This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Impeachment

On March 12, 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Chase, a Federalist appointed to the Court in 1796, had become a controversial figure during a period of intense political division between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Members of Congress accused him of allowing his political views to influence his conduct on the bench. Much of the criticism focused on Chase’s behavior during trials brought under the Alien and Sedition Acts, where he was alleged to have treated defendants and their lawyers unfairly. The House approved several articles of impeachment claiming that Chase’s courtroom conduct showed bias and undermined the impartial administration of justice.

The impeachment moved to the Senate for trial in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding over the proceedings. After weeks of arguments and testimony, the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for conviction on any article. As a result, Chase was acquitted and remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811. The outcome established an important precedent about the limits of impeachment as a tool against federal judges. Although Congress has the constitutional authority to impeach judges, the Chase trial suggested that impeachment should not be used simply because legislators disagree with a judge’s legal or political views.

In the years that followed, the case came to symbolize a commitment to judicial independence within the federal system. By declining to remove Chase from office, the Senate reinforced the idea that judges should be protected from political retaliation for their rulings. The episode remains the only time a sitting Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House of Representatives. Today, the Chase impeachment is often cited in discussions about the balance between judicial accountability and the need for an independent judiciary.

A federal antitrust case against Live Nation Entertainment has stalled as negotiations over a proposed settlement continue and several states resist the deal. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and numerous state attorneys general, alleges that Live Nation used monopolistic practices to dominate the live concert industry after acquiring Ticketmaster in 2010. During a recent court hearing, Arun Subramanian criticized both sides for failing to notify him earlier that settlement discussions were underway. He said the parties waited until just before trial to reveal that negotiations were close to completion, which he suggested was improper conduct.

The proposed settlement would require Live Nation to allow competitors to sell tickets at some of its venues, limit certain ticket service fees to 15%, sell control of at least 13 amphitheaters, and loosen exclusivity arrangements. The company would also create a settlement fund exceeding $280 million to resolve state claims. However, attorneys general from many of the states involved have objected because the agreement does not require Live Nation to divest Ticketmaster. More than two dozen states have asked the court to declare a mistrial and restart proceedings later, though others support or are still evaluating the settlement.

Judge Subramanian has not yet ruled on the mistrial request and instead urged the parties to continue negotiations immediately at the courthouse. He indicated that if a broader agreement cannot be reached soon, the court will determine the next procedural step. Live Nation maintains that the industry remains competitive and argues that the plaintiffs have selectively used data to support their allegations. The dispute highlights the complexity of resolving large antitrust cases involving both federal and state enforcement authorities.

Judge Fumes As Live Nation Antitrust Trial Remains In Limbo - Law360

ExxonMobil has announced plans to move its legal incorporation from New Jersey to Texas, citing the state’s increasingly business-friendly legal environment. In a proxy statement to shareholders, the company explained that most of its senior leadership and corporate functions have already been located in Texas for decades, making the change largely formal rather than operational. Executives said Texas offers a more predictable, statute-based framework for corporate governance and regulation.

A major factor behind the move is the creation of the Texas Business Court in 2024. Exxon also pointed to recent updates to the Texas Business Organizations Code that clarify standards for corporate decision-making and director conduct. Company leadership believes these reforms create a legal climate that supports economic growth and shareholder value.

Exxon joins other companies that have relocated their corporate domicile to Texas, including Tesla and Coinbase. State officials have promoted these moves as evidence that Texas is becoming a strong alternative to traditional corporate hubs such as Delaware. Recent reforms include legislation codifying the Business Judgment Rule, which limits liability for corporate directors unless misconduct like fraud is proven.

Texas has also launched broader initiatives to attract corporations, including approval for the upcoming Texas Stock Exchange, expected to begin operations in 2026. Supporters argue these efforts strengthen the state’s reputation as a center for corporate formation and governance. Exxon’s relocation reflects this broader trend of companies seeking jurisdictions with legal systems designed to favor corporate decision-making and reduce litigation risk.

ExxonMobil Plans Move To Texas, Citing Biz-Friendly Milieu - Law360

ExxonMobil Board unanimously recommends redomiciling the company from New Jersey to Texas

Millions of PlayStation users have begun a major antitrust class action in the United Kingdom against Sony Interactive Entertainment, seeking about £5 billion in damages. The case is being heard before the Competition Appeal Tribunal and is expected to last around ten weeks. The lawsuit is led by consumer advocate Alex Neill, who represents millions of PlayStation customers.

The claim alleges that Sony unlawfully controls the digital PlayStation ecosystem, limiting competition and forcing users to buy games and add-ons only through the company’s online store. According to the plaintiffs, Sony pre-installs the PlayStation Store on its consoles and prevents users from installing alternative software or accessing other digital marketplaces. As a result, consumers allegedly become locked into Sony’s platform and cannot shop for cheaper options. Lawyers for the consumers argue that these restrictions allow Sony to charge higher prices and maintain strong profit margins.

A major issue in the case is how the relevant market should be defined. Sony plans to argue that its consoles and digital services operate as part of a single “systems market,” where hardware and software function as one integrated product. The plaintiffs disagree, claiming the console is only the initial purchase and that digital games and add-ons form separate “aftermarkets” where Sony exercises additional control. They argue consumers often cannot predict future costs for games or downloadable content when they buy the console, making them vulnerable to higher prices later.

Sony is expected to argue that it simply created a platform that enables game publishers to sell products efficiently and that it is entitled to control access to its own storefront and intellectual property. The company maintains that these practices are legitimate business decisions rather than anticompetitive conduct. The tribunal will ultimately decide whether Sony’s control of its platform amounts to unlawful market dominance under U.K. competition law.

PlayStation Users Say Sony Made Them ‘Captives’ In £5B Trial - Law360 UK

PlayStation Officially Facing $2.7bn Lawsuit That Could Change It Forever

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