Author: TSA Press

*
DOJ
says
it’s
going
to
abandon

Humphrey’s
Executor.
[Reuters]

*
One
of
those
Blue
state
courts
that

Musk
complains
about
adopts
the
anti-judge
shopping
rule
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
districts
refuse
to.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
The
partner
lateral
market
is
rough
right
now.
[American
Lawyer]

*
NBC
describes
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
as
“this
obscure
law.”
We
live
in
the
dumbest
timeline.
[NBC]

*
Former
Illinois
House
Speaker
guilty
in
bribery
case.
Where
did
he
think
he
worked?
The
U.S.
Supreme
Court?
[Law360]

*
Biglaw’s
FCPA
practices
reeling
from
Trump’s
“what
foreign
bribery?”
order.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
LeClair
Ryan
co-founder
may
escape
tax
liability.
[ABA
Journal]

Religious
Leaders
Sue
To
Keep
ICE
Out
Of
Their
Sanctuaries:
Talk
about
keeping
the
church
and
state
separate!
ABA
Shouts
Down
Attacks
On
The
Rule
Of
Law:
This
would
really
piss
off
Trump
&
Co.
if
they
actually
knew
how
to
read.
Making
Moves!
Lateral
Ones!:
Famous
lawyer
and
Burning
Man
attendee
Neal
Katyal
changes
firms.
Elon
Musk
Sics
His
Fans
On
Judges,
Law
Firms
For
Doing
Their
Jobs:
Great
call
to
action
for
people
who
think
watching
Judge
Judy
should
get
you
CLE
credits.
Sotomayor
Still
Holds
Optimism
On
The
Maintenance
Of
Legal
Norms:
Must
be
nice.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
Firm
Prospects’ 2025
Am
Law
50
Placement
Report:
A
Review
of
the
Class
of
2023,
graduates
from
the
top
14
(T14)
law
schools
made
up
what
percentage
of
hires
at
Am
Law
50
firms?

Hint:
Columbia,
Northwestern,
and
Penn
led
the
pack
with
the
highest
percentages
of
graduates
placed
directly
at
Am
Law
50
firms.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

The
Trump
administration
had
a
bad
night
in
Boston
followed
by
a
lousy
morning
in
Providence,
as
two
courts
gave
major
side
eye
to
the
DOJ’s
latest
legal
stylings.

Many
people
are
saying
these
pleadings
are
garbage!
They
come
with
tears
in
their
eyes
and
say,
Sir,
we’ve
never
seen
the
Justice
Department
demand
an
immediate
interlocutory
appeal
and
administrative
stay
of
a
TRO
that’s
been
in
place
less
than
two
weeks.

The
latest
benchslaps
arose
in
the
blue
states’
case
to
block
the
freeze
on
dispensing
federal
funds
to
people
President
Trump
and
Grand
Vizier
Musk
don’t
like.

“The
Executive
Branch
has
a
duty
to
align
federal
spending
and
action
with
the
will
of
the
people
as
expressed
through
congressional
appropriations,
not
through
‘Presidential
priorities,’”
Rhode
Island
federal
Judge
John
McConnell
scolded
in
the
January
31 TRO,
reminding
the
feds
that

actually
Congress
has
the
power
of
the
purse.

And
he
reiterated
that
“the
plain
language
of
the
TRO
entered
in
this
case
prohibits
all
categorical
pauses
or
freezes
in
obligations
or
disbursements”
when
he

granted
the
plaintiffs’

emergency
motion to
enforce
after
the
government
was
caught

blatantly
defying
the
first
order.
Judge
McConnell
pointedly
noted
that
parties
who
defy
a
court
order
are
risking
criminal
contempt,
even
if
the
order
is
later
reversed.

This
appears
to
have
gotten
the
attention
of
the
DOJ
lawyers,
who
first

noticed
an
appeal
of
the
TRO
to
the
First
Circuit,
and
then
threw
themselves
histrionically
onto
the
courthouse
steps
in
Boston,

howling
about
a
“broad
incursion
on
the
orderly
operation
of
government
and
the
President’s
Article
II
authority
to
control
the
Executive
Branch.”

The
appellate
panel

expressed
extreme
puzzlement
as
to
whether
they
would
even
have
jurisdiction
to
impose
an
administrative
stay,
but
then,
assuming
that
they
did,
denied
it.

“We
note
in
this
regard
the
plaintiffs’
statement
in
their
Opposition
to
Defendants’
Motion
for
Administrative
Stay
Pending
Appeal
that,
consistent
with
the
TRO,
the
February
10
Order
“does
not
stop
defendants
from
limiting
access
to
funds
without
any
‘preclearance’
from
the
district
court
‘on
the
basis
of
the
applicable
authorizing
statutes,
regulations,
and
terms,’”
they
wrote.

Meanwhile
back
in
Providence,
the
government
was
in
a
bit
of
a
sticky
wicket.
Because
Elon
Musk
and
his
army
of
DOGE
bros
claimed
to
have
discovered
FEMA
paying
to
put
illegal
immigrants
up
in
luxury
hotels.
That
was

bullshit
—
if
you
can
even
believe
it!
—
but
the
brother
in
douche
over
at
FEMA
immediately
promised
to
put
an
end
to
it
and
fire
the
responsible
parties.

@USCongress
should
have
never
passed
bills
in
2023
and
2024
asking
FEMA
to
do
this
work.
This
stops
now.

—
Cameron
Hamilton
(@FEMA_Cam)

February
10,
2025

Darn
you
Congress
with
your
filthy
BILLS!

This
forced
the
DOJ
to

tiptoe
back
to
Judge
McConnell
and
“request
that
the
Court
provide
‘targeted
relief’
from
its
Orders,
confirming
that
FEMA
may
continue
‘withholding
funds
due
to
specific
authority.’”

This
was
accompanied
by
a

declaration
from
FEMA
bro
Hamilton
which
strangely
made
no
mention
of
Musk’s
false
claims.
Instead
it
referred
to
“media
reports,
the
vicious
Venezuelan
gang
Tren
De
Aragua
has
taken
over
the
hotel
[being
used
to
house
migrants]
and
is
using
it
as
a
recruiting
center
and
base
of
operations
to
plan
a
variety
of
crimes.”

That
claim
is
sourced
to
a

New
York
Post
article
based
on
Spanish
language
TikToks
and
a

report
from
a
local
ABC
affiliate
which
quotes
one
NYPD
detective
claiming
that
there
are
a
handful
of
teen
and
tween
pickpockets
who
live
at
Roosevelt
Hotel
in
midtown
Manhattan
where
migrants
seeking
asylum
are
being
housed
under
FEMA’s
Shelter
and
Service
Programs.

“According
to
these
same
reports,
these
crimes
include
gun
and
drug
sales
as
well
as
sex
trafficking,
which
can
reasonably
be
presumed
to
be
conducted
in
the
hotel
itself,”
Cameron
assures
the
court,
citing
as
evidence
articles
from
the
National
Review
and
Fox
News.

Cameron
purported
to
have
“paused
funding
quickly
in
this
matter
to
protect
that
funding
from
the
potential
for
its
misuse
for
the
illegal
activity
described
above.”
But
in
fact
it
turns
out
that
he’d
done
one
better
than
that.

According
to
a

statement
from
New
York
City
Comptroller
Brad
Lander,
the
Trump
administration
siphoned
off
$80
million
from
the
City’s
bank
account,
retroactively
defunding
the
contract:

This
morning,
my
financial
team
shockingly
uncovered
that
President
Trump
and
his
crony
Elon
Musk
illegally
executed
a
revocation
of
$80
million
in
congressionally-appropriated
FEMA
funding
from
New
York
City’s
bank
accounts
late
yesterday
afternoon.
This
is
money
that
the
federal
government
previously
disbursed
for
shelter
and
services
and
is
now
missing.
This
highway
robbery
of
our
funds
directly
out
of
our
bank
account
is
a
betrayal
of
everyone
who
calls
New
York
City
home.

Lander
called
on
Mayor
Eric
Adams
to
do
something
about
it.
Adams,
who
just
so
happens
to
have
had
his
bribery
charges
dropped

without
prejudice
this
week,
has
said
that
it
would
be
better
not
to
criticize
the
Trump
administration
publicly.

And
in
the
meantime,
Judge
McConnell

denied
the
DOJ’s
request
to
bless
FEMA’s
actions
retroactively,
noting
that
the
government
is
perfectly
entitled
to
cancel
contracts
if,
as
it
warrants,
it
intends
to
provide
“notice
to
New
York
City
regarding
the
funding
pause
and
will
provide
the
information
and
process
required
by
regulation
and
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
award.”

Gonna
take
a
wild
shot
in
the
dark
that
stealing
$80
million
from
a
commercial
bank
account
and
unilaterally
cutting
off
funding
is

not
the
“routine
process”
laid
out
in
the
agreement.

Anyway,
enjoy
your
constitutional
crisis
courtesy
of
“our
judicial
branch.”

New
York
v.
Trump [Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

The
rule
of
law,
and
the
judges
who
uphold
it,
is
under
attack
by
the
current
Trump
administration.
Executive
orders
with
dubious
constitutional
backing
are
flying
from
the
Donald’s
pen,
and
there’s
a
certified
avalanche
of
litigation
trying
to
limit
the
executive’s
power
grab.
And
the
federal
bench
has,
thus
far,
responded
admirably.

Judge
after

judge
—
even
those

appointed
by
Republicans
—
are
holding

the
constitutional
line
and
blocking,
or

at
least
pausing,
the

maneuvering.

But
the
right

doesn’t
like
that
—
like,
at
all.
And
there’s
been

a
wave
of
attacks,
mercifully
rhetorical,
against
judges
and
the
legal
system.
It’s
led

some
to
wonder
—
and
fear
—
what
exactly
will
happen
if
the
Trump
administration
pulls
a
Bartleby
the
Scrivener
and
just…
prefers
not
to
follow
a
court
order.

That
(increasingly
likely)
scenario
is
not
super
concerning
to
one
person
—
Supreme
Court
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor.
As

reported
by
HuffPost,
at
an
event
at
Miami
Dade
College,
Sotomayor
expressed
trust
in
the
system
that
honestly
feels
unearned
in
the
year
of
our
lord
2025:

“Court
decisions
stand,
whether
one
particular
person
chooses
to
abide
by
them
or
not,
it
doesn’t
change
the
foundation
that
it’s
still
a
court
order
that
someone
will
respect
at
some
point,”
she
said.
“That’s
the
faith
I
have
in
our
system.”

Sotomayor
has
more
faith
in
the
court
system
than
Taylor
Swift
has
in
*that*
bodysuit.

She
continued,
noting,
“We’ve
had
moments
where
it’s
been
tested,
but
by
and
large
we
have
been
a
country
who
has
understood
that
the
rule
of
law
has
helped
us
maintain
our
democracy,”
she
said.
“But
it’s
also
because
the
court
has
proceeded
cautiously.”

Methinks
our
country
is
already
in
the
midst
of
another
big
test,
and
we’re
not
at
all
prepared
for
it.

---

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].

The
same
legal
community
that
considered
email
a
passing
fad
that
could
never
replace
the
“intraoffice
sweep”
has
seemingly
increasingly
abandoned
caution
as
generative
AI
expands.
And
that’s
not
exactly
an
exciting
prospect
for
firm
tech
professionals.

Hill
Dickinson,
a
UK-based
firm
with
offices
in
Asia
and
the
Mediterranean,
had
to

send
out
an
email
blast
telling
lawyers
to
knock
off
all
the
AI
stuff
after
realizing
just
how
often
the
firm
used
generative
AI
tools
in
their
work.

And
not
necessarily
just
to
write
thank
you
notes:

In
the
email,
Hill
Dickinson’s
chief
technology
officer
said
the
law
firm
had
detected
more
than
32,000
hits
to
the
popular
chatbot
ChatGPT
over
a
seven-day
period
in
January
and
February.

During
the
same
timeframe,
there
were
also
more
than
3,000
hits
to
the
Chinese
AI
service
DeepSeek,
which
was
recently banned
from
Australian
government
devices
over
security
concerns.

It
also
highlighted
almost
50,000
hits
to
Grammarly,
the
writing
assistance
tool.

I
hope
every
one
of
those
Grammarly
hits
were
saying,
“Why
are
you
putting
an
extra
‘u’
in
all
these
words?”

To
be
clear,
Hill
Dickinson
is
forward-thinking
when
it
comes
to
AI
usage.
But
that’s
not
the
same
as
techno-anarchy.
“Like
many
law
firms,
we
are
aiming
to
positively
embrace
the
use
of
AI
tools
to
enhance
our
capabilities
while
always
ensuring
safe
and
proper
use
by
our
people
and
for
our
clients.”
With
that
in
mind,
the
firm
is
reining
in
AI
usage,
only
granting
access
upon
request.

Not
to
be
a
broken
record,
but
this
is
exactly
why
trusted
legal
tech
providers
are
throwing
serious
money
at
developing
AI
designed
specifically
for
the
law
firm
environment.
Everyone
wants
AI
to
provide
security,
confidentiality,
and
accuracy,
but
law
firms
actually

need
it.
Preferably
one
that
can
provide
answers
without
turning
that
motion
into
an
ethics
investigation.

Or
loading
your
client’s
trade
secrets
onto
a
random
server
in
Shanghai.

---

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.

What
is
the
major
difference
between
a
president
and
a
king?
Presidents
just
come
from
wealth
or
the
right
family,
while
kings
come
from
wealth
and

the
right
family.

Jokes
aside
—
the
main
difference
is
that
presidents
are
subject
to
the
rule
of
law.
The
assumption
since
the
Founding
has
been
that
the
checks
and
balances
of
our
three
branches
coupled
with
the
rule
of
law
would
be
the
two
anchors
that
would
prevent
presidents
from
becoming
the
kings
that
we
fought
a
war’s
worth
of
independence
over.
You
know
what
happens
when
you
make
assumptions;
Trump
gets
elected
for
a
second
time!

During
the
first
Trump
presidency
it
wasn’t
uncommon
to
see
headlines
like
“Trump
Attacks
on
the
Rule
Of
Law
Reach
a
New
Level.”
Not
to
be
outdone
by
himself,
one
of
his
first
acts
under
his
second
term
undermined
the
birthright
citizenship
guaranteed
by
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
And
he
isn’t
the
only
one
undermining
the
two
anchors
—
JD
Vance
took
to
X
to
show
that
he
doesn’t
have
an
even
basic
understanding
of
how
judicial
review
works:

JD
Vance,
a
Yale-educated
lawyer
and
sitting
VP,
claims
judges
can’t
check
executive
power.
That’s
literally
their
job.
Courts
overturned
Nixon,
Bush,
and
Trump.
If
judges
couldn’t
rule
on
executive
actions,
presidents
would
be
kings.

pic.twitter.com/N3hSV1muQJ

—
Alex
Cole
(@acnewsitics)

February
9,
2025

I’ll
take
signs
that
JD
Vance
slept
through
the
war
powers
module
of
Con
Law
for
$400,
Alex!
When
a
person
is

this
loud
and
wrong,
you
can
usually
depend
on
someone
to
step
up
and
call
out
the
stupidity.
Unfortunately,
we
are
living
in
one
of
the
shithole-ier
timelines
and
legally
illiterate
folks
are
coming
out
of
the
woodwork
to
support
Trump
&
Co.

Look
at
this
shit
JD
Vance
is
re-tweeting.
Who
needs
the
appeals
process
when
you
can
just
decide
that
the
decision
is
“lawless”
and
the
judge
can’t
“compel”
you
to
do
anything.
WTF

pic.twitter.com/mUJytSYHKA

—
Brenda
Of
The
North
🇨🇦🌻
(@BrendaJeanCDN)

February
9,
2025

Lawless
here
is
of
course
the
suit-and-tie
version
of
saying
“If
the
judge’s
decision
hurts
my
feefees
it
doesn’t
count.”
It
isn’t
“lawless”
if
the
Supreme
Court
rules
that
an
abuse
of
power
was
abusive.
It
goes
further,
actually
—
the
Judiciary,
after

Marbury
v.
Madison,

has
to
be
the
adjudicator
that
delineates
which
acts
of
Congress
or
the
Executive
aren’t
constitutional
or,
put
positively
—
abusive.
Because
if
they
didn’t,
who
would?
The
branches
themselves?
It
isn’t
a
perfect
solution,
but
knowing
that

quis
custodiet
ipsos
custodes
is
answered
2/3rds
of
the
way
by
judicial
review
is
better
than
having
an
unaccounted
for
triumvirate
Congress,
Executive,
and
Judiciary.

At
a
time
like
this,
we
need
strong
advocates
of
judicial
review
and
the
rule
of
law
to
speak
out
against
the
Executive
soft
launching
their
plans
to
ignore
them.
And
while
Chief
Justice
Roberts
has
been
asleep
at
the
helm,
the
American
Bar
Association
took
the
time
to
set
the
record
straight
on
questions
of
judicial
review.
From
the

ABA:

The
American
Bar
Association
condemns
recent
remarks
of
high-ranking
officials
of
the
administration
that
appear
to
question
the
legitimacy
of
judicial
review
and
demand
impeachment
of
a
judge
merely
because
the
court
did
not
agree
with
the
government’s
position.
These
comments pose
serious
risks
to
our
constitutional
framework
that
separates
power
among
three
co-equal
branches.
…
These
bold
assertions,
designed
to
intimidate
judges
by
threatening
removal
if
they
do
not
rule
the
government’s
way,
cross
the
line.
They
create
a
risk
to
the
physical
security
of
judges
and
have
no
place
in
our
society.
There
have
also
been
suggestions
that
the
executive
branch
should
consider
disobeying
court
orders.
These
statements
threaten
the
very
foundation
of
our
constitutional
system. 

I’m
usually
pretty
big
on
sharing
a
bit
from
the
source
material
and
carrying
on
with
my
own
thoughts,
but
right
now
feels
like
one
of
those
“Damn
it,
we’re
living
through
the
interesting
times
that
gets
put
in
a
history
book”
moments.
Take
a
moment
to
read
the
full
condemnation.
And
also
take
a
moment
to
see
for
yourself
what
the
ABA
is
speaking
out
against.
As
great
as
the
response
is,
the
ABA
is
doing
a
bit
of
sneak
dissing
throughout
the
condemnation.
These
are
trying,
turbulent
times
and
it
is
expected
that
such
a
publication
would
write
carefully
so
as
to
not
upset
their
readers.
We
are
not
one
of
those
publications.
Some
of
the
sneak
dissing
took
shots
at
our
Dunce
in
Chief
Elon
Musk.
We’ve
often
covered

Musk
getting
pissy
over
judges
not
ruling
his
way
or

bankrolling
Texas
because
he
didn’t
like
that
Delaware
held
him
accountable,
but
this
unelected
bureaucrat
muddling
his
way
through
trying
to
explain
that
we
need
to
get
rid
of
unelected
bureaucrats
(presumably
judges)
sets
the
stage
for
why
the
ABA’s
message
is
so
important
to
hear:

Bravo!

We
must
impeach
judges
who
are
grossly
undermining
the
will
of
the
people
and
destroying
America.
It
is
the
only
way.

https://t.co/9iTcwraFnA

—
Elon
Musk
(@elonmusk)

February
12,
2025

Out
of
good
faith,
it
is
worth
mentioning
that
people
have
discussed
the
risk
to
democracy
that
judges
can
pose
—
you
can
find
a
bunch
of
writing
about
what’s
come
to
be
known
as
the
counter-majoritarian
problem.
But
the
push
back
that
the
Trump
administration
has
been
getting
from
judges
—
take
the
judicial
orders
stopping
Trump
from
getting
rid
of
birthright
citizenship
via
executive
order
—
is
not
a
counter-majoritarian
or
a
bureaucracy
issue.
It’s
an
issue
with
not
being
allowed
to
run
rampant.
That’s
why
it
is
important
for
the
ABA,
lawyers,
and
anyone
else
interested
in
the
rule
of
law
to
nip
these
tantrums
in
the
bud
before
they
grow
into
entitlements
to
ignore
the
law.

ABA
Condemns
Remarks
Questioning
Legitimacy
Of
Courts
And
Judicial
Review
[American
Bar]

---

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
is
learning
to
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.