Author: TSA Press

Chief
Legal
Officers
and
professionals
in
Legal
Operations
are
instrumental
in
steering
organizations’
legal
departments
through
the
complexities
of
their
technology,
governance,
and
productivity
challenges.

Our
latest
whitepaper,
“The
Modern
CLO
&
Legal
Ops
Toolkit,”
delves
into
the
critical
role
CLOs
and
Legal
Ops
play
and
provides
strategic
insights
to
help
them
excel
in
this
evolving
landscape.

Download
the
full
whitepaper
to
learn:

• The
  role
  of
  technology
  in
  empowering
  the
  CLO
• How
  to
  ensure
  governance
  and
  regulatory
  compliance
• Solutions
  for
  optimal
  governance
  and
  productivity

As
we
put
Halloween
behind
us
and
begin

the
thawing
of
Mariah
Carey,
we’re
still
sorting
through
the

four
scariest
words
for
lawyers
and
the
submissions
for
our

costume
contest.
But
it
seems
even
beyond
what
we’ve
gotten
directly
from
readers,
there
were
some
scary
(read:
hopelessly
nerdy)
shenanigans
out
there.

I
mean,
what
even
is
this?

The
ghosts
of

Chevron
deference
are
all
the
future
people
who
will
choke
on
some
toxin
that
the
court
decides
falls
outside
the
EPA’s
power
to
regulate.
The
natural
and
logical
consequences
of
putting

lawyers
like
this
guy
in
charge
of
deciding
what
to
regulate.

But
full
credit
to
this
terrifying
house
of
horrors.

Is
that
a
giant,
working
gavel?

Absolute
masterpiece.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

WASHINGTON
—
On
Tuesday,
Americans
will
head
to
the
polls
to
cast
a
vote
for
either
Vice
President

Kamala
Harris
or
former
President

Donald
Trump
in
an
election
where
national
security
has
taken
a
backseat
to
domestic
issues
like
the
economy,
immigration
and
abortion
rights.

Neither
Harris
nor
Trump
have
provided
details
on
their
defense
priorities
and
the
budget
it
will
take
to
bring
them
to
fruition.
But
both
have
spent
four
years
in
the
White
House,
leaving
plenty
of
clues
as
to
how
they
could
lead
the
most
powerful
military
in
the
world.

And
while
analysts
told
Breaking
Defense
a
Trump
administration
would
likely
be
a
more
unpredictable
one
on
defense
policy
compared
to
a
relative
continuation
of
Biden
administration
priorities
under
Harris,
they
also
said
that
equally,
if
not
more
important,
will
be
whichever
party
controls
the
houses
of
Congress
where
the

defense
budget
is
crafted.

“We
have
a
much
wider
range
of
uncertainty
when
it
comes
to
Trump,”
said
Todd
Harrison,
a
defense
budget
expert
with
the
American
Enterprise
Institute.
“Under
Trump,
we
could
see
a
huge
shift
in
strategy
to
become
much
more
isolationist,
which
could
end
up
bringing
major
changes
in
the
defense
budget
and
a
drastic
reduction
in
force
structure.”

At
the
same
time,
Harrison
added,
“the
makeup
of
Congress,
and
specifically
the
makeup
of
the
House,
I
think
will
actually
matter
much
more
to
the
future
of
the
defense
budget
than
whoever
the
president
is.”

Meanwhile,
public
comments
by
industry
executives
suggest
they’re
confident
the
demand
signal
for
their
products
will
remain
strong,
no
matter
what
happens
next
week.

With
four
days
until
America
votes
on
its
next
leader,
here
are
the
key
factors
at
play.

For
Trump,
Uncertainties
And
International
Skepticism

The
Republican
platform
includes
a
promise
to
“prevent
World
War
Three,
restore
peace
in
Europe
and
in
the
Middle
East,
and
build
a
great
Iron
Dome
missile
defense
shield
over
our
entire
country.”

Throughout
the
campaign
trail,
Trump
has
reiterated
those
statements,
potentially
setting
the
stage
for
greater
missile
defense
investments. 

At
the
same
time,
he
has
questioned
whether
the
US
should
remain
in
NATO,
a
longtime
point
of
skepticism
for
the
former
president,
who
has
hammered
alliance
members
for
failing
to
live
up
to
the
2
percent
GDP
commitment
for
defense
spending.

Trump
has
also
signaled
that
he
would
oppose
further
military
aid
for
Ukraine
unless
it
enters
peace
talks,
and
stated
in
September
that

Ukraine
should
have
made
“concessions”
to
Russia
to
avoid
war,
according
to
the

Associated
Press. 

RELATED:

Zelensky
implores
US
to
continue
aid
for
Ukraine
amid
election
uncertainty 

During
a
rally
at
Madison
Square
Gardens
on
Sunday,
Trump
said
he
would
strengthen
and
modernize
the
military,
reiterating


an
old
2020
claim
that

he
had
“rebuilt
our
military
in
total.”

But
Harrison
said
those
comments
are
somewhat
contradictory,
leaving
it
unclear
how
much
defense
funding
Trump
believes
is
actually
needed.

“If
you’ve
got
all
new
equipment,
why
do
you
need
to
procure
anything
else?”
Harrison
said.
“Of
course,
it’s
laughably
untrue
what
he
said.
But
what
if
he
actually
believes
it?”

While
Trump’s
first
term
brought
rising
budgets
and
a
renewed
focus
on
China
to
the
Pentagon,
Trump
himself
was
sometimes
a
turbulent
influence
on
the
department,
with
moments
that
included
personally
involving
himself
in

contract
negotiations
for
the
F-35
and
Air
Force
One,
and
unilaterally
promising
to
cut
the
defense
budget,
only
to

reverse
course
and
boost
the
budget
after
meeting
with
key
defense
leaders. 

That
volatility
makes
it
hard
to
know
whether
Trump
is
serious
when
he
talks
about
leaving
NATO
or
signaling
that
he
could
revoke
support
for
Ukraine,
analysts
said.

“Maybe
none
of
this
happens.
That
is
one
view
that,
‘Oh,
this
is
just
rhetoric,’”
said
Byron
Callan
of
Capital
Alpha
Partners.
“But
I
think
that
there
would
be
a
pretty
profound
period
of
uncertainty
until
those
answers
are
known.”

Roman
Schweizer,
a
defense
analyst
with
TD
Cowen,
was
optimistic
about
defense
investments
under
a
Trump
presidency,
characterizing
the
Republican
platform
as
“very
supportive
of
defense.” 

He
added
that
prominent
national
security
Republicans
in
Congress
and
within
the
administration
would
likely
be
supportive
of
increasing
the
base
budget,
though
they
may
be
less
likely
to
approve

supplemental
spending
like
the
foreign
aid
bill
passed
last
spring,
which
approved
additional
funds
for
Ukraine,

Israel,
Taiwan
and
key
US
defense
industrial
base
priorities.

However,
even
if
the
Trump
administration
is
broadly
supportive
of
defense
spending,
other
campaign
priorities
could
have
negative
impacts
on
the
defense
industry,
Callan
said.
For
instance,
plans
to
enact
a


20
percent
tariff

on
all
imported
goods
could
result
in
financial
pressure
on
defense
contracts.

Another
complication
could
be
the
potential
creation
of
a
new
organization,
the
Department
of
Government
Efficiency,
centered
on
reducing
federal
spending,
Callan
said.
Trump
has
said
he
would
tap
SpaceX
founder
Elon
Musk
to
lead
the
new
department,
and
Musk
said
on
Sunday
he
believed
he
could
cut
at
least
$2
trillion
from
the
$7.3
trillion
federal
budget
requested
for
FY25.

“When
you
start
hearing
those
numbers
get
thrown
around,
it’s
like,
if
you
think
defense
is
going
to
be
rising
with
a
$2
trillion
cut,
it’s
not
going
to
happen,”
Callan
said.
“Not
that
I
think
a
$2
trillion
cut
is
likely,
but
just
this
period
of
uncertainty
about,
well,
what’s
going
to
happen?”

For
Harris,
A
Potential
Biden
2.0
Pentagon

Analysts
agreed
that
a
Harris
victory
would
likely
bring
a
fair
amount
of
continuity
with
the
Biden
administration
in
terms
of
both
policy
and
personnel,
should
the
new
administration
retain
some
Pentagon
leaders
like
Air
Force
Secretary
Frank
Kendall,
who
has
expressed
interest
in
serving
under
Harris.

During
her
speech
at
the
Democratic
National
Convention,
Harris
said
she
would
ensure
the
United
States
retains
“the
strongest,
most
lethal
fighting
force
in
the
world,”
and
that
the
nation
wins
the
technological
race
against
China
in
areas
like
space
and
artificial
intelligence. 

Unlike
Trump,
she
has
vowed
to
“stand
strong
with
Ukraine
and
our
NATO
allies,”
signaling
she
would
seek
further
military
aid
for
Ukraine
going
forward.
And
while
Harris
condemned
the
humanitarian
crisis
in
Gaza,
she
said
she
would
“always
ensure
Israel
has
the
ability
to
defend
itself,”
confirming
that
she
will
also
continue
military
aid
for
Israel.

Still,
that
doesn’t
mean
a
Harris
presidency
would
mean
a
gold
rush
for
defense
contractors,
Harrison
said.
His
prevailing
assumption
is
that
a
Harris
administration
would
prioritize
domestic
spending,
leading
to
defense
budgets
that
are
“basically
flat
with
inflation
or
maybe
slight
real
growth.”

“The
only
way
I
would
see
significant
defense
budget
growth
in
the
Harris
administration
is
if
it
is
part
of
a
deal
with
congressional
Republicans
to
get
through
some
of
her
priorities
on
the
non-defense
side
of
the
budget,”
he
said.

Schweizer
said
the
single
best
scenario
for
defense
contractors
is
a
Harris
win,
coupled
with
a
Democratic
House
and
Republican
Senate.
That
permutation
of
what
he
called
the
“congressional
Rubik’s
cube”
couples
Harris’s
likely
support
for
Ukraine
and
Israel
with
a
pro-defense
Senate
and
—
most
importantly
— 
a
House
where
the
far-right
Freedom
Caucus
would
have
little
power
to
stymie
military
aid
for
supplemental
spending,
he
said.

The
worst-case
scenario,
according
to
Harrison,
is
a
narrow
Republican
majority
in
the
House,
“because
the
Freedom
Caucus
will
continue
to
hold
defense
hostage
to
try
to
give
more
spending
cuts
overall,”
he
said.

‘Trading
On
Results’

Although
defense
companies
announced
third
quarter
results
in
late
October,
just
a
couple
weeks
before
Election
Day,
the
subject
of
the
next
president
largely
flew
under
the
radar
during
earnings
calls
with
investors.

“Right
now,
the
stocks
are
really
trading
on
results,”
Callan
said.
“They
don’t
appear
to
be
looking
beyond
results
and
into
election
scenarios.”

Even
when
pressed,
executives
haven’t
drawn
a
distinction
between
how
a
Harris
or
Trump
presidency
could
impact
defense
spending
—
at
least
not
publicly.

Northrop
Grumman
CEO

Kathy
Warden
said
she
didn’t
expect
a
“significant
difference”
in
defense
spending
between
a
Trump
or
Harris
administration
during
an
earnings
call
last
month.

“What
we
have
seen
over
time
is
that
the
defense
budget
more
reflects
the
threat
environment
than
any
particular
administration
change,
and
so
we
fully
expect
that
again,
this
time,”
she
said. “The
national
defense
strategy
has
remained
consistent
over
the
past
several
years,
in
the
last
couple
of
administrations,
and
we
believe
that’s
because
it
is
responsive
to
the
emerging
threats
around
the
globe
and
focused
on
both
deterring
and
defending.
And
in
that
regard,
it’s
well
aligned
to
the
program
portfolio
that
Northrop
Grumman
has.”

Similar
sentiments
have
been
shared
by
Frank
St.
John,
Lockheed
Martin’s
chief
operating
officer.
During
an

August
interview
with
Breaking
Defense,
St.
John
said
that
the
Pentagon
is
experiencing
“a
flat
or
a
declining
real
purchasing
power”
relative
to
inflation,
but
added
that
it
was
too
early
to
say
how
defense
budget
toplines
could
shape
up
over
the
next
couple
years.

“With
regards
to
the
election,
we
think
that
deterrence
and
deterrence
capabilities
are
an
enduring
theme,
regardless
of
which
party
is
in
the
executive
branch
or
who’s
in
control
of
Congress,”
he
said.
“And
so
we
think
our
programs
are
well
supported
in
the
budget,
and
we’re
looking
forward
to
working
with
whatever
the
new
administration
looks
like.”

Other
defense
executives
pointed
to
the
uncertain
political
environment
as
a
factor
underlying
more
conservative
projections
about
how
business
could
fare
in
2025
and
beyond.  

Speaking
to
investors
during
an
Oct.
19
earnings
call,

Leidos
Chief
Financial
Officer
Chris
Cage
said
the
company
sees
“growth
momentum”
in
its
defense
unit
but
wants
to
be
“cautious”
about
giving
more
exact
financial
guidance
for
2025
until
there
is
greater
certainty
on
the
outcome
of
the
election
and
ongoing
FY25
budget
process.

“You
look
at
the
backdrop,
we’re
clearly
in
an
election
year.
There
is
a
risk
of
…
an
extended
CR
and
some
disruption,”
he
said.
“If
we
get
more
clarity
in
the
several
months
ahead,
we’ll
be
in
a
better
position
to
refine
that
point
of
view
going
into
the
early
part
of
next
year.”

*
Car
crashed
into
law
firm
office
Halloween
night.
Too
bad
it
wasn’t
a
DWI
firm.
[KOAT]

*
Second
Circuit
affirms
that
“Thinking
Out
Loud”
is
not
“Let’s
Get
It
On.”
You
could
say
they
didn’t
even
see
any

Blurred
Lines
when
considering
their
similarities.
[Law360]

*
Considering
potential
Harris
and
Trump
judicial
nominations.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Another
Biglaw
salary
bump…
in
London.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Law
firm
converting
a
bar
into
their
new
office.
One
stop
shopping!
[KTAR]

*
Class
action
targets
company
charging
big
transaction
fees
for
school
lunch
payments.
CFPB
already
found
that
the
company
has
charged
parents
$100
million
in
“junk
fees.”
[NJ
Law
Journal]

*
Eric
Adams
trial
set
for
April.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

Blue
Roof
visit
…
Gore
Mukondiwa
was
arrested
after
refusing
to
leave
former
first
lady
Grace
Mugabe’s
residence

HARARE
–
A
man
claiming
to
have
the
power
of
prophecy
was
arrested
after
demanding
to
see
former
first
lady
Grace
Mugabe
at
her
Blue
Roof
residence
in
Borrowdale
Brooke
in
Harare,
a
court
heard
on
Thursday.

Gore
Mukondiwa
was
denied
entry
by
police
officers
guarding
the
residence
but
was
insistent,
eventually
leading
to
his
arrest.

He
has
been
charged
with
criminal
trespass
over
the
unwelcome
visit
to
Mugabe’s
sprawling
mansion
on
October
29.

Harare
magistrate
Sharon
Rakafa
remanded
him
in
custody
to
November
7
after
giving
an
order
that
Mukondiwa
should
undergo
an
examination
under
the
Mental
Health
Act.

The
court
heard
that
the
former
first
lady,
who
was
entertaining
visitors
at
the
time
of
Mukondiwa’s
visit,
refused
to
see
him,
dismissing
him
as
a
“nuisance.”

Mukondiwa
was
claiming
he
had
a
prophecy
that
he
wanted
to
deliver
to
former
President
Robert
Mugabe’s
widow.

In
the
dock,
Mukondiwa
appeared
surprised
that
a
mental
examination
had
been
ordered,
telling
the
magistrate
that
he
was
a
“spiritual
guide”
and
of
sound
mind.

Mukondiwa
is
not
new
to
controversy.
In
2022
he
threatened
to
dethrone
the
current
chief
of
Marange
in
Manicaland,
Bernard
Makungauta
Murwira,
while
claiming
to
be
the
heir
apparent.

Mukondiwa,
of
Gonon’ono
Village
under
Chief
Marange,
claimed
his
namesake
and
great-great
grandfather,
Gore
Mukondiwa,
who
allegedly
was
once
the
leader
of
the
Marange
people
in
the
1800s,
was
dethroned
and
murdered
by
the
current
chief’s
great-great
grandfather.

He
claimed
that
his
great-great
grandfather’s
spirit
was
now
manifesting
and
demanding
that
he
(Mukondiwa)
be
installed
as
the
leader
of
the
Marange
people.

He
told
the
Manica
Post
that
he
has
been
single
since
2004
when
he
divorced
his
wife
because
his
namesake’s
spirit
had
rendered
his
family
members
single
through
unexplainable
divorces.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Health
Care
/
Medicine

What
Could
The
Election
Mean
For
Data
Interoperability?

Most
Americans
don’t
understand
how
an
administration’s
view
on
healthcare
data
sharing
interoperability
could
directly
impact
them,
pointed
out
Arcadia
CEO
Michael
Meucci.
More
requirements
around
data
sharing
could
lead
to
better
care
continuity,
improved
outcomes
and
lower
costs.

By

KATIE
ADAMS
–
MEDCITY
NEWS
 

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
Biglaw
firm
tops
the
list
on
the
2024
Law360
Pulse
Leaderboard,
after
clocking
in
at
#3
on
last
year’s
list?

Hint:
The
firms
are
ranked
on
a
combination
of
social
impact,
prestige,
and
practice
footprint.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Whether
they’re
providing
employment
law
guidance
or
casting
their
own
ballot,
lawyers
will
be
coming
across
rules
for
Election
Day
leave
in
the
coming
week. 

As
noted
by
CNN
and

this
tracker
from
Fisher
Phillips,
there
is
no
federal
law
mandating
employees
be
given
time
off
to
vote,
but
28
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
do
have
some
form
of
this
regulation.
North
Dakota
also
has
a
nonbinding
law
encouraging
employers
to
provide
time
off.

These
laws
differ
on
many
requirements
—
notifying
employers
of
plans
to
vote
or
compensation
for
time
spent
voting,
for
example.

Curious
about
your
state’s
broader
election
laws?


You
can
search
by
specific
topics
here. 

Here
are
the
states
where
employers
must
give
you
time
off
to
vote
[CNN]

Do
Your
Employees
Get
Time
Off
to
Vote?
A
State-By-State
Guide
for
Employers
[Fisher
Phillips]


Search
by
State
and
Topic
[Vote
411
/
League
of
Women
Voters]

---

Jeremy
Barker
is
the
director
of
content
marketing
for
Breaking
Media.
Feel
free
to email
him with
questions
or
comments
and
to connect
on
LinkedIn. 

Elon
Musk
will
get
away
with
it.

The
world’s
richest
man
will
dole
out
several
more
thinly
disguised
bribes
in
an
attempt
to
sway
the
election
results,
and
he
will
face
no
consequences.
But
he
did
get
unceremoniously
chucked
back
to
state
court
by
Judge
Gerald
Pappert,
who
flicked
the
thin-skinned
billionaire
aside
like
a
bit
of
noxious
pet
dander
clinging
to
his
judicial
robes
—
which
is
something
anyway.

The
case
involved
a

civil
action
by
Philadelphia
District
Attorney
Larry
Krasner,
who
is
seeking
to
enjoin
Musk
from
engaging
in
an
illegal
lottery
through
daily
giveaways
to
registered
voters
who
sign
a
petition
pledging
“support
for
the
First
and
Second
Amendments.”

Musk
has
been
stumping
for
Donald
Trump
across
Pennsylvania,
donating
upwards
of
$130
million
to
support
the
former
president’s
campaign,
even
as
he
rails
against
interference
by
philanthropist
George
Soros.

Judge
Angelo
Foglietta
of
the
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
ordered
Musk
to
appear
in
Court
on
Thursday
morning,
but
by
then
the
case
had
been
removed
to
federal
court,
where
it
landed
on
Judge
Pappert’s
docket.

Musk’s

theory
of
jurisdiction
is
that,
while
the
DA’s
complaint
is
nominally
about
violating
Pennsylvania’s
consumer
protection
laws,
it
really
pertains
to
the
election,
and
thus
presents
an
important
federal
question.
He
made
an
equally
inscrutable
argument
that
the
DA
is
acting
in
his
personal
capacity
as
a
citizen
of
Pennsylvania,
and
thus
there
is
diversity
between
the
parties.
This
requires
ignoring

Moor
v.
Alameda
County,
411
U.S.
693,
717
(1973),
in
which
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
“a
State
is
not
a
citizen
for
purposes
of
[]
diversity
jurisdiction.”
But
Musk
and
his
lawyers
are
up
to
the
task!

Last
night,
Krasner
filed
an

emergency
motion
to
remand
the
case
to
state
court,
pointing
out
that
the
amount
in
controversy
is

zero
dollars,
because
the
only
relief
sought
is
injunctive,
and
noting
that
there
is
Third
Circuit
precedent
for
sanctioning
a
party
who
removes
a
case
without
any
objectively
reasonable
basis.
And
this
morning,
as
per
the
court’s
order,
Musk

responded
by
speculating
that
he

could
theoretically
be
fined,
and
so
the
court
should
simply
infer
that
the
case
meets
the
$75,000
federal
threshold.

Judge
Pappert

declined
to
make
such
an
inference,
remanding
the
case
to
state
court
because
there
is
no
federal
question
implicated
and
no
jurisdiction
for
his
court.
But
as
it
is
now
Friday,
it’s
more
or
less
impossible
that
Judge
Foglietta
will
schedule
a
hearing
and
enjoin
Musk
by
election
day.
And
so
Musk’s
gambit
to
delay
the
case
with
a
pointless
field
trip
to
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
appears
to
have
worked.

Now
we
get
to
wait
and
see
whether
he
was
able
to
buy
enough
Pennsylvania
voters
to
put
Trump
back
in
the
White
House.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.