The Execution of Humphrey’s Executor

By: Alison Booth
Edited by: Hannah Becker and Alexia Sextou

Last March, President Donald Trump removed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Slaughter has since challenged her dismissal under the precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor. The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 8th, with ramifications for the scale of executive power to follow. [1]

In 1914, Congress formed the FTC to prohibit unfair competition and safeguard consumers from the potential of media monopolies. The commission aims to prevent issues by monitoring developing concentrations and enforcing consumer protection. Formed as an apolitical organization, the agency is made up of five commissioners. The president appoints each member to the commission, whom the Senate then confirms with a simple majority vote. [2] Bipartisan mandates and staggered terms allow the commission to act independently of political power. As a result, the president cannot unilaterally remove FTC commissioners without congressional approval unless they present “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” [3] However, Trump cited only policy differences as his reasoning behind removing Slaughter and Bedoya instead of an intent to follow the guidelines established in the formation of the FTC. [4] This indicates that Trump may be seeking to politicize the FTC.

Slaughter sued for her own reinstatement under Humphrey’s Executor. In this case, the estate of FTC Commissioner William Humphrey brought suit against the United States for back pay. President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed Humphrey for political and policy disagreements in October 1933. The Supreme Court of the United States ultimately decided the case in favor of the Humphrey estate, with the court citing the “quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative” [5] functions of the commission as a basis for striking politically motivated firings.

However, Trump’s firing of Slaughter failed to cite the Congressional grounds for removing an FTC commissioner. Slaughter's suit under the established and reaffirmed Humphrey’s Executor held in lower court decisions. At the district court hearing, Slaughter was reinstated under the SCOTUS precedent of commitment to the Humphrey’s Executor decision. [6]

In September 2025, the government appealed the case, but the appeals court denied a motion to stay, preventing Slaughter from being reinstated while the appeals played out. Later in September, SCOTUS granted the stay, citing concerns around further institutional change before a final decision was issued. [7]

In the order, the Court directed the parties to argue on the legitimacy of Humphrey’s Executor under concerns around separation of powers tied to the legality of removal established by Congress and the legitimacy of the Court’s power to rule on an individual’s firing from public offices. [8] Experts predict the precedent will be overturned or substantially reduced, given the Court’s stay order. [9]

The government will likely argue that the FTC has substantially changed since the time of the Humphrey’s Executor decision. [10] Such an argument aligns with reductions of the precedent and the allowance of firings in other executive roles. [11] Nonetheless, the Slaughter case is distinctive for its close repetition of many facts from Humphrey’s. This shows that established precedent continues to evolve.

The implications of this ruling touch on all sectors of government. On the agency level, formerly independent agencies will become more beholden to the dominant party’s politics. This greater policy alignment expands the possibilities for political maneuvering in relation to strong corporate powers. Independence has been essential to the formation of many governmental agencies. For the FTC specifically, autonomy sets the basis for greater confidence in its rulings. With the commission’s duties spanning the three branches of government, further alignment with political parties expands the reach of the dominant party beyond elected roles.

Connected to the greater politicalization, the separation of powers stands to see substantial shifts if the predicted reduction to Humprey’s Executor unfolds. Under the anticipated ruling, legislative power would transfer from Congress to the White House. In the status quo, Congress set the rules for the FTC, including the qualifications for removing a commissioner. Further, Congress must approve each commissioner before they can assume their role.

Depending on pre-established perspectives on the relative power between the branches, there is disagreement over whether this case will correct an overstepping of the legislature or be an expansion of executive power. Given the guidelines established in the Court’s order, the government is likely to argue the position of an abuse of power by the legislature. However, critics may see the government’s arguments as executive overreach.

The Humphrey’s Executor decision also applies to other independent agencies within the executive branch. This SCOTUS case has strong potential to set a new precedent of power redistribution to the increasingly unitary executive branch.

Notes:

1. Reuters. 2025. “Supreme Court sets December 8 date for arguments over Trump FTC firing.” Reuters. Accessed December 1.

2. “Appointment confirmation process.” Ballotpedia. Accessed December 8. https://ballotpedia.org/Appointment_confirmation_process.

3. 15 U.S. Code § 41

4. DiResta, Anthony E., and Timothy Taylor. 2025. “Supreme Court’s Potential Restructuring of FTC Could Have Substantial Implications: Insights.” Holland & Knight. Accessed November 7. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/supreme-courts-potential-restructuring-of-ftc.

5. Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935).

6. SLAUGHTER et al v. TRUMP et al, (D.C. 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909-0.

7. "Trump v. Slaughter." Oyez. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-332.

8. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al., on application for stay, No. 606 (U.S. 2025).

9. Bednar, Nick. 2025. “’Slaughter’-Ing Humphrey’s Executor.” Default. Lawfare. October 15. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/slaughter--ing-humphrey-s-executor.

10. DiResta, Anthony E., and Timothy Taylor. 2025. “Supreme Court’s Potential Restructuring of FTC Could Have Substantial Implications: Insights.” Holland & Knight. Accessed November 7. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/supreme-courts-potential-restructuring-of-ftc.

11. Bednar, Nick. 2025. “’Slaughter’-Ing Humphrey’s Executor.” Default. Lawfare. October 15. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/slaughter--ing-humphrey-s-executor.

Bibliography:

15 U.S. Code § 41

“Appointment confirmation process.” Ballotpedia. Accessed December 8. https://ballotpedia.org/Appointment_confirmation_process.

Bednar, Nick. 2025. “’Slaughter’-Ing Humphrey’s Executor.” Default. Lawfare. October 15. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/slaughter--ing-humphrey-s-executor.

DiResta, Anthony E., and Timothy Taylor. 2025. “Supreme Court’s Potential Restructuring of FTC Could Have Substantial Implications: Insights.” Holland & Knight. Accessed November 7. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/supreme-courts-potential-restructuring-of-ftc.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al., on application for stay, No. 606 (U.S. 2025).

Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935).

SLAUGHTER et al v. TRUMP et al, (D.C. 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909-0.

Reuters. 2025. “Supreme Court sets December 8 date for arguments over Trump FTC firing.” Reuters. Accessed December 1.

"Trump v. Slaughter." Oyez. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-332.

A History of the Franchise

By: Zachary Schwarz
Edited by: Lauren Levinson and Chloe Shah

Voting is the most crucial determinant of a functioning democracy. So crucial, in fact, that it is mentioned 37 times throughout the Constitution. [1] Curiously, though, not once is there an explicit affirmation of the right to vote. [2] Largely because of this peculiarity, certain Americans have faced centuries of disenfranchisement efforts that persist today.

A Constitutional Basis and Early Suffrage

The Elections Clause in Article I of the Constitution dictates that states decide the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections for the Senate and House of Representatives. [3] Additionally, the Electors Appointment Clause in Article II mandates that state legislatures appoint electors to determine the president, setting out the Electoral College. [4] In conjunction, these clauses vest authority over the administration of federal elections, and therefore voter qualifications, in the states.

Before the American Revolution, White, land-owning males had a monopoly on the franchise. [5] This stemmed from an elitist consensus that the wealthy and highly educated were most capable of governance. [6] Many Founding Fathers espoused similar ideas, including John Adams. He warned that universal suffrage would be “dangerous,” as the uninformed masses would not be able to identify their own interests accurately. [7] Such sentiments almost led to a property ownership qualification for voting in the Constitution, but the suffrage of non-landowners in some states rendered the proposal unfeasible. [8] By 1800, as more states joined the Union and political strategists viewed expanding the franchise as advantageous, the share of White males who were eligible to vote grew to an estimated 80%. [9] 

In the few years prior to the Civil War, virtually every White male enjoyed suffrage, with a few Northern states allowing Black men to vote. [10] Immediately following the conflict, the federal government ratified three constitutional amendments known collectively as the Reconstruction Amendments. To summarize, the 13th Amendment eliminated slavery or indentured servitude, “except as punishment for crime.” [11] The 14th Amendment laid out the Equal Protection Clause, preventing states from “[denying] to any person within [their] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [12] Lastly, the 15th Amendment protected the right to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” [13] With these new guardrails in place, suffrage would appear ripe to expand. Ostensibly, it did, with 735,000 Black men and 635,000 White men gaining the franchise. [14]

Voter Suppression 

Just as quickly as eligibility grew, Southern legislatures rushed to restore the Antebellum status quo. States instituted Black Codes–sets of policies that later evolved into Jim Crow– aimed at recodifying a racial caste system. [15] Voter suppression was among the most prominent features of this legal framework, functioning to silence the voices of the already oppressed. 

As to specific manifestations of voter suppression, many Black voters were subjected to literacy or comprehension tests as a prerequisite for casting their ballot. [16] Poll workers could fail anyone at their discretion, mostly targeting Black voters. [17] For instance, a now-infamous 1965 test from Alabama featured 68 questions with no standardized passing score. [18] As well, some states, like Louisiana, had an “Understanding Clause,” which instructed poll workers to read aloud a portion of the state’s constitution and ask a voter to interpret it. [19] If said interpretation was not sufficient for the poll worker, which it rarely was, the examinee was deemed ineligible to vote. [20]

While literacy tests and Understanding Clauses leveraged the years of anti-literacy laws that caused lower literacy rates in Black Southerners, poll taxes exploited the economic inequality between racial groups at the time. [21] To exercise their constitutional right, voters would be forced to pay up to $15 in 2015’s currency, frequently compounding annually for two or three years before an election. [22] To exempt the Whites who would have otherwise failed to meet these burdensome requirements, states introduced a “Grandfather Clause.” [23] It stipulated that, as the name suggests, if a person’s grandfather possessed the franchise, they did too. [24]

As a result of the aforementioned voter suppression tactics and more, the percentage of Black men registered to vote in the South decreased sharply. Mississippi had a rate of 70% in 1867 and 6% in 1890. [25] Louisiana was similar, with Black men constituting 44% of the state’s electorate immediately after the Civil War. [26] Nevertheless, by 1920, only a shocking 1% were registered. [27]

Women’s Suffrage Movement

The inciting incident of the Women’s Suffrage Movement came at the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention, where Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the Declaration of Sentiments, a call for broader gender equality modeled after the Declaration of Independence. [28] Susan B. Anthony took over shortly as figurehead of the movement, with Stanton penning her rhetoric. [29]

Despite the Reconstruction Amendments granting universal male suffrage, American women remained disenfranchised. Eventually, in 1913, momentum swung their way. [30] During President Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration ceremony, 8,000 women gathered to express their discontent over the sustained inaction on suffrage. [31] They were met with backlash from a violent mob, eliciting heightened national attention. [32] Capitalizing on this were the Silent Sentinels, who pressured President Wilson to pledge support for women’s suffrage by protesting outside the White House for days on end. [33]

Civil Rights Movement and Progress

In 1920, the Women’s Suffrage Movement scored its ultimate victory when the 19th Amendment was officially ratified, guaranteeing that no one could be denied the right to vote “on account of sex.” [34] Five years earlier, in Guinn v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down the Grandfather Clause, a step commended by Black newspapers for advancing voting rights. [35] 

Much like the Women’s Suffrage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement seized on surges in public support to enshrine its agenda into law. The Civil Rights Act had been stalled in Congress for years, contributing to an attendance of 260,000 at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. [36] The sheer size of this protest forced the federal government to take the Civil Rights Movement seriously, but the sheer brutality of the 1965 marches in Selma, Alabama, garnered sympathy from the American people. [37] As voting rights activists crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were beaten and tear-gassed by Alabama state troopers. [38] Coverage of the violence sparked national outrage and led to activists and leaders arriving in Selma to demonstrate their solidarity [39]. With no doubt left in the minds and consciences of legislators, Congress and President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. [40]

The Civil Rights Act was sweeping, outlawing discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” [41] It dismantled the “separate but equal” doctrine of racial segregation in the South, promoting greater equality in every facet of life. [42] On the other hand, the VRA was a direct response to the voter suppression that had occurred in the South. [43] Containing deliberate provisions, the bill focused on the states and precincts that had most grossly violated the 15th Amendment. [44] Within a year of its passage, 450,000 African Americans were registered to vote in the South. [45]

Alongside the landmark legislation, the United States ratified two constitutional amendments related to the franchise. In 1964, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes. [46] Then, in 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the national voting age from 21 to 18 years of age. [47]

Finally, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that interpreted a universal right to vote in the Constitution. The plaintiffs in Reynold v. Sims had objected to Alabama’s use of the 1900 census to apportion electoral districts in 1961. [48] The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that, under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, districts must be drawn so that one person equals one vote. [49] According to the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, “Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” [50] He went on to assert that, “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society.” [51]

Modern Voter Suppression

After preclearance—the process outlined in Section 4 of the VRA wherein states were compelled to submit changes to voting laws for federal review—was struck down in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, Southern legislatures have been reemboldened to suppress votes. [52] Primarily, states have adopted voter identification (ID) laws that require citizens to show a qualifying form of photo ID at their polling place. [53] As of 2021, 21 million Americans, mainly Americans of color, did not have such an ID. [54] Although states are obligated to provide one free of charge, they are often very difficult to come by. [55] Many Americans, again mainly Americans of color, live far from a government office that issues IDs, prompting the conclusion that “strict voter ID laws appear to discriminate.” [56] Further evidence comes from previous remarks of voter ID law proponents. In 2016, the former president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint, put it simply: “In the states where they do have voter ID laws, you’ve seen, actually, elections begin to change towards more conservative candidates.” [57] 

Other tactics have centered on policing individuals and organizations that assist voters. Amid notoriously long lines at Georgia polling stations, state representatives have prohibited the distribution of food and water to those waiting. [58] A 2019 Tennessee law compelled voter registration groups to submit almost all registration forms they collected, yet imposed  civil and criminal penalties if more than 100 were considered “incomplete.” [59] Deeper institutional barriers to voting also impede suffrage. Due to the nature of the criminal justice system, felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects communities of color. [60] 

Conclusion

Taken together, decades of voter suppression in the United States highlight a political class that views its power as deserved, not earned. Instead of reshaping their agendas, legislators have consistently worked to reshape the electorate in order to win. Despite this troubling pattern, a proven remedy exists. When the federal government takes meaningful action—through constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and legislation—the constitutional right to vote is protected. Therefore, as long as Americans elevate leaders who uphold fundamental democratic ideals, there is hope that the United States will endure as a thriving republic where the voice of every citizen is heard.

Notes:

1. Michael Wines, “Voting Rights and the Constitution,” The New York Times, October 26, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/article/voting-rights-constitution.html.
2. Wines, “Voting Rights and the Constitution.”
3. U.S. Constitution, art. I, sec. 4. cl. 1.
4. U.S. Constitution, art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2.
5. Stuart M. Blumin, “Making (White Male) Democracy: Suffrage Expansion in the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War,” History Now, no. 51 (Summer 2018), https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/making-white-male-democracy-suffrage-expansion-united-states-revolution.
6. Blumin, “Making (White Male) Democracy.”
7. John Adams, “John Adams to James Sullivan, 26 May 1776,” Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0091.
8. Wines, “Voting Rights and the Constitution.”
9. Blumin, “Making (White Male) Democracy.”
10. Marsha J. Tyson Darling, “A Right Deferred: African-American Voter Suppression after Reconstruction,” History Now, no. 51 (Summer 2018), https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/right-deferred-african-american-voter-suppression-after-reconstruction.
11. U.S. Constitution, amend. 13.
12. U.S. Constitution, amend. 14.
13. U.S. Constitution, amend. 15.
14. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
15. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
16. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
17. Terrance Smith, “Timeline: Voter Suppression in U.S. From Civil War to Today,” ABC News, August 20, 2020, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-voter-suppression-us-civil-war-today/story?id=72248473.
18. Jim Crow Museum, “1965 Alabama Literacy Test,” https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/pdfs-docs/origins/al_literacy.pdf.
19. William Alexander Mabry, “Louisiana Politics and the ‘Grandfather Clause,’” The North Carolina Historical Review 13, no. 4 (1936): 290–310, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23514793.
20. Mabry, “Louisiana Politics and the ‘Grandfather Clause.’”
21. Smith, “Timeline: Voter Suppression in U.S.”
22. Drew DeSilver, “Anti-poll Tax Amendment Is 50 Years Old Today,” Pew Research Center, January 23, 2014, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/23/anti-poll-tax-amendment-is-50-years-old-today/.
23. Smith, “Timeline: Voter Suppression in U.S.”
24. Smith, “Timeline: Voter Suppression in U.S.”
25. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
26. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
27. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
28. Eleanor Clift, “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote,” History Now, no. 51 (Summer 2018), https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/womens-long-journey-vote.
29. Clift, “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote.”
30. Clift, “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote.”
31. Clift, “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote.”
32. Clift, “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote.”
33. Clift, “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote.”                                                                         
34. U.S. Constitution, amend. 19.
35. Alfred L. Brophy, “Guinn v. United States (1915),” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=GU001.
36. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), “1963 March on Washington,” https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/1963-march-washington.
37. Library of Congress, “The Civil Rights Movement,” https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/post-war-united-states-1945-1968/civil-rights-movement/.
38. Library of Congress, “Civil Rights Movement.”
39. Library of Congress, “Civil Rights Movement.”
40. Library of Congress, “Civil Rights Movement.”
41. Library of Congress, “Civil Rights Movement.”40. Library of Congress, Howard University Civil Rights History Project, Civil Rights Acts (1964, 1968), https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/civilrightsacts.
42. Library of Congress, Howard University Civil Rights History Project, Civil Rights Acts (1964, 1968).
43. Library of Congress, Howard University Civil Rights History Project, Voting Rights Act of 1965, https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/vra.
44. Library of Congress, Howard University Civil Rights History Project, Voting Rights Act of 1965.
45. Darling, “A Right Deferred.”
46. U.S. Constitution, amend. 24.
47. U.S. Constitution, amend. 26.
48. Legal Information Institute (Cornell), “Reynolds v. Sims (1964),” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reynolds_v._sims_%281964%29.
49. Legal Information Institute (Cornell), “Reynolds v. Sims (1964).”
50. National Constitution Center, “Reynolds v. Sims (1964),” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/reynolds-v-sims.
51. National Constitution Center, “Reynolds v. Sims (1964).”
52. Ella Wiley, “Voting Rights Attorneys Reflect on Shelby v. Holder,” NAACP Legal Defense Fund, https://www.naacpldf.org/voting-rights-attorneys-on-shelby-v-holder/.
53. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Voter ID Laws,” https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.
54. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020,” https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020.
55. Keesha Gaskins and Sundeep Iyer, The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification (Brennan Center for Justice, July 2012), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification.
56. J. Kuk, “A Disproportionate Burden: Strict Voter Identification Laws and Minority Turnout,” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Policy (2022), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2020.1773280.
57. Brennan Center for Justice, When Politicians Tell the Truth on Voting Restrictions, August 10, 2016, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/when-politicians-tell-truth-voting-restrictions.
58. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020.”       
59. Campaign Legal Center, “League of Women Voters of Tennessee v. Tre Hargett,” April 2, 2020,                https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/league-women-voters-tennessee-v-tre-hargett60.             
60. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020.”                                                     

Bibliography:

Adams, John. “John Adams to James Sullivan, 26 May 1776.” Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0091.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020.” https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020.

Blumin, Stuart M. “Making (White Male) Democracy: Suffrage Expansion in the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War.” History Now, no. 51 (Summer 2018). https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/making-white-male-democracy-suffrage-expansion-united-states-revolution.

Brennan Center for Justice. When Politicians Tell the Truth on Voting Restrictions. August 10, 2016. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/when-politicians-tell-truth-voting-restrictions.

Brophy, Alfred L. “Guinn v. United States (1915).” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=GU001.

Campaign Legal Center. “League of Women Voters of Tennessee v. Tre Hargett.” April 2, 2020.           https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/league-women-voters-tennessee-v-tre-hargett.                                                                          

Clift, Eleanor. “Women’s Long Journey for the Vote.” History Now, no. 51 (Summer 2018). https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/womens-long-journey-vote.

Darling, Marsha J. Tyson. “A Right Deferred: African-American Voter Suppression after Reconstruction.” History Now, no. 51 (Summer 2018). https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/right-deferred-african-american-voter-suppression-after-reconstruction.

DeSilver, Drew. “Anti-poll Tax Amendment Is 50 Years Old Today.” Pew Research Center, January 23, 2014. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/23/anti-poll-tax-amendment-is-50-years-old-today/.

Gaskins, Keesha, and Sundeep Iyer. The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification. Brennan Center for Justice, July 2012. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification.

Jim Crow Museum. “1965 Alabama Literacy Test.” https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/pdfs-docs/origins/al_literacy.pdf.

Kuk, J. “A Disproportionate Burden: Strict Voter Identification Laws and Minority Turnout.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Policy (2022). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2020.1773280.

Legal Information Institute (Cornell). “Reynolds v. Sims (1964).” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reynolds_v._sims_%281964%29.

Library of Congress. “The Civil Rights Movement.” https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/post-war-united-states-1945-1968/civil-rights-movement/.

Library of Congress, Howard University Civil Rights History Project. Civil Rights Acts (1964, 1968).https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/civilrightsacts.

Library of Congress, Howard University Civil Rights History Project. Voting Rights Act of 1965.https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/blackrights/vra.

Mabry, William Alexander. “Louisiana Politics and the ‘Grandfather Clause.’” The North Carolina Historical Review 13, no. 4 (1936): 290–310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23514793.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). “1963 March on Washington.” https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/1963-march-washington.

National Conference of State Legislatures. “Voter ID Laws.” https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.

National Constitution Center. “Reynolds v. Sims (1964).” https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/reynolds-v-sims.

Smith, Terrance. “Timeline: Voter Suppression in U.S. From Civil War to Today.” ABC News, August 20, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-voter-suppression-us-civil-war-today/story?id=72248473.

Wiley, Ella. “Voting Rights Attorneys Reflect on Shelby v. Holder.” NAACP Legal Defense Fund. https://www.naacpldf.org/voting-rights-attorneys-on-shelby-v-holder/.

Wines, Michael. “Voting Rights and the Constitution.” The New York Times, October 26, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/article/voting-rights-constitution.html.

U.S. Constitution. Art. I, sec. 4. cl. 1.
U.S. Constitution. Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. 13.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. 14.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. 15.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. 19.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. 24.
U.S. Constitution. Amend. 26.

A (White) House Divided: Legal Questions of President Trump’s East Wing Demolition

By: Rachel McCann
Edited by: Payton Hawkins and Hailey Kim

“[T]here's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm good at building things and we’re going to build quickly and on time.” [1]

This assertion was made by President Trump to reporters at the end of July, referring to his plans to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom in the East Wing of the White House. On October 20th, those plans were effectively underway, with residents of Washington D.C. waking up to the sight of major demolition to the East Wing. [2] However, as the piles of rubble have grown, so has criticism of the president’s demolition efforts. Notably, many historians and preservationists have argued that President Trump’s sudden renovation of the East Wing ignored the legal processes intended to protect one the Nation’s most prominent buildings.

The White House has been a pillar of the American presidency since President John Adams moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 1800. [3] Specifically, the East Wing has served as an integral part of the historic home since it was built in 1942. For over eighty years, the East Wing has been home to the Office of the First Lady and a bunker used during both World War II and the September 11th attacks. [4] 

Historic federal buildings are protected by numerous statutes in the United States Code, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, this Act was designed to examine the impact of construction projects on historic properties. [5] Additionally, this Act established the American Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). [6] Section 106 of the NHPA requires “federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on historic properties and provide the ACHP with an opportunity to comment on projects before implementation.” [7] While reviews under Section 106 do not mandate that agencies secure approval for agency-led and funded projects, it does require that the views of the public are heard during project planning and ensures that the preservation of historic properties is considered in the project planning process. [8] While the NPHA applies to nearly all historical buildings, there are three key exceptions outlined in Section 107 of the Act. Section 107 provides that “[t]he Act is not applicable to the White House, the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court Building and their grounds.” [9] Thus, although the complete demolition of the East Wing would otherwise require assessment by the ACHP under Section 106 of the NPHA, the exceptions listed in Section 107 mean that President Trump did not violate the Act by not undergoing the assessment process.

While President Trump’s actions are not illegal under the NPHA, they do diverge from the best practices accepted by former presidents. Though the addition of the ballroom will be the largest change to the White House since the mid-twentieth century, President Trump is not the first president to make changes to the Executive Residence in recent decades. [10] However, for all of those changes, the former presidents have voluntarily submitted plans to the National Capital Planning Commission before beginning construction, something that President Trump has yet to do. [11]

Established by the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) oversees “the development of federal property within the National Capital Region,” which includes the White House. [12] Under 40 U.S.C. §§ 8722(a), (b)(1) and (d), “[t]he National Capital Planning Act requires federal agencies to submit project plans and development proposals for federal property to the Commission for review.” [13] However, ahead of demolition, the NCPC had not received renovation plans from the White House. [14] The last major renovations were done by President Truman, who gutted the White House interior during his term; these were funded by Congressional appropriations and thus required formal oversight by both the NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts. The Trump administration, by contrast, is funding these renovations through private donors. As a result, they claim that,“[u]nder existing federal law, alterations to the executive residence fall under presidential authority, subject to advisory review by federal planning agencies.” [15] 

However, Trump and his allies argue that “advisory review by federal planning agencies,” like the NCPC, is not needed at the demolition stage of the construction process, as demolition falls outside of the jurisdiction of the NCPC. [16] Will Scharf, the chairman of the Commission and one of President Trump’s top aides, announced in the Commission’s monthly meeting that, “[w]hat we deal with is essentially construction, vertical build.” [17] Many legal scholars assert that separating the demolition process from construction, which is regulated by the NCPC, undermines the purpose of historical preservation and development laws. However, absent new legislation from Congress, these various federal agencies retain only advisory functions that lack leverage to block further demolition by the administration. [18]

In conclusion, while the president’s renovation of the East Wing is exempt from oversight by the American Council on Historic Preservation, much debate remains regarding whether or not oversight by the National Capital Planning Commission is required before demolition. Despite calls from preservationists, it is likely that demolition and construction will continue to move forward unobstructed under President Trump’s expansive executive authority. With very minimal Congressional oversight, few organizations with standing to litigate, and several relevant agencies headed by Trump allies, very few avenues remain to halt the construction of the new $200 million dollar ballroom. [19]

Notes:

1. David Smith, “‘Trump Is a Wrecking Ball’: Behind the President’s $200m Plan to Build a White House Ballroom,” The Guardian, August 7, 2025. 

2. Anna Betts & Coral Murphy Marcos, “White House’s East Wing Partially Demolished as Work Begins on Trump’s $250m Ballroom,” The Guardian, October 20, 2025. 

3. “White House History.” National Archives and Records Administration.

4. Tom Foreman, “The White House’s East Wing Is Now Demolished. Here’s What Was Lost,” CNN, October 26, 2025. 

5. Madeline Halpert, “The Decades-Old Exemption That Lets Trump Reconstruct the White House,” BBC News, October 23, 2025. 

6. “Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” ACHP, October 15, 1966.  

7. “Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,” ACHP, October 15, 1966.

8.  “Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review,” Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

9. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470).

10. Bryan Gottlieb, “White House Ballroom Build Advances as Oversight Gaps Emerge,” Engineering NewsRecord RSS, October 22, 2025. 

11. Madeline Halpert, “The Decades-Old Exemption That Lets Trump Reconstruct the White House,” BBC News, October 23, 2025. 

12. “Legislative Authorities,” National Capital Planning Commission. 

13. “Legislative Authorities,” National Capital Planning Commission.

14. Madeline Halpert, “The Decades-Old Exemption That Lets Trump Reconstruct the White House,” BBC News, October 23, 2025. 

15. Bryan Gottlieb, “White House Ballroom Build Advances as Oversight Gaps Emerge,” Engineering NewsRecord RSS, October 22, 2025.  

16. “White House Demolition Work Begins as Trump Pushes Ahead with $250m Ballroom Plans,” CBC News, October 23, 2025. 

17. “White House Demolition Work Begins as Trump Pushes Ahead with $250m Ballroom Plans,” CBC News, October 23, 2025. 

18. Bryan Gottlieb, “White House Ballroom Build Advances as Oversight Gaps Emerge,” Engineering NewsRecord RSS, October 22, 2025. 

19. David Smith, “‘Trump Is a Wrecking Ball’: Behind the President’s $200m Plan to Build a White House Ballroom,” The Guardian, August 7, 2025. 

Bibliography:

“Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.” ACHP, October 15, 1966. https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/national-historic-preservation-act. 

Betts, Anna, and Coral Murphy Marcos. “White House’s East Wing Partially Demolished as Work Begins on Trump’s $250m Ballroom.” The Guardian, October 20, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/20/trump-white-house-ballroom-construction. 

Foreman, Tom. “The White House’s East Wing Is Now Demolished. Here’s What Was Lost | CNN Politics.” CNN, October 26, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/26/politics/white-house-east-wing-history. 

Gottlieb, Bryan. “White House Ballroom Build Advances as Oversight Gaps Emerge.” Engineering NewsRecord RSS, October 22, 2025. https://www.enr.com/articles/61651-white-house-ballroom-build-advances-as-oversight-gaps-emerge.

Halpert, Madeline. “The Decades-Old Exemption That Lets Trump Reconstruct the White House.” BBC News, October 23, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c397jvrrm4mo. 

“Legislative Authorities.” National Capital Planning Commission. Accessed November 15, 2025. https://www.ncpc.gov/about/authorities/. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470). Accessed November 15, 2025. https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/system/files/legacy/uploads/2767/National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16USC470).pdf. 

“Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review.” Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Accessed November 15, 2025. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-01/CitizenGuide2021_011321.pdf. 

Smith, David. “‘Trump Is a Wrecking Ball’: Behind the President’s $200m Plan to Build a White House Ballroom.” The Guardian, August 7, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/07/trump-white-house-ballroom#:~:text=Trump%20told%20reporters%20last%20week%3A,never%20been%20a%20president%20that. 

“White House Demolition Work Begins as Trump Pushes Ahead with $250m Ballroom Plans | CBC News.” CBCnews, October 23, 2025. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-white-house-demolition-trump-ballroom-9.6946487. 

“White House History.” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed November 15, 2025. https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/glimpse/top.html#:~:text=It%20was%20not%20until%201800,his%20own%20changes%20and%20additions. 

Lively v. Baldoni: PR-based Litigation Strategies and Implications on Trial Fairness Doctrine

By: Stella Seitz
Edited by: Christina Ding and Tulsi Patel

The media’s intervention in legal proceedings has repeatedly resulted in mistrials or appeals due to concerns about prejudice and legal ethics [1]. As a result, the American Bar Association developed twelve rules to help legal professionals ethically navigate the effects of media on legal proceedings. These guidelines help protect client privacy and restrict lawyers from contacting witnesses and parties by pretext [2]. Still, the media's influence significantly affects case outcomes, often undermining the integrity of the legal system by compromising the trial fairness doctrine. 

The trial fairness doctrine is a restriction on US courtroom broadcasting that requires radio and TV news stations to provide adequate coverage of public issues and to present opposing perspectives on them. Legal communications strategies have become integral to criminal defense, with attorneys relying on media-based approaches to promote favorable public images of their clients. The Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni legal dispute, which began in 2024, exemplifies this phenomenon, serving as a recent example in a history of court cases involving celebrity plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses that affect both the court of public opinion and the judicial system. 

From 2023 to 2024, Baldoni directed the film “It Ends With Us” featuring  Lively, his co-star, and produced it through Wayfarer Studios. Soon, media outlets reported alleged disagreements between Baldoni and Lively on the set regarding the portrayal of characters and scenes. In addition, many film critics disapproved of how Lively marketed “It Ends With Us,” which addresses deeply sensitive issues like domestic abuse and generational trauma.

Facing increased public scrutiny, Lively filed a complaint in December 2024 with the California Civil Rights Department, naming Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, its co-founders, and associated PR firms as defendants [4]. The complaint listed ten damages, including sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy [5]. In response, Baldoni filed a $400 million defamation countersuit against Lively, her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times for their coverage of the complaint on Jan. 16, 2025. However, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed the allegations, ruling that the lawsuit was baseless and retaliatory. The dismissal was followed by a lawsuit by The Times in October 2025 against Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, seeking $150,000 in legal fees. Lively’s legal team filed yet another lawsuit, in October 2025, alleging that the Baldoni camp destroyed and concealed evidence relevant to the case. Her lawyers argued that they deleted “auto-expiring” signal messages linked to the mud-slinging campaign against Lively so they could not be submitted to discovery as evidence. They have requested sanctions to restrict Baldoni’s defense from denying the smear campaign’s existence at trial, and several bystanders have corroborated Lively’s claim [4]. 

The trial for Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, and others is set for March 2026. In preparation, Baldoni hired Alexandra Shapiro—whose legal roster includes Sam Bankman-Fried and Sean "Diddy" Combs—as his primary defense. Shapiro is known for her media-savvy defense tactics, often using social media and the press to craft positive narratives surrounding her clients and negative narratives about her opponents. As such, her strategy in the Baldoni v. Lively trial emphasizes a carefully crafted public media campaign to improve his standing in the eyes of the jury and the public overall before the trial even begins. Baldoni and his legal team have already been pursuing an aggressive PR strategy ahead of the official legal proceedings for the case. They released 10 minutes of footage taken during filming, aiming to debunk Lively’s claim that Baldoni sexually harassed her during filming of the scene, which featured a slow dance between their characters. Baldoni’s Legal Team said the video “clearly refute[s] Ms. Lively’s characterization of his behavior” and shows both actors acting with “mutual respect and professionalism” [6]. The tape is too ambiguous to prove or refute claims made by either side. Still, the Baldoni team’s commentary aims to frame the evidence in a way that favors him, possibly to cement a favorable narrative for their client in the eyes of the jury members eventually selected for the trial. Lively’s team responded to the footage and accompanying caption, flipping the narrative, claiming the video is “damning” and supports her recollection of events [6]. They label the video as a “stunt” that the Baldoni camp is leveraging to “get ahead of the damning evidence against him” [6]. As the next step in their PR campaign, Baldoni’s team launched a public website called TheLawsuitInfo.com featuring the amended complaint against Lively and a 168-page timeline of events intended to corroborate his side of events [7]. 

The events in Lively v. Baldoni have been highly publicized. The media strongly influences legal proceedings because opinions can significantly affect court outcomes [8]. An effective litigation communications strategy monitors public opinion through social media, responds to posts that disfavor clients, leverages influencers and ally connections, engages in proactive media outreach, and even consults psychology experts on how best to influence public opinion and increase the likelihood of positive bias [9]. Both sides employed these strategies to outline an effective public response ahead of the trial date. 

Media-savvy legal strategies are not new. In “Effectively Handling High-Profile and Celebrity Cases,” Thomas Mesereau Jr., a criminal defense lawyer famous for securing an acquittal for Michael Jackson following his 2005 child molestation case, stresses the importance of leveraging the media in celebrity cases. He writes how lawyers must calculate how best to spin a client’s position to promote their best qualities to viewers. In People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson, Mesereau skewed public perception by humanizing Jackson and focusing on his redeeming qualities. Regarding the 1995 People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson case, Mesereau discusses the media-savvy strategies that OJ Simpson’s lawyers employed to secure his acquittal after he was accused of murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. They portrayed Simpson as a victim of racist and dishonest police officers and allowed the trial to be highly televised, which enabled them to construct a defense narrative that reached an even larger audience. By leveraging racial tension and fears of political misconduct prevalent in Los Angeles at the time, they effectively manipulated public perceptions to favor Simpson, ultimately aiding his successful judicial outcome [10]. 

Despite the efficacy of such strategies, the goal of social media is rarely justice. The controversy surrounding the ruling in Simpson’s case proves that litigation through the press is not always an effective means of achieving a rightful decision. Simpson was found liable in civil court, for which his estate agreed to pay $58 million to Goldman’s family in November 2025, proving his involvement in the deaths of his wife and Goldman, though he was acquitted in criminal court [11]. The PR campaigns of the Lively and Baldoni camps could adversely affect the outcome of the case. 

The American Bar Association highlights the prevalence of juror misconduct involving social media: jurors’ independent research of cases, against the court’s wishes, can fray the validity and fairness of a trial. Furthermore, anonymity and ease of access provided by social media platforms make it challenging to monitor and control juror behavior outside the courtroom. The Courtroom Sciences Institute emphasizes how social media algorithms are designed to show content that aligns with users' preferences. As a result, individuals are referred to content that confirms their preconceived notions, oftentimes producing echo chambers where users’ opinions are repeatedly validated, and counterperspectives are dismissed. In high-profile cases such as Lively v. Baldoni, public perception could become increasingly staunch and polarized as a result of discourse on social media platforms, in which different sides hold staunchly to potentially erroneous or biased conclusions [8]. Therefore, whichever side can leverage social media more astutely will increase its chances of a favorable outcome in court. 

Social media can influence the outcomes of judicial proceedings in the United States [12]. Rather than evidence being admitted and reviewed before being presented in court, any image, video, or other piece of content can be shared freely via social media with captions to bias public opinion. The basis of the fair trial doctrine holds that individuals should be innocent until proven guilty. Competing public narratives in the Lively v. Baldoni disputes show how difficult it is to uphold this doctrine, likely leading individuals to form staunch opinions months before the court session begins. As the Lively and Baldoni teams attempt to manage public opinion effectively, they overlook any potential ethical questions that their pre-trial defense strategies raise. With the court date still months away, the legal teams are likely to continue using PR to construct favorable narratives about their respective defendants. It is yet to be seen whether the Lively and Baldoni teams’ use of the media will result in a mistrial or appeal due to concerns over legal ethics and jury prejudice.

Nevertheless, the implications of litigation through the press are sure to be far-reaching and consequential for the future of criminal court proceedings and ethical litigation communications strategies. Rather than only considering evidence that is regarded as verifiable enough to be presented in court, the future jury’s opinion will be influenced by all of the information they consume on social media before the trial. This contamination of information could potentially undermine the credibility of the jury and their ability to make a non-biased verdict. Therefore, while social media tactics are undoubtedly necessary for any legal strategy with high-profile plaintiffs and defendants, media-based litigation can have adverse effects on the integrity of the trial, potentially threatening the ability of the justice system to achieve fair outcomes. 

Notes:

1. Courtroom Sciences. “Strategies for Managing Public Opinion in Litigation.” Courtroom Sciences, November 9, 2024. https://www.courtroomsciences.com/litigation-consulting-1/strategies-for-managing-public-opinion-in-litigation-778/.

2. Siegel, Daniel J. “Ethics Corner: 12 Rules for Ethically Dealing with Social Media.” American Bar Association, American Bar Association, 16 Feb. 2017, www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2017-february/ethics-corner/. 

3. Gonzalez, Shivani. “‘It Ends With Us’: The Press Tour Drama, Explained.” The New York Times, August 16, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/movies/it-ends-with-us-controversy-blake-lively-justin-baldoni.html.

4. Zumpano, Bianca. “It Ends With a Lawsuit: The Lively/Baldoni Disputes So Far.” Syracuse Law Review, January 25, 2025. https://lawreview.syr.edu/it-ends-with-a-lawsuit-the-lively-baldoni-disputes-so-far/.

5. Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, et al., Complaint for Damages, United States District Court, Central District of California, filed 2025, PDF file, accessed November 17, 2025, https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1629cc34e562e325/4410b1d9-full.pdf

6. Geigner, Timothy. “Justin Baldoni’s Legal Team Decides to Wage a PR War before Trial.” Techdirt, January 24, 2025. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/24/justin-baldonis-legal-team-decides-to-wage-a-pr-war-before-trial/.

7. The Lawsuit Info. Accessed November 17, 2025. https://www.thelawsuitinfo.com/

8. Ebenezer Kojo Gyesi Mensah, “Assessing the Role of Media Influence and Public Perception in Legal Decision-Making” (working paper, April 29, 2024), SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=4811277.

9. Courtroom Sciences. “Strategies for Managing Public Opinion in Litigation.” Courtroom Sciences, November 9, 2024. https://www.courtroomsciences.com/litigation-consulting-1/strategies-for-managing-public-opinion-in-litigation-778/.

10. Mesereau, Tom. “Effectively Handling High-Profile and Celebrity Cases.” Mesereau Law Group, January 18, 2021. https://mesereaulaw.com/effectively-handling-high-profile-and-celebrity-cases/.

11. Kaur, Brahmjot. "O.J. Simpson's Estate to Pay $57 Million to Ron Goldman's Dad." E! News. November 17, 2025. https://www.eonline.com/news/1425155/o-j-simpsons-estate-to-pay-s57-million-to-ron-goldmans-dad.

12. St. Eve, Amy J., and Michael A. Zuckerman. “Ensuring an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Media.” Duke Law & Technology Review 11 (2012). https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol11/iss1/1/.

Bibliography: 

ABC News. “Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni’s It Ends with Us Legal Battle: A Timeline.” ABC News, November 13, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-legal-battle-timeline/story?id=117430951.

Baum, Gary. “‘It Ends with Us’ Legal Fallout: Baldoni Lawyer Bryan Freedman Sued for Malpractice.” The Hollywood Reporter, October 9, 2025. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/justin-baldoni-bryan-freedman-sued-malpractice-1236396197/.

Courtroom Sciences. “Strategies for Managing Public Opinion in Litigation.” Courtroom Sciences, November 9, 2024. https://www.courtroomsciences.com/litigation-consulting-1/strategies-for-managing-public-opinion-in-litigation-778/.

Geigner, Timothy. “Justin Baldoni’s Legal Team Decides to Wage a PR War before Trial.” Techdirt, January 24, 2025. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/24/justin-baldonis-legal-team-decides-to-wage-a-pr-war-before-trial/.

Gonzalez, Shivani. “‘It Ends With Us’: The Press Tour Drama, Explained.” The New York Times, August 16, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/movies/it-ends-with-us-controversy-blake-lively-justin-baldoni.html.

Kaur, Brahmjot. “O.J. Simpson’s Estate to Pay $57 Million to Ron Goldman’s Father.” E! News, November 17, 2025. https://www.eonline.com/news/1425155/o-j-simpsons-estate-to-pay-s57-million-to-ron-goldmans-dad.

Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al. Complaint for Damages. United States District Court for the Central District of California, filed 2025. PDF. Accessed November 17, 2025. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1629cc34e562e325/4410b1d9-full.pdf.

Mensah, Ebenezer Kojo Gyesi. “Assessing the Role of Media Influence and Public Perception in Legal Decision-Making.” Working paper, April 29, 2024. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4811277.

Mesereau, Tom. “Effectively Handling High-Profile and Celebrity Cases.” Mesereau Law Group, January 18, 2021. https://mesereaulaw.com/effectively-handling-high-profile-and-celebrity-cases/.

Moses, Lucia. “The Lively-Baldoni Battle Fits into a Broader PR Trend That Can Be Costly for Media.” Business Insider, January 13, 2025. https://www.businessinsider.com/lively-baldoni-lawsuit-trend-public-relations-strategy-2025-1.

Rosner, Elizabeth. “Justin Baldoni Hires Diddy’s Lawyer as Explosive Legal Battle with Blake Lively Heats Up.” People, September 18, 2025. https://people.com/justin-baldoni-hires-diddys-lawyer-legal-battle-with-blake-lively-heats-up-11812830.

Siegel, Daniel J. “Ethics Corner: 12 Rules for Ethically Dealing with Social Media.” American Bar Association, February 16, 2017. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2017-february/ethics-corner/.

St. Eve, Amy J., and Michael A. Zuckerman. “Ensuring an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Media.” Duke Law & Technology Review 11 (2012). https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol11/iss1/1/.

The Lawsuit Info. Accessed November 17, 2025. https://www.thelawsuitinfo.com/.

The News. “Justin Baldoni Pulls High Profile Attorney to Legal Team.” The News, September 19, 2025. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1344748-justin-baldoni-pulls-high-profile-attorney-to-legal-team.

Zumpano, Bianca. “It Ends With a Lawsuit: The Lively/Baldoni Disputes So Far.” Syracuse Law Review, January 25, 2025. https://lawreview.syr.edu/it-ends-with-a-lawsuit-the-lively-baldoni-disputes-so-far/.