sovereignty and temporarily abolishing the monarchy in favor of the Commonwealth under Cromwell.

This legal milestone not only altered the trajectory of English governance but also set a precedent for holding leaders accountable to the rule of law.

The Supreme Court is expected to play a critical role in assessing the legality of anticipated Trump administration policies, particularly in immigration and administrative law. Immigration policies, such as ending birthright citizenship and mass deportations, are likely to be challenged in court, with outcomes depending on their framing, especially if tied to national security concerns, which the Court tends to view more favorably than economic justifications. The Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited agency power by ending Chevron deference, may have far-reaching implications for both the Biden and Trump administrations. While reducing agencies' regulatory authority aligns with Trump’s deregulatory goals, it also empowers blue states and civil rights groups to challenge his policies under stricter judicial scrutiny.

Challenges to agency head tenure protections and interpretations of outdated laws could also come before the Court. Trump’s potential push to dismantle longstanding precedents like Humphrey’s Executor v. United States could make federal agencies more directly accountable to the presidency, further politicizing their functions. Critics note that these shifts in judicial doctrine cut both ways, curbing regulatory power broadly regardless of the administration in power. This duality underscores a tension between conservative goals of limiting administrative overreach and the desire to expedite executive policy-making.

Trump Likely to Test Supreme Court on Agency Powers, Immigration

President Joe Biden has permanently barred offshore oil and gas drilling across over 625 million acres of US coastal waters, including the East and West Coasts, parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and sections of the Northern Bering Sea. Citing environmental risks and minimal energy gains, Biden stated the move balances conservation and energy security, ensuring that protecting coastlines and maintaining low energy prices are not mutually exclusive. The decision does not affect existing offshore leases or ongoing drilling in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and the central and western Gulf of Mexico, which account for a significant portion of US energy production.

Biden’s action builds on temporary protections enacted by former President Trump for Florida’s Gulf Coast and southeastern waters but makes them indefinite. While praised by environmental advocates and coastal communities, the oil industry criticized the move, arguing that it restricts domestic energy potential and undermines national security. Some politicians from both parties have supported these protections, emphasizing the risks demonstrated by disasters like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill.

Although Biden’s decision relies on a federal law provision that may be difficult to reverse, legal challenges could arise if a future administration attempts to undo the protections. The debate underscores tensions between environmental stewardship and energy independence.

Biden Bars Offshore Oil Drilling in US Atlantic and Pacific

Biden to ban offshore oil, gas drilling in vast areas ahead of Trump term | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to deny President-elect Donald Trump’s request to delay a law requiring TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell its U.S. assets by January 19 or face a nationwide ban. Trump argued for more time after his inauguration to seek a political resolution, while the DOJ countered that ByteDance has not demonstrated it is likely to succeed on the merits of its case. The government emphasized the national security risks of TikTok’s data collection on 170 million American users, framing it as a tool for potential espionage.

TikTok, however, has requested the Court block the law on First Amendment grounds, claiming it is being unfairly targeted for its content rather than its data practices, especially given Congress's lack of action against other Chinese-owned apps like Shein and Temu. If the law takes effect, new downloads of TikTok will be prohibited, and existing services will degrade over time as companies are barred from providing support. The Biden administration could extend the compliance deadline by 90 days if ByteDance shows significant progress toward divestment. This marks a shift in Trump’s stance from 2020, when he sought to ban TikTok over similar concerns. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on January 10.

Justice Dept. urges Supreme Court to reject Trump request to delay TikTok ban law | Reuters

Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros Discovery are appealing a court ruling that blocked the launch of their joint streaming service, Venu Sports, arguing it unfairly restricts competition and consumer choice. The district court previously halted Venu's debut after rival FuboTV sued, claiming the service violated antitrust laws by bundling sports content in a way that would harm competition and raise prices. The district court sided with Fubo, finding that the bundling practices could foreclose other sports-focused services and granted an injunction against Venu’s launch.

The media companies argue that the ruling denies consumers a lower-cost streaming option aimed at price-sensitive sports fans and protects Fubo from competition. They assert that Venu would increase consumer choice and lower prices. However, the Justice Department and several states have supported the injunction, stating that Venu's creation would consolidate market power among the companies—who control over half of U.S. sports rights—and hinder the emergence of competing sports-only platforms like Fubo.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the bundling practices by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros unfairly disadvantage distributors by tying access to desirable sports content with less popular programming. The appeals court will now decide if the injunction stands.

Disney, Fox and Warner Bros to ask court to lift ban on launch of Venu Sports service | 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