This Day in Legal History: October Manifesto

On October 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia issued the October Manifesto in response to mounting unrest and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Russian Empire. The 1905 Revolution had erupted earlier that year following the Bloody Sunday massacre, in which unarmed protesters were gunned down by imperial guards. Strikes, peasant revolts, and mutinies within the military and navy intensified public pressure for reform. The October Manifesto promised several liberalizing measures: the creation of a legislative Duma (parliament), expansion of civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience, and a commitment that no law would be enacted without the Duma’s consent.

Though revolutionary factions remained skeptical, the manifesto temporarily quelled widespread unrest and led to the formation of Russia’s first constitutional structure. It marked the first time autocratic power in Russia was publicly limited by law, at least in theory. However, the tsarist regime maintained significant control: Nicholas retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and manipulate election laws. Conservative forces viewed the manifesto as a concession made under duress, while radicals criticized it as too limited and unenforceable.

The October Manifesto also split opposition forces. Some liberals, known as Octobrists, supported working within the new constitutional framework. Others, including the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, dismissed the document as a façade and continued to push for broader revolution. In legal terms, the manifesto introduced the concept of legislative consent into Russian governance, establishing a precedent for popular representation in lawmaking. Although the Duma’s actual power remained constrained, the October Manifesto set the stage for future political conflicts that would culminate in the Russian Revolutions of 1917.

The Trump administration’s recent approvals for oil and gas leasing in Alaska and road development projects are drawing scrutiny from environmental groups, who say the decisions were made opaquely during a government shutdown, limiting their ability to challenge them in court. These projects include reopening leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), issuing permits for the 211-mile Ambler Road to mining sites, and approving a controversial land exchange to allow road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. Environmental attorneys argue that key documents and analyses justifying these decisions remain unavailable, complicating legal strategies.

The Interior Department, operating with a reduced staff, has only offered links to decision documents, providing little insight into environmental protections or regulatory compliance. Although these projects have been previously contested in court, the lack of transparency surrounding the latest approvals hinders further action. Some legal experts suggest potential conflicts of interest—such as the U.S. acquiring a stake in a company tied to the Ambler Road—could be grounds for future lawsuits. Additionally, the Izembek land swap may face legal challenges for bypassing required congressional approval.

Environmental Groups Challenged in Fighting Trump’s Alaska Moves

Three former Morgan Stanley financial advisers are suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a recent advisory opinion that they argue unlawfully shields the bank from arbitration claims related to unpaid deferred compensation. Filed in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that the Labor Department’s September 9 finding—that Morgan Stanley’s deferred compensation plan does not qualify as an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA—conflicts with two prior court rulings that said it does.

The plaintiffs, Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, say the opinion was “arbitrary and capricious” and would undermine their efforts, and those of other former employees, to arbitrate claims over canceled or unpaid compensation. They also claim Morgan Stanley is already using the Labor Department’s stance to dismiss ongoing claims and seek reimbursement of legal costs.

Though Morgan Stanley is not a defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs argue the agency overstepped its authority and are asking the court to revoke the advisory opinion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Sheresky et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, raises broader questions about administrative agencies issuing legal interpretations that can influence private litigation outcomes without proper judicial or legislative review.

Former Morgan Stanley advisers sue US Labor Department | Reuters

Eli Lilly has announced a new partnership with Walmart to offer its weight-loss drug Zepbound at discounted, direct-to-consumer prices through Walmart pharmacies nationwide. This marks the first time customers using the LillyDirect platform can pick up the medication in person at a retail location. The lowest dose of Zepbound will be available for $349 per month for self-paying patients.

The move is part of Lilly’s broader strategy to expand access and boost market share in the competitive obesity drug space, currently valued at around $150 billion. Zepbound competes directly with Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy, but recent data suggests Lilly has pulled ahead in prescriptions, despite Novo’s earlier market entry.

Lilly reported that around 35% of Zepbound prescriptions in Q2 came from cash-paying customers using LillyDirect. Both Lilly and Novo have also made their weight-loss drugs available through various telehealth platforms, further expanding patient access.

Lilly, Walmart launch first retail pick-up option for weight-loss drug | Reuters

A piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week looks at the escalating tensions surrounding digital services taxes (DSTs), with France once again moving to raise its DST—from 3% to 15%—primarily targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. The U.S. has responded with familiar threats of tariffs and trade retaliation, repeating a now well-worn pattern of diplomatic pushback without addressing the underlying issue. That issue is structural: the global tax framework was built around physical presence, but today’s digital economy allows companies to generate profits in countries where they have no offices, employees, or infrastructure.

As frustration builds in countries watching tech firms reap profits without corresponding local tax contributions, DSTs have become a tool to reclaim taxing rights. In response, nearly 140 countries have worked through the OECD to build a two-pillar international solution. Pillar One aims to reallocate taxing rights based on where users are located; Pillar Two introduces a global minimum tax. Yet, while other countries move forward, the U.S. continues to resist fully embracing Pillar One—out of concern for political optics and revenue loss.

That resistance is counterproductive. By refusing to commit to a multilateral framework, the U.S. is guaranteeing the very outcome it opposes: a fragmented global tax landscape where each country sets its own rules. The current whac-a-mole strategy—reacting to every unilateral move with threats—offers no long-term protection for U.S. companies and only heightens global instability. It’s time for the U.S. to stop playing defense and help finalize a framework that reflects the realities of the digital economy.

Whac-A-Mole Taxation Battles Will Persist Without A Global Deal