Category: Law and Justice

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

The following is a guest post by Tanja Krüger, a foreign law intern working with Foreign Law Specialist Jenny Gesley at the Global Legal Research Directorate of the Law Library of Congress.

While enjoying my morning coffee today, I found myself thinking back to a few vacations where coffee was served the traditional way – with grounds settling at the bottom of the cup. Though it added to the local experience, it also reminded me how much I appreciate the convenience of a coffee filter. This thought led me to explore the history of the coffee filter and the invention that changed how millions enjoy their daily coffee. As the coffee filter patent marks its 118th anniversary on July 8, 2026, it is a fitting time to look back at one of coffee culture’s most influential innovations and its inventor Melitta Bentz.

Born in 1873, Melitta Bentz lived in Dresden, Germany, with her husband and three children. While hosting a coffee gathering for friends, she became frustrated by the grounds in her cup and the bitter aftertaste they left behind. Determined to improve the brewing process, she began searching for a way to filter the grounds from the coffee.

Before the coffee filter was invented, coffee was commonly brewed by mixing finely ground coffee directly with hot water and allowing the grounds to settle at the bottom of the pot or cup. This method is still known today as Turkish coffee or Mokka coffee, and remains popular across Turkey, Greece, southeastern Europe, and the Middle East. The tradition and culture surrounding Turkish coffee are recognized by UNESCO as part of its Intangible Cultural Heritage list.

At the time of Melitta Bentz, existing coffee filters were either too fine or had holes that were too large, allowing grounds to pass through into the coffee. Seeking a better solution, Melitta Bentz took blotting paper from her son’s exercise book. She then punched holes in a brass cup, lined it with the paper, and poured the coffee through it. This simple method effectively filtered out the grounds while preserving the coffee’s flavor.

Recognizing the value of her invention, Melitta Bentz filed a patent application for her coffee filter with the German Imperial Patent Office in June 1908. She described her invention as: “A coffee filter with a bottom that curves downward and has a drainage hole, and a loose-fitting filter screen.”

The patent was granted by the Imperial Patent Office and published in the Patent Gazette (Patentblatt) on July 8, 1908, on page 1145. Seizing the opportunity, Melitta Bentz launched her business with her husband, Hugo Bentz, on December 15, 1908, to market the Melitta coffee filter. The company began with just 50 filters and used an unusual marketing approach for the time: her husband visited local shops to show how it worked and demonstrated the filter in storefronts.

Over time, Melitta Bentz built a successful business and continuously refined the coffee filter. In 1937, she patented the now-familiar cone-shaped paper filter designed for use with a porcelain dripper with the Patent Office of the German Reich (Reichspatentamt).

During the First World War, imports of goods declined, making both coffee and filter paper scarce. As a result, coffee substitutes such as “Muckefuck” became common in Germany. Despite these challenges, Melitta Bentz managed to keep her company afloat and guide it through this difficult period.

During the Second World War, the Melitta company was led in part by Melitta Bentz’s son Horst Bentz, who also joined the Protection Squadrons (Schutzstaffel – SS). The company was involved in production for the German war economy, manufacturing items such as cookware for the military as well as materials like ammunition belts and grenade casings.

Melitta Bentz died in 1950, but her invention continues to shape modern coffee culture. The company she founded remains active today.

Additional Law Library of Congress Resources

• Kim Marie Eberhardt, Taxation of Prepared Meals and Drinks in Germany and the United States, In Custodia Legis (2025)
• Maximilian Haedicke, Patentrecht (7th ed. 2025)
• Patentgesetz mit Europäischem Patentübereinkommen : Kommentar auf der Grundlage der deutschen und europäischen Rechtsprechung (Rainer Moufang & Cornelia Rudloff-Schäffer, eds., 12th ed. 2025)
• Bailey DeSimone, Stumpy’s Legacy: Laws on Plant Patents and Propagation, In Custodia Legis (2024)
• Zeynep Timocin Cantekin, FALQs: The Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patents in Europe, In Custodia Legis (2020)
• Jacquelyn Deppe, Celebrating International Coffee Day: For the Love of Coffee, In Custodia Legis (2020)
• Research Guides: Women Inventors and Patent Holders – Women in Science and Technology: A Resource Guide
• Global Legal Monitor: Intellectual Property
• Global Legal Monitor: Germany
• Catalog search for “patents”

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

On a recent trip to Providence, Rhode Island, I had the opportunity to explore the Rhode Island State House. The Rhode Island State House is the seat of Rhode Island’s government and home to Rhode Island’s Royal Charter of 1663, which was granted 363 years ago this week.

The Rhode Island State House was built between 1895 and 1904. Like the U.S. Capitol, it has a central dome with the House of Representatives and Senate chambers on each side.

The Rhode Island House of Representatives has 75 members, while the Rhode Island Senate has 38 members.

The Rhode Island State House is also home to the Rhode Island State Library. The library is open to the public, and researchers can find a wealth of Rhode Island and United States legislative history materials there. The library’s ceiling is designed to look like the cover of a leather-bound book.

The State House has a small museum, the Royal Charter Museum, on the first floor, where visitors can learn about Rhode Island’s founding. The Royal Charter granted by King Charles II on July 8, 1663, is on display in the museum. The charter permitted colonial Rhode Islanders to govern themselves and guaranteed the freedom of religion, which was the principle upon which Roger Williams founded the colony in 1636.

A virtual tour of the Rhode Island State House is available on the Rhode Island Department of State’s website.

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

The following is a guest post by Alexander Salopek, a collection development specialist in the Collection Services Division of the Law Library of Congress. He previously wrote posts on Fred Korematsu’s Drive for Justice, Fred Korematsu Winning Justice, Frances Glessner Lee and the Nutshell Studies of Unexplained Death, Ibrahim Muteferrika, First Muslim Printer of the Ottoman Empire, and The Coroner’s Court, Westminster, London: Pic of the Week, among others.

After a recent meeting of the Northeast Foreign Law Libraries Cooperative Group (NEFLLCG), which was graciously hosted by Yale University Law School, I was able to visit the Grove Street Cemetery. The cemetery hosts many prominent past New Haven, Connecticut residents, including Roger Sherman.

Roger Sherman is one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, having signed the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. He served in the Continental Congress, the Constitutional Convention, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Fascinatingly enough, he served as the Mayor of New Haven while serving in the House and later the Senate. What I found most fascinating about his grave is that every 4th of July, the Sons of the American Revolution have a ceremony marking his grave. This year, they are celebrating 74 years of laying a wreath in his memory.

July 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Keep an eye out for more posts like this one that celebrate the Declaration, the lives of its signers, and the world in which they lived.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

Today’s blog is a guest post by Senior Counsel of Legal Programs and Initiatives, Jeanne Dennis. Jeanne and her team work to expand access to the Constitution Annotated website and provide users with resources to better interpret and understand the Constitution.

Happy Birthday, America, from the Constitution Annotated! To celebrate the 250th anniversary of American Independence, join Our Constitution in examining the Declaration of Independence’s reasons for revolution and how the problems of government that these grievances illustrate inform the Constitution in a new podcast series, From Grievance to Governance: How the Declaration of Independence Informs the Constitution.

While the Declaration of Independence is most famous for its soaring language, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” equally worthy of attention is its list of how King George III had established “an absolute Tyranny over these States.” These grievances not only provide a snapshot of the historical events that propelled the colonies to revolution, but they also raise questions about how to best secure those unalienable Rights so cherished by the Founding Fathers.

Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence was written, delegates from all but one state met in Philadelphia to resolve problems that had arisen under the Articles of Confederation. In drafting the Constitution, these delegates, many of whom had signed the Declaration of Independence, were informed by the events to which the grievances refer. They would use this knowledge to craft the Constitution, creating a new form of government—one that reflects the will of the people while protecting individual rights.

Examining the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, this new podcast series explores how and why the colonists believed King George III deprived them of fundamental rights—rights the colonists considered to be their birthright as Englishmen—and how the Constitution, in turn, protects these rights. From Grievance to Governance shows how the Declaration of Independence continues to influence daily life in America through principles embedded in the Constitution.

Episodes are now available on the Library of Congress’s podcast website, but can also be found on other platforms where podcasts are available.

For additional information on From Grievance to Governance: How the Declaration of Independence Informs the Constitution, or the Our Constitution podcast, please visit the podcast’s information page on the Constitution Annotated website. For information on the Constitution, visit constitution.congress.gov.

We hope you enjoy these podcasts and will let us know if there is any information that you found interesting! Happy listening!

July 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Keep an eye out for more posts like this one that celebrate the Declaration, the lives of its signers, and the world in which they lived.

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

For more information about the history of the US Code, see yesterday’s post, “The US Code at 100 Years: An Interview with Shawn Nevers, BYU Law Library Director.”

The Law Library Reading Room recently added a new display to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Code.

On June 30, 1926, the bill creating the U.S. Code was signed into law. The display includes the bill, H.R. 10000, from our collection of bills and resolutions. The bill holds the full text of the Code and, because it was so large, it needed to be printed in two volumes.

The display also includes House and Senate committee reports that provide insight into the bill’s legislative history. House Report No. 900, entitled “Code of the Laws of the United States of America,” was issued by the Committee on Revision of the Laws on April 16, 1926. Senate Report No. 832, entitled “Revision of the Laws,” was issued by the Select Committee on Revision of the Laws on May 10, 1926.

For contemporaneous discussion of the U.S. Code, the display contains the December 1926 issue of the American Bar Association Journal, which published an article entitled “Legal Status of the New Federal Code.”

Bailey DeSimone, Visual Information Specialist, helped us create a timeline poster for the display to show how the U.S. Code developed through the years. The timeline poster highlights the following events:

• 1866: Congress authorizes President Andrew Johnson “to appoint three persons, learned in the law, as commissioners, to revise, simplify, arrange, and consolidate all statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature.”
• 1874: Publication of the first edition of the Revised Statutes of 1873 (also sometimes referred to as the Revised Statutes of 1874).
• 1877: Congress authorizes the president to appoint a commissioner to prepare the second edition of the Revised Statutes of 1877.
• Between 1920-1924: Congress introduces several bills to codify the federal statutes, but none pass.
• 1926: Rep. Roy G. Fitzgerald introduces H.R. 10000 in the House on Mar. 4, 1926. It passes the House on Apr. 19, 1926, and is delivered to the Senate, which sends it back to the House with amendments on June 25. The next day, the House agrees to the Senate’s amendments and the act is signed into law on June 30, 1926.
• 1934: The next main edition is published and subsequent main editions are published every six years.
• 1975: Office of Law Revision Counsel is established as an independent office.
• 2024: Latest edition of the U.S. Code is published.

The display can be found near the entrance to the reading room.

Items in the display include:

• H.R. 10000, 69th Cong. (1926)
• H.R. Rep. No. 69-900 (1926)
• S. Rep. No. 69-832 (1926)
• Frederic P. Lee & Middleton Beaman, Legal Status of the New Federal Code, 12 American Bar Association Journal 833 (1926).

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

Today’s interview is with Shawn Nevers, the director of the Brigham Young University Law Library. Tomorrow, we will publish a post highlighting some of the Law Library’s collections related to the U.S. Code to celebrate its 100th anniversary.

Tell us a little about your educational and work background.

I am currently the director of the BYU Law Library and have worked here for almost 20 years in various roles. I also attended law school at BYU and then earned my library degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

How did you develop an interest in studying the origins of the US Code?

I have always enjoyed teaching statutes in my legal research classes because I think they are not discussed as much as they should be in law school. About 10 years ago, I was working on a research problem that involved a statutory note in the United States Code. I became fascinated with statutory notes, and after reading everything I could about them, decided there was more to be said. Julie Graves Krishnaswami and I researched and wrote an article called “The Shadow Code: Statutory Notes in the United States Code.” During the research for that article, I found some very interesting nuggets about the origin of the United States Code that I wanted to pursue in a future article, which I am in the process of writing now.

What was life like for legal researchers before the US Code, and why was that system replaced?

The first official codification of U.S. law occurred in the 1870s with the Revised Statutes of 1874, but there was no plan to continuously update it. So, if researchers wanted to see the official version of the law, they would need to check the Revised Statutes and each subsequent volume of the Statutes at Large. This was impractical, and so many researchers turned to commercial publications such as Federal Statutes Annotated and United States Compiled Statutes Annotated, but there was no official code or compilation for researchers to use. The goal of the U.S. Code was to create such an official source that researchers could depend on.

Why do you consider June 30 to be the US Code’s birthday?

June 30, 1926, is when the bill making the United States Code prima facie evidence of the law was signed into law by President Coolidge. This is the date that also appears in the preface of the 1926 edition of the Code, written by Representative Roy G. Fitzgerald, who was the Chairman of the House Committee on the Revision of the Laws at the time.

It is important to remember that the U.S. Code itself was not passed into law, which is what its creators hoped for. The compromise was that the Code would be prima facie evidence of the law that could still be rebutted by reference to a discrepancy in the Statutes at Large. Congress is still in the process of examining and passing individual titles of the Code into positive law 100 years later.

What are one or two interesting facts you learned during your research?

When there was opposition in the Senate to making the U.S. Code a positive law code and repealing all the underlying statutes, one proposal was to institute a “twilight zone” (p. 4) where the Code would be prima facie evidence of the law for one year. During the “twilight zone,” errors in the Code could be corrected, and then the Code would become positive law after one year passed. This proposal failed, but it would have eliminated many of the problems we deal with today regarding positive law codification.

While not something that I learned, during my research, I did get to hold the original document that sketched out the 50 title structure of the U.S. Code, as well as Representative Fitzgerald’s copy of the first edition of the U.S. Code. For a U.S. Code fanatic like me, that was pretty cool.

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

Today’s guest post is by visiting scholar and co-recipient of the 2026 FCIL-SIS Schaffer Grant for Foreign Law Librarians, Theresa Buller. Theresa is conducting research and assisting the Law Library of Congress with collection items and the research guide for New Zealand. 

Please join us on July 16, 2026, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) for our next foreign and comparative law webinar titled “Colonialization, Tikanga Māori, and an Unwritten Constitution: Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand’s Legal System.”

Please register to attend virtually.

New Zealand’s constitution is not found in a single constitutional document; it is one of only six countries without a formal written constitution. Instead, the sources of New Zealand law reflect New Zealand’s history as a British colony, dominion, and independent nation, as well as the New Zealand Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in R v Ellis that tikanga Māori (Māori law and custom) is part of the common law of New Zealand. This webinar will discuss the sources of New Zealand law, the decision in R v Ellis, and the integration of tikanga teaching into a New Zealand undergraduate LLB.

This webinar will be presented by Theresa Buller. Theresa is the Kaitiaki Kaupapa/Subject Librarian for Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She holds a B.A. in History from the University of Canterbury and an M.L.I.S. from Victoria University of Wellington.

To learn about other upcoming classes on domestic and foreign law topics, visit the Legal Research Institute. Please request ADA accommodations at least five business days in advance by contacting (202) 707-6362 or [email protected].

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.

Source: US Global Legal Monitor

The following is a guest post by Arrington Crilly, a former intern with the Creative Digital Projects program of the Law Library of Congress. She is an alumna of UNC Greensboro, where she currently works and where she earned her B.A. in history and M.L.I.S.

The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs currently recognizes 574 separate Tribal entities throughout the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. Each of these sovereign entities takes its own approach to internal affairs, policies, and codes. These may be outlined in their constitutions, some of which can be read in the Indigenous Law Web Archive and the Native American Constitutions and Legal Materials collection. Many of these policies also reflect key aspects of their respective constitutions. Today, we will examine some of the codes and Constitution of the Yurok Tribe in California.

Tobacco restriction is one topic that has drawn the attention and activism of the Yurok. The Chairman of the Yurok Tribe, Joseph L. James, is quoted as saying, “This ordinance seeks to eliminate exposure to dangerous secondhand cigarette smoke in all tribal spaces….” This move was applauded by the Health and Social Policy Institute as well as the CEO of the United Indian Health Services Tribal Public Health Program. This ordinance not only limits commercial tobacco use “near areas frequented by school-age children,” but it also introduced “[r]igorous regulations on litter aimed at reducing tobacco-related waste,” which reflects both health and ecological considerations in its legislation. Within the Tribal Code, the Yurok indicate several specific ordinances for tobacco use and restrictions “in specified indoor areas,” “specified outdoor areas,” with “[r]easonable distance” requirements, and “[o]ther requirements and prohibitions.” It is important to note that these prohibitions are for commercial use outside of “traditional tobacco use,” which is indicated in these ordinances and defined further in the tribal code.

We can observe a different history on the federal level. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (52 Stat. 1040) from 1938 did not grant the Food and Drug Administration authority for regulating tobacco products until the passing of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1256), which superseded that law. President Bill Clinton also took a step toward “Protecting Federal Employees and the Public From Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal Workplace” with Executive Order 13058. H.R. 1865 also took another step in federal regulation by increasing the minimum age to purchase tobacco and related products to 21. Through legislative actions, sovereign entities like the Yurok and the United States have addressed public health considerations, albeit differently.

The Yurok have also been active regarding conserving natural resources, like the Heyhl-Keek ‘We-Roy (also called the Klamath River), whose path runs from Oregon into California. These efforts also align with legislation in the United States, whose national consideration for the conservation of fish and fisheries dates back to a joint resolution of Congress on February 9, 1871 (16 Stat. 593 [No. 22]) in which the position of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries was established. This position would be appointed out of current government employees or civil officers, with no additional pay, but was required to have “proved scientific and practical acquaintance with the fishes of the coast.” Though this position and mission would eventually grow and evolve into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as we know it today, their initial purpose was “to study why the nation’s food fishes were decreasing and recommend ways to reverse that decline.”  It is important to note that there is a long legislative history between the United States and indigenous tribes concerning hunting, fishing, and access rights to rivers and wildlife on indigenous land, like 25 C.F.R. 258 (1978), which refers to the Klamath River, or President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order which established the Klamath Lake Reservation (Executive Order No. 8475; 5 Fed. Reg. 2541 (July 12, 1940).)

Looking back to the Yurok, in their constitution, they express their intentions toward the management of fish resources, as well as other wildlife: “We pray for the health of all the animals, and prudently harvest and manage the great salmon runs and herds of deer and elk. We [sic] never waste and use every bit of the salmon, deer, elk, sturgeon, eels, seaweed, mussels, candlefish, otters, sea lions, seals, whales, and other ocean and river animals.” Yurok author Che-na-wah-Weitch-ah-wah (also known as Lucy Thompson) touches on these ecological concerns in her book “To the American Indian: Reminiscences of a Yurok Woman.” The Yurok highlight these issues and celebrate successes regarding them in their Annual Klamath Salmon Festival. In 2022, this festival also celebrated the “recent reintroduction of the Prey-go-neesh (California condor) in Yurok Country and the pending removal of the Klamath dams.” The Yurok Fisheries Department is also enacting a revegetation project to “strengthen habitat to support struggling native fish stocks, such as fall Chinook salmon, ESA-listed spring Chinook and coho salmon, steelhead trout and Pacific lamprey.” In addition to benefiting the fish populations, they have also identified benefits to “240 vertebrate species, ranging from river otters to ring-tailed cats.” In all, this project’s objectives include:

• “Establish interconnected, biologically diverse and resilient ecosystems that support robust salmon runs before the dams.
• Create year-round habitat for native fish, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects.
• Encourage environmental complexity to enhance culturally invaluable salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey stocks.
• Stabilize several feet of fine silt trapped behind the dams for the last 57 to 106 years.”

For additional information about this effort and other initiatives, check out the Yurok Tribal News. For those interested in researching the Klamath River in U.S. legislation, you can consult various legislative documents in our collections. Similar efforts from the United States may be found through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, which partners with the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service: Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the River Management Society. The Yurok and the United States are not the only nations to enact policies and legislation to protect or conserve fish resources.

For additional reading related to the information in this blog, check out these blogs and collections.

---

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.