We’ve launched Minimum Competence CLE, and our first course is now available completely free. Researching Federal Tax Issues After Loper Bright looks at how the Supreme Court’s decision ending Chevron deference changes the way lawyers should research and evaluate Treasury regulations, IRS guidance, and other federal tax authorities.

Take the course and earn CLE credit at cle.minimumcomp.com.

This Day in Legal History: The Attica Uprising

On September 9, 1971, roughly 1,300 incarcerated men seized control of the Attica Correctional Facility in upstate New York, taking dozens of guards and staff hostage in what became the most significant prison uprising in American history. They were protesting brutal, degrading conditions—overcrowding, censorship, inadequate medical care, racial abuse—and their demands, issued in a list of grievances, were strikingly basic: adequate food, religious freedom, medical treatment, and to be treated, in the words of one of their leaders, like human beings and not beasts.

The uprising ended four days later in horrific violence. On orders from state officials, troopers and guards retook the prison by force, firing indiscriminately into the yard. Thirty-nine people were killed in that assault—both incarcerated men and the hostages the state was supposedly trying to rescue—nearly all of them shot by the retaking forces. It was one of the bloodiest single days in American history between citizens and their own government, and the official cover story, that prisoners had killed the hostages, was quickly disproven by autopsies.

The significance of September 9, 1971 is that Attica became a turning point for prisoners’ rights in American law. It galvanized a movement and a wave of litigation; it forced courts and legislatures to confront the conditions inside prisons and the constitutional rights that do not stop at the prison gate. The Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and later civil-rights suits under Section 1983, became tools to challenge inhumane confinement. Attica is the backdrop to the modern understanding that incarcerated people remain people, with rights the state must respect. And it’s a fitting anniversary for today, because our final story is about two people who, from inside a prison, did something that would have been almost unimaginable in 1971—they earned law degrees, and now they want to join the profession that polices the very system that holds them.

The Supreme Court has declined to reinstate Missouri’s new Republican-drawn congressional map, leaving the state’s districts in a genuine muddle heading into November. Here’s the mechanism: Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters arising from Missouri as the circuit justice for that region, rejected the state’s request to put the new map into effect. He acted alone—he didn’t refer it to the full nine-member Court, and he didn’t explain his reasoning, which is how a lot of emergency-docket business gets done. The new map was a mid-decade redistricting effort that would have carved up a Democratic-leaning district around Kansas City to hand Republicans a better shot at an additional House seat—part of the nationwide redistricting arms race we’ve seen states launch ahead of the midterms. But this is where it gets tangled: a federal district judge in Missouri, a Trump appointee, had separately blocked the old map and ordered the state to use the new Republican one, with that order running for 14 days while the courts sort it out. So you have competing rulings pointing in opposite directions, and a state that genuinely doesn’t know, today, which map governs its election. The significance is twofold. Substantively, it’s a setback for the GOP’s redistricting push and, for now, preserves the older district lines. Procedurally, it’s another reminder of how much consequential election law is being decided on the emergency docket, by single justices, without explanation—and how that leaves candidates and voters in limbo. With the midterms weeks away, Missouri is a vivid example of courts rewriting, or declining to rewrite, the electoral map in real time. US Supreme Court won’t reinstate Republican-drawn congressional map in Missouri | Reuters NBC News · Al Jazeera

The administration has quietly resumed immigrant visa processing for two countries—Hungary and Poland—while keeping a broad pause in place for much of the rest of the world. According to reporting, the directive to prioritize immigrant visas at U.S. missions in those two nations came directly from the White House, and the State Department has offered no public explanation for why these two were singled out. The context is important. This follows the sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for dozens of countries that a federal judge struck down in August as “patently unlawful.” Now, rather than resuming broadly, the administration has chosen to restart processing for two specific countries—both led by nationalist governments with close political ties to President Trump—while applicants from across Latin America, the Balkans, South Asia, and beyond remain frozen out, with people from countries as varied as India, Peru, and even the United Kingdom reporting canceled appointments. The legal and equitable problem here is selectivity. When the government resumes a paused program for two politically favored countries and no one else, without explanation, it invites exactly the kind of arbitrariness-and-favoritism challenge that administrative law is designed to police—the same vulnerability that sank the original 75-nation suspension. Immigration and foreign affairs give the executive enormous discretion, but “enormous discretion” is not the same as “unlimited and unexplained.” The significance is that this looks less like a neutral, orderly restart of a lawful program and more like the allocation of a government benefit along political lines—and that is the kind of thing that tends to end up back in court. US resumes immigrant visa processing for Hungary, Poland as pause remains elsewhere | ReutersThe Japan Times · The Korea Times

And finally, a remarkable story that brings us full circle to today’s Attica anniversary: two people who earned accredited law degrees while incarcerated now face the next, and perhaps hardest, test of whether they can actually become lawyers. Jeffery Young and Maureen Onyelobi received their Juris Doctor degrees in a ceremony inside a Minnesota correctional facility—believed to be the first people to earn ABA-accredited law degrees while serving time, through a pioneering prison-to-law program. A JD from an accredited school entitles you to sit for the bar exam in any state. But passing the bar is only part of it. The real hurdle for formerly or currently incarcerated graduates is the “character and fitness” review—the part of bar admission where a committee examines an applicant’s background, honesty, and moral fitness to practice law. A criminal conviction doesn’t automatically disqualify you in most states, but it triggers intense scrutiny, and applicants have to demonstrate rehabilitation and candor to a board that has broad discretion to say no. This is where the profession’s gatekeeping meets its stated belief in redemption. The significance is genuinely profound. On one hand, character and fitness exists for good reason—lawyers hold clients’ money, secrets, and liberty in their hands, and the public needs to trust them. On the other, a system that permanently bars people who have paid their debt, educated themselves, and mastered the law from ever practicing it sends a message that rehabilitation is a fiction. These two graduates are about to test which message the legal profession actually means. And on the anniversary of Attica—when incarcerated people demanded to be seen as human—there’s something fitting about two of them asking not just to be treated as human, but to be admitted as officers of the court. They earned law degrees in prison. Now comes the next test | ReutersThe Business Standard · JD Advising

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