This Year’s Billionaires’ Bill? Say it with me, kids: “We have to do this to protect Delaware’s Corporate Franchise”:
A top congressional Republican is demanding information on Delaware’s plan to create a new legal corporate entity for companies run by artificial intelligence agents, saying he’s concerned that the proposal could shield powerful bad actors from legal liability.
U.S. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has asked Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer’s administration for documents regarding its proposed Artificial Intelligence Company initiative. The letter could signal that Congress may be exploring limiting state AI regulatory initiatives.
“We are concerned that Delaware’s [Artificial Intelligence Company] proposal could be used to protect powerful AI companies and their investors from responsibility for reckless harmful actions,” Comer said in the letter.
So am I:
John Mark Zeberkiewicz, a lawyer at Delaware-based firm Richards, Layton, & Finger, has drafted potentially first-in-the-nation legislation that would create companies run by an artificial intelligence agent instead of a person. State lawmakers are expected to consider the initiative next year.
The AI agent would enjoy a type of legal personhood, able to own assets, file lawsuits and act as a liability shield for its owner or parent company.
It would have a single member, a person or an entity responsible for keeping the AIC adequately capitalized. The AI agent must keep a log of its activities. That member would face no liability for the company’s debts unless it failed to make sure it had enough capital or used the company to break the law or commit fraud.
Under the draft legislation, the AIC “may have any lawful purpose, regardless of whether for profit, except for the business of banking.”
Corporate law professors told WHYY News last month that they questioned whether the state has sufficiently addressed who would be accountable if an AI-run company causes harm.
“There’s really no overarching regulatory plan here for dealing with the fallout that AI-governed companies could bring,” said Christopher Bruner, Stembler Family Distinguished Professor in business law at the University of Georgia School of Law. “I think this raises reasonable questions about whether it makes sense to push ahead with something like this.”
University of Pennsylvania law professor David Hoffman commented to Bloomberg Law in July that the idea “seems like a solution in search of a problem,” and voiced concern about “outsourcing liability.”
However, Lawrence Cunningham, director of the University of Delaware’s John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, said in September that Delaware will benefit by being on the cutting edge of creating AI-run companies.
“Delaware is the No. 1 place where people form [limited liability companies], when they’re thinking about forming a business and the No. 1 place where larger companies are incorporated,” he said. “So Delaware, in my view, would be irresponsible to ignore this.”
Ah, yes. Protecting the corporate franchise uber alles. We will be watching. And commenting. We’ll also see whether the Delaware General Assembly remains the best General Assembly that Richards, Layton & Finger and the Musk Rats can buy.
President Trump’s success in demolishing the traditional wall between the White House and the Justice Department is apparent at the helm of the agency, now led by his former personal lawyer, Todd Blanche.
Mr. Trump’s reach can also be seen in the network of U.S. attorneys across the country who are flexing their power to pursue the president’s political agenda.
At least eight current U.S. attorneys have played prominent roles in pushing Mr. Trump’s grievances, often citing thin evidence that has subsequently led many of their cases to collapse. Three of those are running their offices without Senate confirmation.
Two have taken up investigations that the president explicitly told them to pursue. In one previously unreported episode, Mr. Trump privately urged the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, Daniel Rosen, to prosecute Representative Ilhan Omar, who is now under investigation for potential immigration violations.
Taken together, the events and decisions have deepened what current and former officials describe as the stark politicization of a department that had long prided itself on operating with independence in prosecuting politically sensitive cases. The president and Mr. Blanche say they are ending Biden-era “weaponization” of the Justice Department against conservatives, while current and former department lawyers decry what they say is a reckless lowering of standards to pursue Democrats and other political targets.
The U.S. attorneys serving as Mr. Trump’s field commanders have taken up his grievance agenda principally on three fronts:
Pursuing investigations and prosecutions of Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies, from grudges that date to the 2016 presidential race to recent battles with the Federal Reserve.
Charging protesters of his immigration crackdown with violent crimes against federal agents. Many of those cases have fallen apart upon scrutiny from the courts.
Amplifying Mr. Trump’s false claims about widespread fraud in U.S. elections.
The article proceeds to name names of the corrupt prosecutors. Must-reading.
Annnd, Just Like That, Judge Rules That One Of The DOJ Rogues Is Serving Illegally:
A federal judge has ruled that Republican Bill Essayli is not legally serving as the top US prosecutor in Los Angeles.
Essayli was disqualified from overseeing two criminal prosecutions. The order, however, will not immediately go into effect, and the Department of Justice (DoJ) has said it intends to appeal.
The ruling was part of a long-running legal battle challenging the Trump administration’s maneuvers to keep Essayli in office despite not being confirmed by the US Senate.
Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker and ally of Donald Trump, became an interim US attorney in April 2025, but he was not formally nominated by the president, which allowed him to lead the office without going through the standard confirmation process.
After Essayli’s “interim” appointment ended last July, the Trump administration gave him an “acting” title, then kept him on as a “first assistant” after a judge ruled he was unlawfully serving as US attorney.
But in August, a federal appellate court ruled against a Nevada justice department leader in a similar case, and the judge overseeing Essayli’s case cited that higher court’s ruling on Tuesday, issuing another order saying he was still acting unlawfully.
Michael Seabright, the federal judge, said Essayli was illegally serving, even with a “special attorney” and “first assistant” designation by the Trump administration, and the judge said he could no longer participate in or supervise two ongoing prosecutions where the attorneys had challenged his position.
Trump Insults His MAGAts. Perhaps some expert psychiatrist will be able to explain Trump’s MAGA-defeating behavior in the closing days of this campaign:
President Donald Trump delivered a unique closing message to his supporters on Tuesday ahead of next week’s midterm elections: Dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort is very, very expensive.
As Americans struggle to pay for food, fuel and other basic living expenses, the president plugged his promise to pay every adult $5,000 only if Republicans win ― a move ex-prosecutors have called a bribe.
Trump said the checks, which most believe have little chance of actually being sent out given his history, would come with one string attached.
“But the only caveat is that the Trump dividend, it has, you have to spend the money in the United States,” he said. “Go to Florida. Go to any one of our great places. You could even come to Mar-a-Lago. You’ll be my guest at Mar-a-Lago.”
The president seemed to have second thoughts about that offer immediately.
“The problem is that for $5,000, the most you’ll be able to buy is a hamburger and maybe a small dessert,” he said.
Then the president backtracked even further.
“I’m not even sure you could buy that,” he said, then appeared to withdraw the invitation completely: “No, don’t go there. That’s not a good place if you’re price conscious.”
Ho-kay.
What do you want to talk about?
