This Day in Legal History: A Christmas Carol is Published

On December 19, 1843, Charles Dickens published A Christmas Carol, a novella that became one of the most enduring works of English literature. While it is often celebrated as a heartwarming holiday tale, its themes had significant social and legal resonance in Victorian England. Through its portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge, the miserly businessman, and his transformative journey, Dickens cast a stark light on the grim realities of poverty, inequality, and labor conditions during the Industrial Revolution.

The novella emphasized the moral obligation of society’s wealthy to care for the impoverished, contrasting Scrooge’s initial indifference with the dire circumstances of the Cratchit family. By humanizing the struggles of the working poor, A Christmas Carol drew public attention to issues such as child labor, inadequate housing, and exploitative working conditions—concerns that were increasingly debated in Parliament and social reform circles.

The story’s publication coincided with the rise of the Chartist movement, which advocated for political and legal reforms, including universal male suffrage and better labor protections. It also aligned with growing public support for legislation like the Ten Hours Act (passed in 1847), which limited the working hours of women and children in factories. Dickens himself was a vocal critic of the Poor Laws, a legal framework that often penalized poverty rather than addressing its causes, and his novella reinforced calls for a more humane approach to social welfare.

While A Christmas Carol was not directly responsible for specific legal changes, its immense popularity helped shift public attitudes. By embedding its critique of social injustice within a compelling and widely accessible narrative, Dickens inspired empathy and bolstered movements advocating for legal reforms to improve the lives of the poor and working class. This fusion of storytelling and social commentary ensured the novella's enduring influence on both culture and conscience.

Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the murder of UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, is set to appear in a Pennsylvania court for two hearings related to his extradition to New York. Mangione was arrested on December 9 in Altoona, Pennsylvania, five days after Thompson was fatally shot outside a Manhattan hotel in what authorities describe as a premeditated act of terrorism. A New York grand jury has indicted Mangione on 11 counts, including first-degree murder and murder as an act of terrorism.

At the time of his arrest, Mangione was found with a self-assembled 9mm handgun, a homemade silencer, and multiple fake IDs, one of which was allegedly used to check into a hostel near the crime scene. Pennsylvania police have charged Mangione with forgery and illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for these charges. Following this, a second hearing will address his extradition to New York.

Under Pennsylvania law, Mangione can consent to extradition by waiving his rights in court. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has indicated that Mangione is unlikely to contest the transfer. Prosecutors allege the killing was intended to intimidate or coerce, qualifying it as terrorism under New York law. Mangione has been held in custody since his arrest, and his defense team has declined to comment.

UnitedHealth executive murder suspect to appear in court over New York extradition | Reuters

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against CVS, accusing the pharmacy chain of filling illegal opioid prescriptions and billing federal health programs, actions allegedly contributing to the opioid crisis. Unsealed in a Rhode Island federal court, the complaint claims that from 2013 to the present, CVS violated the Controlled Substances Act by filling excessive or dangerous prescriptions, including from doctors running "pill mills." The lawsuit alleges CVS's performance-driven culture ignored warning signs and led to overdoses, with some patients dying shortly after filling prescriptions.

The DOJ claims CVS pharmacists were pressured to prioritize speed over safety, ignoring red flags and internal warnings about questionable prescribers. For example, CVS continued filling prescriptions for an Alabama doctor under investigation in 2015, who was later arrested in 2016, and for a Pennsylvania doctor accused of dispensing opioids without seeing patients. The lawsuit also highlights deaths linked to 10 individual patients who received illicit prescriptions from CVS.

CVS disputes the allegations, asserting it has cooperated with the DOJ's four-year investigation and strongly disagrees with the claims. This lawsuit follows CVS's 2022 agreement to pay nearly $5 billion to settle similar opioid-related claims, without admitting wrongdoing. The DOJ lawsuit originated as a whistleblower complaint from a former CVS employee, who criticized the company’s assembly-line approach to dispensing medications. The case reflects ongoing accountability efforts in the face of a crisis that has claimed over 800,000 lives since 1999.

US accuses CVS of filling, billing government for illegal opioid prescriptions | Reuters

President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk have strongly opposed House Speaker Mike Johnson’s proposed spending bill to avert a government shutdown before the holidays, creating significant turmoil within the Republican Party. Johnson's plan, which requires bipartisan support, aims to fund the government through next year and includes $100 billion in disaster aid and other provisions. However, Trump and Musk have denounced the measure, with Musk advocating for a shutdown unless deeper spending cuts are made. Trump has threatened to campaign against Republicans who support the proposal.

The drama unfolded as Johnson attempted to negotiate a compromise, acknowledging he needed Democratic votes to pass the measure. Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance pushed for incorporating the debt ceiling into the discussions, a contentious issue not expected to arise until 2025. Johnson's speakership, held since October, now appears precarious as criticism mounts from both Republican hardliners and representatives from disaster-hit states.

The White House criticized the threat of a shutdown, warning it would harm families during the holidays and disrupt critical services. This political maneuvering mirrors a similar 2018 standoff under Trump that resulted in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. With the new Congress set to convene on January 3, Johnson’s ability to maintain his leadership is uncertain, as tensions within the GOP continue to escalate. Meanwhile, Musk declared victory as Johnson’s bill faltered, claiming it reflected the public’s voice.

Trump, Musk Threaten US Shutdown and Shake Up Republican Party

The IRS announced it is delaying until 2026 the implementation of a regulation that aims to address a loophole in required minimum distribution (RMD) rules for retirement accounts. This loophole created confusion for workers born in 1959 due to inconsistencies in the SECURE 2.0 Act, which Congress passed in 2022 to allow employees to keep money in tax-advantaged accounts longer. The Act gradually raises the RMD age from 72 to 75, with workers born after 1960 starting withdrawals at age 75, while those born before 1959 begin at 73.

However, the law’s drafting inadvertently assigned 1959-born individuals conflicting RMD start dates of both 73 and 75. The proposed regulation was intended to clarify this, but its effective date has now been postponed. The broader rule increasing the RMD age remains set to begin phasing in on January 1, 2025.

Additionally, the delayed regulations clarify that withdrawals from Roth accounts cannot satisfy RMD requirements, making such distributions eligible for rollovers. The delay gives affected workers and financial institutions more time to adjust to these complex changes while the IRS finalizes guidance.

Regular readers may recall that I wrote a column back in August advocating for a change to how required minimum distributions are handled. In that piece, I argued that instead of raising the RMD age, the IRS should implement an estate tax on retirement accounts left untouched at death. This approach would simplify the system, discourage using retirement accounts as tax-free inheritance vehicles, and ensure their intended purpose: funding retirement.

IRS Delays Proposal to Close 401(k) Withdrawal Age Rule Loophole

IRS Should've Put an Estate Tax on Inherited Retirement Accounts

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

Legal News for Thurs 12/19 - Mangione Extradition Hearing, DOJ Lawsuit Against CVS Over Opioids, Trump and Musk Threaten Shutdown and IRS Rule Delays for RMDs

Powered by Wave AI