This Day in Legal History: Ronald Reagan Assassination Attempt

On March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt outside the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The attack was carried out by John Hinckley Jr., who fired multiple shots as the president exited an event. Reagan was seriously wounded but survived after emergency surgery, while others, including Press Secretary James Brady, were also injured. The incident immediately triggered a high-profile federal criminal case against Hinckley. During trial, Hinckley’s defense team argued that he was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. This outcome shocked the public and sparked widespread debate about the use and limits of the insanity defense in criminal law.

Critics argued that the standard allowed dangerous individuals to avoid accountability, while supporters emphasized the importance of recognizing severe mental illness in legal responsibility. In response, Congress and many states moved to tighten the rules governing insanity defenses. One major reform was the passage of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which made it harder for defendants to succeed with such claims in federal court. The law shifted the burden of proof to defendants and narrowed the definition of legal insanity. The case also influenced how courts evaluate expert psychiatric testimony. Over time, Hinckley remained confined to a psychiatric institution rather than a traditional prison. His gradual release decades later continued to raise legal and ethical questions about mental illness and public safety. This event remains a defining moment in modern criminal law because it reshaped how courts balance mental health and criminal responsibility.

Bank of America has agreed to pay $72.5 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities. The agreement, filed for preliminary approval in New York federal court, does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the bank. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, described the settlement as a meaningful recovery for survivors. The proposed class includes women and girls who were abused by Epstein or his associates, including those who received compensation tied to sexual activity. Payments to class members will vary based on factors such as the severity and duration of abuse and any cooperation with investigations.

Doe alleged that Bank of America ignored warning signs and allowed suspicious financial transactions linked to Epstein’s operations, including accounts opened in her name despite red flags. The bank denied facilitating any illegal conduct but stated the settlement allows it to resolve the matter and provide closure. The plaintiff’s attorneys may seek up to 30% of the settlement fund in fees. The court had previously dismissed claims against another defendant, Bank of New York Mellon, and narrowed the case against Bank of America. The judge also rejected an effort by the bank to pause proceedings while related government matters were clarified.

The plaintiff and her legal team weighed the risks of trial, including the possibility of a lengthy appeals process that could delay compensation for survivors. As part of the settlement process, a fund administrator will determine individual awards using specific criteria tied to each claimant’s experience. The case highlights ongoing legal efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for their potential role in enabling trafficking networks.

BofA Will Pay $72.5M In Deal Ending Epstein Ties Allegations - Law360

Four major law firms—Jenner & Block LLP, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP—have asked the D.C. Circuit to uphold lower court rulings that invalidated executive orders issued by Donald Trump targeting them. The firms argue the orders were unconstitutional, claiming they violated the First Amendment and other protections by restricting their ability to practice law. The measures included suspending security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and penalizing the firms for their clients and legal work.

The firms contend the orders were retaliatory, pointing to Trump’s criticism of their pro bono work and connections to investigations involving him. They argue the government cannot punish lawyers for representing certain clients or expressing particular viewpoints. Each firm emphasized that the orders interfere with core legal principles, including the right to counsel, free association, and access to the courts.

The U.S. Department of Justice initially sought to drop its appeal of the lower court decisions but quickly reversed course and is now defending the executive orders. The firms highlighted this reversal as evidence that the orders are legally weak. They also argue that the government has failed to meaningfully dispute claims that the orders were motivated by retaliation.

The dispute is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for May. The outcome could have significant implications for executive power and the independence of the legal profession.

Firms Targeted By Trump Urge DC Circ. To Uphold EO Rulings - Law360

Law firms targeted by Trump ask court to uphold rulings blocking executive orders | Reuters

A federal judge reduced the prison sentence of Elizabeth Holmes by one year, lowering her term from just over 11 years after applying updated federal sentencing guidelines. Holmes had requested a two-year reduction, but the court granted only a partial decrease despite opposition from prosecutors. The judge found that although her fraud caused approximately $452 million in investor losses, prosecutors failed to show that any individual victim suffered “substantial financial hardship,” which is required under the revised guidelines.

The court emphasized that financial harm must be evaluated relative to each victim’s wealth, noting that large losses do not automatically qualify as substantial hardship for wealthy investors. Because the government did not provide specific evidence of such harm, Holmes qualified for a reduced sentence as a nonviolent, first-time offender. However, the judge limited the reduction to one year to maintain deterrence and reflect the seriousness of her conduct.

Holmes was convicted in 2022 of defrauding investors in Theranos, the blood-testing startup she led alongside Ramesh Balwani. While her conviction included four counts of investor fraud, she was acquitted or not convicted on other charges. She began serving her sentence in 2023.

Prosecutors argued against reducing her sentence, citing the scale of the losses, her limited restitution payments, and concerns about potential future misconduct. Holmes countered that investors knowingly took risks and were not financially devastated. The judge ultimately agreed that the legal standard for “substantial financial hardship” was not met.

Elizabeth Holmes Gets 11-Year Prison Sentence Cut By A Year - Law360 UK

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