Legal News for Tues 8/20 - Ohio Redistricting Lawsuit, Disney Wrongful Death Lawsuit Moves to Court, IRS Rules on Foreign Retirement Accounts and EPA's Carbon Limits Case Challenges

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity Act

This day in legal history, on August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, a cornerstone of his ambitious "War on Poverty." The Act allocated $1 billion to fund social programs aimed at alleviating poverty across the United States. It created initiatives like Job Corps, which provided education and vocational training to young people, and Head Start, a program focused on early childhood education.

The legislation also established community action programs designed to empower local communities to fight poverty by giving them control over how federal funds were spent. The Economic Opportunity Act was a key element of Johnson's broader "Great Society" vision, which sought to eliminate poverty and racial injustice while improving education, healthcare, and housing. Though the Act faced criticism for its effectiveness and implementation, it marked a significant federal commitment to social welfare. It laid the groundwork for subsequent anti-poverty programs and remains a pivotal moment in the history of U.S. social policy.

For context and as stated, the act set aside $1 billion for social programs. The richest American of the 1960s was J. Paul Getty, with a net worth of right around $1.2 billion. Therefore, the program set aside about 83% of the net worth of the wealthiest American of the day. If a similar program was enacted today, Elon Musk is the wealthiest American with a net worth of about $195 billion–so a comparable program would need to set aside approximately $162 billion for social welfare programs. Today, Job Corps has a yearly budget of just $1.8 billion and Head Start just $12.5 billion for a combined total of about $15 billion – we have quite a ways to go.

A group advocating for changes to Ohio's redistricting process has filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Ballot Board, accusing it of misleading voters with biased language regarding a proposed constitutional amendment. The group, Citizens Not Politicians, argues that the board's nearly 900-word description of the measure, which will appear on the November ballot, is designed to prejudice voters against the amendment. The lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to require the board to use new, neutral language that complies with state law. The board's description suggests that voting "yes" would create a taxpayer-funded commission required to gerrymander districts, which the plaintiffs claim is misleading. The case is expected to be expedited due to the upcoming election.

Ohio Redistricting Activists Sue Over GOP-Passed Ballot Proposal

Walt Disney Co. has agreed to have a Florida wrongful death lawsuit resolved in court, reversing its earlier stance that the case should go to arbitration. The lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from an allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs, Orlando. The couple allegedly chose the restaurant due to Disney and Raglan's assurances about accommodating food allergies.

Initially, Disney argued that it wasn’t liable, claiming it had no control over the restaurant’s operations. Later, Disney suggested the case should go to arbitration based on Piccolo's Disney+ subscription, the arbitration clause in the terms of service for that streaming service, and his use of the company’s website. However, Disney has now decided to waive arbitration to expedite the case in court, expressing a desire to address the family's loss with sensitivity.

Disney agrees to have Florida wrongful death lawsuit decided in court | Reuters

U.S. expatriates are frustrated with the IRS’s proposed rules on foreign-trust reporting, particularly regarding the classification and reporting of foreign retirement plans. Many foreign retirement accounts are considered foreign trusts, requiring Americans abroad to report them to the IRS, which can be complex and unclear.

Despite the IRS's efforts to revise these rules, expatriates and tax professionals feel that the new proposals don't provide enough clarity on who needs to report and which retirement plans are affected, leaving many in financial uncertainty. Over 1,500 comments were submitted to the IRS, with expatriates expressing anxiety and confusion about their obligations. Practitioners highlight that the ambiguity in these rules can lead to severe penalties for non-compliance, making it difficult for taxpayers to understand their responsibilities. The IRS’s public hearing on the matter is expected to focus heavily on the need for clearer guidance, particularly on foreign retirement plans, with calls for broader exemptions and more comprehensive relief.

Americans Abroad Want Relief From IRS on Foreign-Trust Reporting

The EPA argues that the challengers to the Biden administration's power plant carbon limits are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case. The EPA asserts that its carbon capture technology standard and related limits are based on well-established scientific and technical judgments, which fall within the agency's statutory authority under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA's power plant carbon limits set new standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas power plants, focusing on carbon capture and storage technology. The rule requires that existing long-term coal plants implement technology to capture 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2032. It also mandates that medium-term coal plants co-fire with natural gas at 40% of their annual heat input by 2030. For new gas plants operating at a significant capacity, the same 90% carbon capture standard applies. The EPA argues that these standards are based on proven technologies that can feasibly reduce emissions, aligning with the agency’s traditional regulatory approach of improving the environmental performance of individual power plants.

The EPA contends that the rule adheres to the traditional regulatory approach by focusing on technologies that reduce emissions at individual sources, rather than enforcing a generation shift across the energy grid, as the Supreme Court found problematic in the earlier West Virginia v. EPA case. The EPA also argues that carbon capture technology is not only adequately demonstrated but also achievable within the set timelines, based on extensive evidence from current and past projects. Additionally, the EPA claims that the potential impact on coal plants, including possible closures, is incidental and does not invalidate the rule. They stress that the rule’s compliance deadlines are reasonable and that states have flexibility in their implementation plans. The EPA concludes that a stay would cause irreparable harm by allowing continued carbon emissions and that the court should deny the stay applications.

EPA Urges Supreme Court to Block Bid to Freeze Power Plant Rule

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