Author: TSA Press

Last
month,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
was
pretty
confident
in
the
soft
power
that
courts
would
be
able
to
deploy
as
a
check
against
the
Trump
administration.
Things
might
look
bad
right
now,
but
it’s
not
like
the
administration
would
just

openly
defy
court
orders,
right?
As
it
turns
out,
yes,

that
imminently
predictable
set
of
circumstances
has
come
to
be.
And
as
cathartic
as
it
might
feel
to
go
on
a
“we
told
you
so”
or
wallowing
tirade,
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
updating
our
read
on
the
zeitgeist
and
acting
accordingly.
Thankfully,
Sotomayor
is
leaning
in
to
the
right
response.
During
an
event
held
at
the
school
that

gave
the
biggest
(religious)
middle
finger
to
Trump’s
administration
so
far,
Sotomayor
updated
the
audience
on
her
faith
in
the
rule
of
law
being
the
thing
that
keeps
us
afloat
in
these
troubling
waters.
From

CNN:

“One
of
the
things
that’s
troubling
so
many
right
now
is
many
of
the
standards
that
are
being
changed
…
were
norms
that
governed
officials
into
what
was
right
and
wrong,”
Sotomayor
told
an
audience
at
Georgetown
University.

“Once
norms
are
broken
then
you’re
shaking
some
of
the
foundation
of
the
rule
of
law,”
she
added.

Unexpectedly,
she
placed
some
of
the
fault
on
law
schools:

“The
fact
that
some
of
our
public
leaders
are
lawyers
advocating
or
making
statements
challenging
the
rule
of
law
tells
me
that
fundamentally
our
law
schools
are
failing,”
she
said.

This
is
not
the
time
to
sneak
diss,
Sotomayor;
name
names!
I
jest
—
I
understand
why
a
mind
toward
avoiding
the
appearance
of
impropriety
would
avoid
naming
names.
That
said,
I’m
not
bound
by
that
expectation
and,
even
if
this
wasn’t
who
she
had
in
mind
when
she
said
it,
it’s
hard
to
deny
that
the
boot
would
fit
on
JD
Vance.

Let
it
be
known,
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
the

fact
that
it
is
always
morally
good
to
punch
up
at
Yale
Law.
But
I
wouldn’t
blame
Yale
for
Vance’s
public
shortcomings
any
more
than
I
would
blame
the
Pope
for
Vance
not
understanding
Jesus’s
message.
Three
reasons.
First,

the
Pope
already
directly
addressed
Vance’s
bad
religion.
Second,
some
of
Vance’s
most
mind-boggling
claims
—
the
Judiciary
having
no
authority
to
regulate
the
Executive’s
“legitimate”
powers
for
example
—
may
stem
from
Yale
doing
a
good
job
at
educating
one
of
its
students.
Granted
the
justification
would
be
Unitary
Executive
Theory,

a
fringe
assessment
of
constitutional
authority
coming
out
of
Yale,
but
you
can’t
really
fault
school
for
teaching
fringe
theory
when
all
should
be
fair
game
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas.
And
third,
barring
the
UET
explanation
above,
Yale
isn’t
to
blame
if
Vance
is
a
gutless
power
addict
who
was

willing
to
call
Trump
idiot
Hitler
at
one
point
and
be
his
right
hand
man
the
next.

Blaming
law
school
aside,
she
made
the
argument
that
once
we
lose
our
legal
norms,
we
lose
the
rule
of
law
completely.
As
sad
as
it
is
to
see
the
optimistic
glow
drain
from
a
top
jurist’s
eyes,
we
need
levelheaded
judges
who
are
acutely
aware
of
the
gravitas
that
their
decisions
hold,
especially
when
they’re
sitting
at
the
Supreme
Court.

Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
Says
She’s
Worried
About
Declining
Standards
And
Broken
Norms
[CNN]

Earlier:

Sonia
Sotomayor
Wildly
Out
Of
Touch
With
Trump’s
America

Trump
White
House
Tests
Supreme
Court
Loyalty
With
Increasingly
Crackpot
Legal
Arguments

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Last
month,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
was
pretty
confident
in
the
soft
power
that
courts
would
be
able
to
deploy
as
a
check
against
the
Trump
administration.
Things
might
look
bad
right
now,
but
it’s
not
like
the
administration
would
just

openly
defy
court
orders,
right?
As
it
turns
out,
yes,

that
imminently
predictable
set
of
circumstances
has
come
to
be.
And
as
cathartic
as
it
might
feel
to
go
on
a
“we
told
you
so”
or
wallowing
tirade,
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
updating
our
read
on
the
zeitgeist
and
acting
accordingly.
Thankfully,
Sotomayor
is
leaning
in
to
the
right
response.
During
an
event
held
at
the
school
that

gave
the
biggest
(religious)
middle
finger
to
Trump’s
administration
so
far,
Sotomayor
updated
the
audience
on
her
faith
in
the
rule
of
law
being
the
thing
that
keeps
us
afloat
in
these
troubling
waters.
From

CNN:

“One
of
the
things
that’s
troubling
so
many
right
now
is
many
of
the
standards
that
are
being
changed
…
were
norms
that
governed
officials
into
what
was
right
and
wrong,”
Sotomayor
told
an
audience
at
Georgetown
University.

“Once
norms
are
broken
then
you’re
shaking
some
of
the
foundation
of
the
rule
of
law,”
she
added.

Unexpectedly,
she
placed
some
of
the
fault
on
law
schools:

“The
fact
that
some
of
our
public
leaders
are
lawyers
advocating
or
making
statements
challenging
the
rule
of
law
tells
me
that
fundamentally
our
law
schools
are
failing,”
she
said.

This
is
not
the
time
to
sneak
diss,
Sotomayor;
name
names!
I
jest
—
I
understand
why
a
mind
toward
avoiding
the
appearance
of
impropriety
would
avoid
naming
names.
That
said,
I’m
not
bound
by
that
expectation
and,
even
if
this
wasn’t
who
she
had
in
mind
when
she
said
it,
it’s
hard
to
deny
that
the
boot
would
fit
on
JD
Vance.

Let
it
be
known,
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
the

fact
that
it
is
always
morally
good
to
punch
up
at
Yale
Law.
But
I
wouldn’t
blame
Yale
for
Vance’s
public
shortcomings
any
more
than
I
would
blame
the
Pope
for
Vance
not
understanding
Jesus’s
message.
Three
reasons.
First,

the
Pope
already
directly
addressed
Vance’s
bad
religion.
Second,
some
of
Vance’s
most
mind-boggling
claims
—
the
Judiciary
having
no
authority
to
regulate
the
Executive’s
“legitimate”
powers
for
example
—
may
stem
from
Yale
doing
a
good
job
at
educating
one
of
its
students.
Granted
the
justification
would
be
Unitary
Executive
Theory,

a
fringe
assessment
of
constitutional
authority
coming
out
of
Yale,
but
you
can’t
really
fault
school
for
teaching
fringe
theory
when
all
should
be
fair
game
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas.
And
third,
barring
the
UET
explanation
above,
Yale
isn’t
to
blame
if
Vance
is
a
gutless
power
addict
who
was

willing
to
call
Trump
idiot
Hitler
at
one
point
and
be
his
right
hand
man
the
next.

Blaming
law
school
aside,
she
made
the
argument
that
once
we
lose
our
legal
norms,
we
lose
the
rule
of
law
completely.
As
sad
as
it
is
to
see
the
optimistic
glow
drain
from
a
top
jurist’s
eyes,
we
need
levelheaded
judges
who
are
acutely
aware
of
the
gravitas
that
their
decisions
hold,
especially
when
they’re
sitting
at
the
Supreme
Court.

Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
Says
She’s
Worried
About
Declining
Standards
And
Broken
Norms
[CNN]

Earlier:

Sonia
Sotomayor
Wildly
Out
Of
Touch
With
Trump’s
America

Trump
White
House
Tests
Supreme
Court
Loyalty
With
Increasingly
Crackpot
Legal
Arguments

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Last
month,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
was
pretty
confident
in
the
soft
power
that
courts
would
be
able
to
deploy
as
a
check
against
the
Trump
administration.
Things
might
look
bad
right
now,
but
it’s
not
like
the
administration
would
just

openly
defy
court
orders,
right?
As
it
turns
out,
yes,

that
imminently
predictable
set
of
circumstances
has
come
to
be.
And
as
cathartic
as
it
might
feel
to
go
on
a
“we
told
you
so”
or
wallowing
tirade,
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
updating
our
read
on
the
zeitgeist
and
acting
accordingly.
Thankfully,
Sotomayor
is
leaning
in
to
the
right
response.
During
an
event
held
at
the
school
that

gave
the
biggest
(religious)
middle
finger
to
Trump’s
administration
so
far,
Sotomayor
updated
the
audience
on
her
faith
in
the
rule
of
law
being
the
thing
that
keeps
us
afloat
in
these
troubling
waters.
From

CNN:

“One
of
the
things
that’s
troubling
so
many
right
now
is
many
of
the
standards
that
are
being
changed
…
were
norms
that
governed
officials
into
what
was
right
and
wrong,”
Sotomayor
told
an
audience
at
Georgetown
University.

“Once
norms
are
broken
then
you’re
shaking
some
of
the
foundation
of
the
rule
of
law,”
she
added.

Unexpectedly,
she
placed
some
of
the
fault
on
law
schools:

“The
fact
that
some
of
our
public
leaders
are
lawyers
advocating
or
making
statements
challenging
the
rule
of
law
tells
me
that
fundamentally
our
law
schools
are
failing,”
she
said.

This
is
not
the
time
to
sneak
diss,
Sotomayor;
name
names!
I
jest
—
I
understand
why
a
mind
toward
avoiding
the
appearance
of
impropriety
would
avoid
naming
names.
That
said,
I’m
not
bound
by
that
expectation
and,
even
if
this
wasn’t
who
she
had
in
mind
when
she
said
it,
it’s
hard
to
deny
that
the
boot
would
fit
on
JD
Vance.

Let
it
be
known,
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
the

fact
that
it
is
always
morally
good
to
punch
up
at
Yale
Law.
But
I
wouldn’t
blame
Yale
for
Vance’s
public
shortcomings
any
more
than
I
would
blame
the
Pope
for
Vance
not
understanding
Jesus’s
message.
Three
reasons.
First,

the
Pope
already
directly
addressed
Vance’s
bad
religion.
Second,
some
of
Vance’s
most
mind-boggling
claims
—
the
Judiciary
having
no
authority
to
regulate
the
Executive’s
“legitimate”
powers
for
example
—
may
stem
from
Yale
doing
a
good
job
at
educating
one
of
its
students.
Granted
the
justification
would
be
Unitary
Executive
Theory,

a
fringe
assessment
of
constitutional
authority
coming
out
of
Yale,
but
you
can’t
really
fault
school
for
teaching
fringe
theory
when
all
should
be
fair
game
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas.
And
third,
barring
the
UET
explanation
above,
Yale
isn’t
to
blame
if
Vance
is
a
gutless
power
addict
who
was

willing
to
call
Trump
idiot
Hitler
at
one
point
and
be
his
right
hand
man
the
next.

Blaming
law
school
aside,
she
made
the
argument
that
once
we
lose
our
legal
norms,
we
lose
the
rule
of
law
completely.
As
sad
as
it
is
to
see
the
optimistic
glow
drain
from
a
top
jurist’s
eyes,
we
need
levelheaded
judges
who
are
acutely
aware
of
the
gravitas
that
their
decisions
hold,
especially
when
they’re
sitting
at
the
Supreme
Court.

Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
Says
She’s
Worried
About
Declining
Standards
And
Broken
Norms
[CNN]

Earlier:

Sonia
Sotomayor
Wildly
Out
Of
Touch
With
Trump’s
America

Trump
White
House
Tests
Supreme
Court
Loyalty
With
Increasingly
Crackpot
Legal
Arguments

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Last
month,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
was
pretty
confident
in
the
soft
power
that
courts
would
be
able
to
deploy
as
a
check
against
the
Trump
administration.
Things
might
look
bad
right
now,
but
it’s
not
like
the
administration
would
just

openly
defy
court
orders,
right?
As
it
turns
out,
yes,

that
imminently
predictable
set
of
circumstances
has
come
to
be.
And
as
cathartic
as
it
might
feel
to
go
on
a
“we
told
you
so”
or
wallowing
tirade,
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
updating
our
read
on
the
zeitgeist
and
acting
accordingly.
Thankfully,
Sotomayor
is
leaning
in
to
the
right
response.
During
an
event
held
at
the
school
that

gave
the
biggest
(religious)
middle
finger
to
Trump’s
administration
so
far,
Sotomayor
updated
the
audience
on
her
faith
in
the
rule
of
law
being
the
thing
that
keeps
us
afloat
in
these
troubling
waters.
From

CNN:

“One
of
the
things
that’s
troubling
so
many
right
now
is
many
of
the
standards
that
are
being
changed
…
were
norms
that
governed
officials
into
what
was
right
and
wrong,”
Sotomayor
told
an
audience
at
Georgetown
University.

“Once
norms
are
broken
then
you’re
shaking
some
of
the
foundation
of
the
rule
of
law,”
she
added.

Unexpectedly,
she
placed
some
of
the
fault
on
law
schools:

“The
fact
that
some
of
our
public
leaders
are
lawyers
advocating
or
making
statements
challenging
the
rule
of
law
tells
me
that
fundamentally
our
law
schools
are
failing,”
she
said.

This
is
not
the
time
to
sneak
diss,
Sotomayor;
name
names!
I
jest
—
I
understand
why
a
mind
toward
avoiding
the
appearance
of
impropriety
would
avoid
naming
names.
That
said,
I’m
not
bound
by
that
expectation
and,
even
if
this
wasn’t
who
she
had
in
mind
when
she
said
it,
it’s
hard
to
deny
that
the
boot
would
fit
on
JD
Vance.

Let
it
be
known,
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
the

fact
that
it
is
always
morally
good
to
punch
up
at
Yale
Law.
But
I
wouldn’t
blame
Yale
for
Vance’s
public
shortcomings
any
more
than
I
would
blame
the
Pope
for
Vance
not
understanding
Jesus’s
message.
Three
reasons.
First,

the
Pope
already
directly
addressed
Vance’s
bad
religion.
Second,
some
of
Vance’s
most
mind-boggling
claims
—
the
Judiciary
having
no
authority
to
regulate
the
Executive’s
“legitimate”
powers
for
example
—
may
stem
from
Yale
doing
a
good
job
at
educating
one
of
its
students.
Granted
the
justification
would
be
Unitary
Executive
Theory,

a
fringe
assessment
of
constitutional
authority
coming
out
of
Yale,
but
you
can’t
really
fault
school
for
teaching
fringe
theory
when
all
should
be
fair
game
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas.
And
third,
barring
the
UET
explanation
above,
Yale
isn’t
to
blame
if
Vance
is
a
gutless
power
addict
who
was

willing
to
call
Trump
idiot
Hitler
at
one
point
and
be
his
right
hand
man
the
next.

Blaming
law
school
aside,
she
made
the
argument
that
once
we
lose
our
legal
norms,
we
lose
the
rule
of
law
completely.
As
sad
as
it
is
to
see
the
optimistic
glow
drain
from
a
top
jurist’s
eyes,
we
need
levelheaded
judges
who
are
acutely
aware
of
the
gravitas
that
their
decisions
hold,
especially
when
they’re
sitting
at
the
Supreme
Court.

Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
Says
She’s
Worried
About
Declining
Standards
And
Broken
Norms
[CNN]

Earlier:

Sonia
Sotomayor
Wildly
Out
Of
Touch
With
Trump’s
America

Trump
White
House
Tests
Supreme
Court
Loyalty
With
Increasingly
Crackpot
Legal
Arguments

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Last
month,
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
was
pretty
confident
in
the
soft
power
that
courts
would
be
able
to
deploy
as
a
check
against
the
Trump
administration.
Things
might
look
bad
right
now,
but
it’s
not
like
the
administration
would
just

openly
defy
court
orders,
right?
As
it
turns
out,
yes,

that
imminently
predictable
set
of
circumstances
has
come
to
be.
And
as
cathartic
as
it
might
feel
to
go
on
a
“we
told
you
so”
or
wallowing
tirade,
the
right
thing
to
do
would
be
updating
our
read
on
the
zeitgeist
and
acting
accordingly.
Thankfully,
Sotomayor
is
leaning
in
to
the
right
response.
During
an
event
held
at
the
school
that

gave
the
biggest
(religious)
middle
finger
to
Trump’s
administration
so
far,
Sotomayor
updated
the
audience
on
her
faith
in
the
rule
of
law
being
the
thing
that
keeps
us
afloat
in
these
troubling
waters.
From

CNN:

“One
of
the
things
that’s
troubling
so
many
right
now
is
many
of
the
standards
that
are
being
changed
…
were
norms
that
governed
officials
into
what
was
right
and
wrong,”
Sotomayor
told
an
audience
at
Georgetown
University.

“Once
norms
are
broken
then
you’re
shaking
some
of
the
foundation
of
the
rule
of
law,”
she
added.

Unexpectedly,
she
placed
some
of
the
fault
on
law
schools:

“The
fact
that
some
of
our
public
leaders
are
lawyers
advocating
or
making
statements
challenging
the
rule
of
law
tells
me
that
fundamentally
our
law
schools
are
failing,”
she
said.

This
is
not
the
time
to
sneak
diss,
Sotomayor;
name
names!
I
jest
—
I
understand
why
a
mind
toward
avoiding
the
appearance
of
impropriety
would
avoid
naming
names.
That
said,
I’m
not
bound
by
that
expectation
and,
even
if
this
wasn’t
who
she
had
in
mind
when
she
said
it,
it’s
hard
to
deny
that
the
boot
would
fit
on
JD
Vance.

Let
it
be
known,
I
am
a
firm
believer
in
the

fact
that
it
is
always
morally
good
to
punch
up
at
Yale
Law.
But
I
wouldn’t
blame
Yale
for
Vance’s
public
shortcomings
any
more
than
I
would
blame
the
Pope
for
Vance
not
understanding
Jesus’s
message.
Three
reasons.
First,

the
Pope
already
directly
addressed
Vance’s
bad
religion.
Second,
some
of
Vance’s
most
mind-boggling
claims
—
the
Judiciary
having
no
authority
to
regulate
the
Executive’s
“legitimate”
powers
for
example
—
may
stem
from
Yale
doing
a
good
job
at
educating
one
of
its
students.
Granted
the
justification
would
be
Unitary
Executive
Theory,

a
fringe
assessment
of
constitutional
authority
coming
out
of
Yale,
but
you
can’t
really
fault
school
for
teaching
fringe
theory
when
all
should
be
fair
game
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas.
And
third,
barring
the
UET
explanation
above,
Yale
isn’t
to
blame
if
Vance
is
a
gutless
power
addict
who
was

willing
to
call
Trump
idiot
Hitler
at
one
point
and
be
his
right
hand
man
the
next.

Blaming
law
school
aside,
she
made
the
argument
that
once
we
lose
our
legal
norms,
we
lose
the
rule
of
law
completely.
As
sad
as
it
is
to
see
the
optimistic
glow
drain
from
a
top
jurist’s
eyes,
we
need
levelheaded
judges
who
are
acutely
aware
of
the
gravitas
that
their
decisions
hold,
especially
when
they’re
sitting
at
the
Supreme
Court.

Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
Says
She’s
Worried
About
Declining
Standards
And
Broken
Norms
[CNN]

Earlier:

Sonia
Sotomayor
Wildly
Out
Of
Touch
With
Trump’s
America

Trump
White
House
Tests
Supreme
Court
Loyalty
With
Increasingly
Crackpot
Legal
Arguments

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

This
story
was
originally
published
by


Global
Press
Journal.

HARARE,
ZIMBABWE
—
It’s
possible
to
buy
pretty
much
anything
at
the
market
in
Hopley,
an
informal
settlement
south
of
this
capital
city:
rat
poison,
mops
—
even
medicine.

That
medicine
is
sold
without
prescriptions,
to
buyers
who
don’t
have
a
diagnosis
from
a
doctor
in
hand.
Some
vendors
even
offer
diagnoses
to
their
customers,
even
though
they
don’t
have
any
medical
training.
And
in
many
cases,
the
medicine
is
fake.
At
any
moment,
police
could
swoop
in
for
a
raid.
Vendors
keep
the
medicine
out
of
view,
and
buyers
know
who
to
ask.

Gladys
Chihozhwa
buys
contraceptive
pills
from
one
of
them,
and
even
turns
to
the
vendors
for
diagnoses
when
she’s
sick.
She
knows
the
drugs
might
be
expired,
or
even
fake.
That
doesn’t
deter
her.

“I
buy
them
because
they
are
cheap,”
she
says.

Zimbabwe
is
overwhelmed
with
counterfeit
medicine,
driven
by
the
expansion
of
informal
markets
and
consumer
demand
for
cheaper
products.
Police
routinely
impound
pharmaceuticals.
In
just
one
example,
the
Medicines
Control
Authority
of
Zimbabwe
in
January
discovered
counterfeit
rabies
vaccines
in
circulation.
Their
packaging
mimicked
that
of
legitimate
imports
from
India,
a
big
supplier
of
Zimbabwe’s
medicine.

The
vaccines’
pathway
into
the
market
remains
unclear,
but
some
products
pour
into
Zimbabwe’s
informal
markets
through
its
leaky
borders
with
Zambia,
where
counterfeit
medicines
from
India
are
easily
available,
and
cheap.

The
consequences
of
this
trade
can
be
fatal.
According
to
a
2022
report
by
the
United
Nations
Office
on
Drugs
and
Crime,
in
sub-Saharan
Africa
alone,
counterfeit
medicines
kill
just
over
a
quarter
of
a
million
people
each
year.

Even
when
not
immediately
fatal,
they
can
cause
long-term
harm,
including
increasing
antibiotic
resistance,
says
Dr.
Grant
Marewanhema,
a
public
health
expert.

In
a
written
response,
public
relations
officer
Davison
Kaiyo
says
the
Medicines
Control
Authority
of
Zimbabwe
has
tried
to
address
this
problem
by
conducting
raids
with
the
police
and
intercepting
counterfeit
medicines
at
borders.
They
also
conduct
regular
inspections
at
pharmacies.
Those
caught
are
prosecuted,
and
the
medicines
confiscated,
he
says.

But
demand
is
high,
so
new
shipments
keep
pouring
in.

A
global
problem

Distribution
of
fake
and
substandard
medicines
is
a
global,
highly
profitable
criminal
enterprise.
One
2020
study
by
the
Pacific
Research
Institute
estimated
that
the
counterfeit
medicine
market
is
worth
somewhere
between
US$200
billion
and
US$431
billion
annually.

Many
of
the
counterfeit
drugs
are
produced
in
India,
where
a
mix
of
highly
reputable
drug
manufacturers
and
unregulated
producers
creates
serious
challenges
for
oversight
and
quality
control.

Africa
is
particularly
affected.
According
to
the
World
Health
Organization,
42%
of
globally
detected
cases
of
counterfeit
and
substandard
medical
products
between
2013
and
2017
were
in
Africa.

In
Zimbabwe,
porous
borders
facilitate
the
movement,
but
a
combination
of
other
factors
fuels
the
trade.
The
country’s
decades-long
economic
problems
have
left
the
health
care
system
hanging
by
a
thread.
Many
public
hospitals
simply
don’t
have
medicine
supply,
says
Portifa
Mwendera,
a
pharmacist
of
25
years.
Most
times,
patients
are
given
prescriptions
and
told
to
source
the
medication
elsewhere,
he
says.

But
Zimbabwe
produces
only
30%
of
its
essential
medicines.
The
rest
is
imported
and
costly
in
pharmacies.
Many
people
in
the
country
are
too
strapped
for
cash,
and
these
vendors
offer
options
that
are
easier
on
the
pocket,
Mwendera
says.

Cross-border
trade

Sanudi,
a
cross-border
truck
driver,
has
for
two
decades
smuggled
medicine
into
the
country
through
the
Chirundu
border
post,
a
key
trade
and
travel
point
between
Zambia
and
Zimbabwe.
He
knows
many
other
truckers
who
do
the
same.
Sanudi
asked
Global
Press
Journal
to
use
his
middle
name
for
fear
of
arrest.

It’s
easy,
he
says.
At
the
border,
if
the
bag
is
small,
he
leaves
it
with
a
security
guard
as
the
truck
undergoes
scanning.
He
pays
the
guard
US$50
to
US$60,
then
charges
the
traders
about
US$200
to
transport
two
small
bags.
If
the
consignment
is
too
big
to
stash
with
the
guards,
he
simply
bribes
the
officials
scanning
the
trucks.

“It’s
a
risky
operation,
but
I
do
it
for
the
extra
money
I
get,”
he
says.

Global
Press
Journal
reached
out
to
officials
at
the
Zimbabwe
Revenue
Authority,
but
they
did
not
respond
to
interview
requests.

‘I
always
take
the
risk’

Gozo,
a
vendor
who
also
asked
Global
Press
Journal
to
use
only
one
name
for
fear
of
arrest,
sells
pharmaceuticals
without
a
license,
and
offers
diagnoses.
Once
the
customer
describes
their
symptoms,
Gozo
says
she
knows
what
to
sell
them.
Two
years
in
this
trade
have
sufficiently
equipped
her,
she
says,
especially
in
prescribing
antibiotics.

“The
people
I
sell
the
drugs
to
get
better,”
she
says.

Antibiotics
such
as
ciprofloxacin
are
popular
at
her
stall,
and
many
of
them
come
from
a
supplier
who
gets
them
from
Zambia.
Ten
antibiotics
pills
go
for
US$1
at
her
stall.
In
licensed
pharmacies,
the
cost
can
be
twice
as
much.

If
arrested,
she
could
face
high
fines
or
even
imprisonment.
Police
conduct
raids
at
the
market
from
time
to
time,
but
sellers
like
her
depend
on
this
trade
for
a
living.

“I
always
take
the
risk,”
she
says.

Gamuchirai
Masiyiwa
is
a
Global
Press
Journal
reporter-in-residence
based
in
Harare,
Zimbabwe.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Those
waiting
for
the
biggest
law
firms
in
the
nation
to
lead
the
charge
(or
at
least
the
defense)
against
Donald
Trump
and
his
attacks
on
the
legal
system
got
a
shot
in
the
arm
last
week
when,
in
separate
lawsuits,
both
Jenner
&
Block
and
WilmerHale
challenged
Executive
Orders
targeting
their
respective
firms.
However,
that
burgeoning
sense
of
hope
was
quickly
replaced
with
the
more
familiar
despair
when
Skadden
—
not
even
the
subject
of
an
onerous
EO
yet
—
inked
a
deal
with
Trump
promising
$100
million
in
pro
bono
payola.

It’s
worth
remembering
that
for
all
their
power
and
might,
the
overwhelming
majority
of
Biglaw
has
been
eerily
silent
on
the
matter.
But
not
elite
boutique
law
firms.
Elias
Law
Group
Chair
Marc
Elias
has
been

vocal
in
his
commitment
to
the
cause
and
Keker
Van
Nest

came
out
swinging
against
Trump’s
bullying
of
the
legal
profession.

And
more
outside
of
Biglaw
have
spoken
up.
Jay
Edelson,
founder
of
plaintiff’s
firm
Edelson
P.C.,
wrote
an

op-ed
in
The
Hill
speaking
out
against
Trump’s
blacklisting
of
Biglaw
and
how
that
represents
an
attack
on
our
very
system
of
justice.

But
passionately
advocating
against
systemic
issues
or
flawed
judicial
decisions
differs
fundamentally
from
personal
attacks
on
judges.
Blacklisting
lawyers
or
firms
simply
for
representing
clients
or
causes
we
oppose
politically
undermines
the
adversarial
process
critical
to
our
legal
system.
And
viewing
every
issue
solely
through
a
partisan
lens
obscures
real
problems,
stifles
critical
debate
and
deepens
division. 

Litigation
boutique
Hecker
Fink
also
made
a
statement:

“The
administration’s
ongoing
attacks
and
attempts
to
intimidate
lawyers,
law
firms,
and
judges
are
unprecedented
and
threaten
the
rule
of
law
and
our
democratic
values.
And,
sadly,
those
attacks
understandably
instilled
fear
and
hesitation,
including
on
the
part
of
colleagues
in
the
bar
for
whom
we
have
deep
respect,”
Hecker
Fink
said.

“As
lawyers,
we
are
often
across
the
aisle
as
adversaries.
But
we
all
believe
in
the
same
core
principles.
Protecting
our
clients
and
the
legal
system
is
something
we
must
do
together,”
the
statement
continued.
“Our
firm
commits
to
stand
beside
the
firms
and
lawyers
targeted
by
the
administration.
All
of
them.
And
we
hope
all
those
that
can
will
do
the
same.”

As

reported
by
Law.com,
tech
boutique
ZwillGen
also
spoke
up.

“When
law
firms
are
punished—or
threatened—for
the
clients
they
represent
or
the
positions
they
argue
in
court
simply
because
the
administration
disagrees
with
them,
the
rule
of
law
begins
to
deteriorate,”
the
boutique
said.
“Efforts
to
intimidate
and
marginalize
lawyers
who
challenge
executive
power
erode
our
institutions
while
enabling
unchecked
authority.
We
call
on
the
legal
community
to
join
us
and
to
resist—clearly,
publicly,
and
without
apology—these
attacks
on
the
foundations
of
our
legal
system.”

“If
we
do
not
stand
up
for
the
ability
to
practice
our
own
profession,
how
can
our
clients
believe
we
will
fight
for
them?”
ZwillGen
added.

Plus
there’s
an
amicus
brief
reportedly
being
circulated
by
Munger
Tolles
&
Olson
(we’ll
give
Biglaw
their
flowers
when
they
deserve
them)
in
support
of
Perkins
Coie
that
firms
are
considering
signing.

For
instance,
Norton
Law
Firm,
a
19-lawyer
boutique
based
in
Oakland,
California,
said
it
“will
join
the
forthcoming
amicus
brief
in
support
of
Perkins
Coie
in
its
lawsuit
against
the
current
administration
and
encourage
our
colleagues
to
do
the
same.
“

The
firm
said
it
supports
“Perkins
Coie,
Covington
&
Burling,
Jenner
&
Block,
and
the
many
brave
lawyers
who
have
rallied
to
their
defense
and
the
defense
of
the
rule
of
law.
We
oppose
unjustified
and
unconstitutional
efforts
to
intimidate
lawyers
and
law
firms
who
take
on
causes
adverse
to
an
administration
or
its
officers.”

Another
boutique,
Selendy
&
Gay,
posted
on
LinkedIn,
“We
stand
with
the
brave
lawyers
who
will
oppose
any
attempts
by
the
government
to
intimidate
members
of
the
bar
or
judiciary
for
doing
their
jobs.
We
are
proud
of
the
great
history
of
respect
for
the
rule
of
law
in
this
country
and
believe
that
the
freedom
and
prosperity
that
have
resulted
from
the
separation
of
powers
at
the
foundation
of
this
republic
are
worth
defending.”

And
while
Perkins
Coie
and
Jenner
&
Block
turned
to
Biglaw
to
rep
them
in
their
legal
fight
(Williams
&
Connolly
and
Cooley,
respectively),
WilmerHale
turned
to
a
boutique
(Clement
and
Murphy
—
yes,
that’s

conservative
super
lawyer
Paul
Clement’s
firm)
for
their
representation.

Small
firms
are
turning
up
—
it’s
beyond
time
more
of
Biglaw
did
too.

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

About
90%
of
healthcare
organizations
are
insecurely
connected
to
the
internet
and
running
systems
vulnerable
to
exploitation
by
ransomware
gangs,
according
to

research
released
this
week
by
cybersecurity
firm

Clarorty.

The
report
examined
data
from
more
than
350
healthcare
organizations,
finding
that
78%
of
them
have
made
ransomware
payments
of
$500,000
or
more.

Healthcare
cybersecurity
incidents
are
often
egregiously
expensive
because
they
create
a
wide
range
of
costs
—
chief
among
them
being
the
inability
to
provide
patient
care,
noted
Ty
Greenhalgh,
industry
principal
of
healthcare
at
Claroty.

“When
systems
are
locked
down
by
ransomware
or
disrupted
by
cyberattacks,
hospitals
may
be
forced
to
divert
patients,
cancel
procedures
or
revert
to
manual
operations,
all
of
which
impact
revenue
and
patient
safety,”
he
explained.

Beyond
service
disruption,
costs
can
build
up
due
to
things
like
ransomware
payments,
regulatory
fines,
class
action
lawsuits
and
the
provision
of
identity
protection
services
for
impacted
patients,
Greenhalgh
added. 

He
pointed
out
that
even
simple
expenses
like
notification
letters
add
up
fast
when
thousands
of
people
are
affected.
Depending
on
the
healthcare
organization
and
its
footprint,
millions
of
people
could
be
affected
by
a
single
cyberattack.
For
instance,

Change
Healthcare’s
cyberattack
from
last
year
exposed
the
data
of

190
million
people,
and

Ascension’s
cyberattack
from
last
year
impacted

more
than
5
million
people.

“For
example,
at
$0.15
per
letter,
a
breach
affecting
2
million
patients
results
in
a
$300,000
cost
just
for
mailing
notifications.
Combine
this
with
forensic
investigations,
system
recovery,
lost
revenue,
and
reputational
damage
and
the
total
financial
impact
can
reach
millions
—
or
even
billions
—
of
dollars,”
Greenhalgh
explained.

In
his
eyes,
the
riskiest
exposure
facing
healthcare
organizations
right
now
is
internet-facing
devices
that
have
known
exploitable
vulnerabilities
(KEVs)
linked
to
ransomware
attacks
in
the
wild. 

KEVs
refer
to
security
flaws
that
have
been
actively
exploited
by
cybercriminals
—
posing
an
immediate
risk
to
systems
and
requiring
urgent
remediation.

“These
devices
are
actively
communicating
outside
the
health
system,
have
been
compromised
in
attacks
against
other
organizations,
and
remain
a
prime
target
for
cybercriminals,”
Greenhalgh
said.

The
traditional
cybersecurity
tools
and
processes
that
healthcare
providers
are
using
to
manage
their
IT
devices
are
not
addressing
these
vulnerabilities
adequately,
he
added.

Healthcare
organizations
often
struggle
to
stay
on
top
of
cybersecurity
best
practices
because
of
how
quickly
the
threat
landscape
is
evolving
and
how
complex
their
operating
environments
are,
Greenhalgh
stated.

“Historically,
humans
were
the
weakest
link,
with
phishing
and
social
engineering
being
the
primary
entry
points
for
attackers.
However,
since
2024,
hands-on-keyboard
system
exploitation
has
surged,
making
direct
system
hacking
just
as
prevalent,”
he
remarked.

Cybercriminals
won’t
stop
targeting
healthcare
providers,
so
they
can’t
completely
prevent
a
motivated
hacker
from
gaining
access
to
their
network,
Greenhalgh
noted.
Instead,
he
said
their
focus
should
be
on
raising
barriers
to
lateral
movement
and
privilege
escalation,
which
are
key
steps
in
ransomware
attacks.
These
steps
enable
attackers
to
spread
across
a
network,
gain
higher-level
access
and
maximize
damage
by
encrypting
an
organization’s
critical
systems
and
data.

But
healthcare
providers
have
a
very
tall
task
in
front
of
them
when
it
comes
to
elevating
risk
barriers,
Greenhalgh
said.

“This
requires
strong
cybersecurity
basics,
including
device
identification,
communication
mapping,
network
segmentation
and
vulnerability
management
—
all
of
which
are
difficult
to
achieve,”
he
declared.

Photo:
WhataWin,
Getty
Images