Serial Judge Shopper Elon Musk Rails Against Others Judge Shopping (Which They Aren’t) – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Dimitrios
Kambouris/Getty
Images
for
The
Met
Museum/Vogue)

Right-wing
agitprop
has
screamed
bloody
murder
ever
since
Judge
Paul
Engelmayer
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
ordering
Elon
Musk’s
merry
band
of
morons

to
refrain
from
playing
around
with
Treasury
Department
data
,
specifically
sensitive
personally
identifiable
information,
for
SIX
DAYS
to
allow
the
parties
to
fully
brief
the
matter.
Musk
keeps
insisting
DOGE
is
just
an
innocent
audit
to
expose
corruption.
A
lot
of
people
are
parroting
this
claim
because
Dunning-Kruger
is
real
and
it’s
spectacular.

Though
if
DOGE
were
conducting
a
good
faith
audit…
why
would
this
order
be
controversial?
Audits
don’t
collapse
if
they
wait
another
week
into
a
four-year
term.
And
yet
Musk
and
his
cronies
responded
to
the
order
with
the
same
trademark
anxiety
as
a
coke
dealer
hovering
over
a
toilet
with
an
industrial-grade
plunger
while
cops
bang
on
the
door.

Curious!

After
spending
a
couple
days
complaining
that
judicial
oversight
cannot
apply
to
the
executive
branch

and
leaning
into
Carl
Schmitt’s
literal
Nazi
ideology
for
good
measure

Musk
took
a
break
from
watching

someone
else
make
his
Diablo
IV
character
famous

and
stumbled
upon
a
new
theory
to
blast
the
TRO:
judge
shopping.

You
know…
the
thing
Musk
shamelessly
does
all
the
time.

As
an
aside,
all
this
ire


now
the
prospect
of
impeachment!


against
Judge
Engelmayer
is
extra
bizarre
since

he’s
not
the
judge
who
will
hear
the
case
.
He
just
delayed
even
the
risk
of
further
damage
to
the
data
until
Judge
Jeannette
Vargas
hears
the
parties.
It’s
almost
as
though
they’re
hoping
to
whip
up
enough
baseless
rage
that
it
might
intimidate
Judge
Vargas.

Shopping
around
the
country?

The
Southern
District
of
New
York
is
the
most
important
court
in
the
country
(don’t
@
me,
DC
).
It
has
40
active
and
senior
judges
in
the
Manhattan
courthouse
including
multiple
Republican
nominees,
including
four
by
Trump.
As
for
the
idea
that
the
plaintiffs
shopped
for
Engelmayer
specifically,
they
had

a
2.5
percent
chance

of
drawing
him
for
the
TRO.

If
Musk’s
adversaries
decided
to
“shop
around
the
country
for
an
activist
judge
to
do
their
bidding,”
they
did
a
particularly
horrible
job
choosing
the
SDNY.
But
the
right-wing
echo
chamber
is
acting
as
though
Wall
Street’s
courthouse
is
an
Antifa
book
club.

Musk’s
latest
salvo
depends
on
exploiting
an
audience
unfamiliar
with
the
difference
between
forum
shopping
and
judge
shopping.
When
plaintiffs
have
a
basis
to
bring
a
case
in
one
of
many
districts,
they’ll
often
forum
shop

and
bring
the
claim
where
they
can
benefit
the
most.
Generally
this
takes
the
form
of
finding
a
court
on
the
favorable
side
of
a
split
between
circuits
or
one
where
the
pool
of
randomly
assigned
judges
works
in
the
plaintiffs’
favor.
Like,
for
example,
bringing
a
case
about
Treasury
data
in
the
district
that
hears
all
the
country’s
core
financial
cases
and
the
judges
spent
their
pre-judicial
careers
representing
big
financial
institutions.

But
it’s
still
a
random
assignment,
meaning
the
litigants
are
more
interested
in
the
skills
and
experience
of
the
pool
as
a
whole
because
there’s
little
to
no
chance
of
drawing
any
one
judge.

This
is
distinct
from
judge
shopping
,”
where
a
litigant
brings
a
claim
in
a
district
where
the
local
rules
allow
the
case
to
be
heard
by
only
one
judge.
Essentially
converting
“random”
to
“guarantee.”
This
has
given
rise
to
a
number
of
flagrant
abuses.

It
might
SEEM
to
a
non-lawyer
audience
like
this
is
a
situation
where
“both
sides
do
it,”
but
as
it
turns
out
it’s

almost

exclusively
a
conservative
racket.
Single-judge
courthouses

as
one
might
suspect

exist
in
geographically
huge
districts
with
rural
areas
a
long
way
away
from
large
cities.
Those
districts
mostly
exist
in
bright
red
states
where
home
state
senators
spent
decades
reserving
seats
to
establish
a
right-wing
dominated
federal
bench.
As
Republicans
drew
more
judges
from
the
ranks
of
far-right
activist
groups,
conservatives
took
the
opportunity
to
exercise
(and

sometimes
even
concoct
)
jurisdiction
in
these
rural
courthouses
to
take
advantage
of
specific
judges.
The
damage
to
court
credibility
was
so
palpable
that
the
Judicial
Conference

sought
to
put
the
brakes
on
this

to
preserve
the
sanctity
of
the
courts.
But
the
proposed
rule
died
on
the
vine
after

MAGA
activists
lost
their
minds
over
it
,
arguing
that

judge
shopping
almost
amounts
to
a
fundamental
human
right

and
that

criticizing
the
practice
causes
death
threats
.
But,
magically,
they
don’t
seem
all
that
concerned
now.

By
contrast,
Musk
absolutely

loves

judge
shopping.

After
advertisers
began
to
flee
Musk’s
new
racial
slur-friendly
Twitter
format,
he
told
them
to
“go
fuck
yourself.”
When
that
shockingly
failed
to
charm
them
back
into
the
fold,
he
accepted
the
consequences
of
the
free
market
like
a
self-respecting
capitalist.
Just
kidding,
he
sued
them.
Arguing
that
private
advertisers
choosing
to
not
give
him
their
money
was

basically
a
RICO-monopoly

may
seem
like
a
patently
absurd
claim
but
that’s
only
because
it
is.
So
he
sought
out
a
judge
who
appreciates
patently
absurd
claims,
shoehorning
an
obscure
Danish
renewable
energy
company
into
the
suit
alongside
big
box
advertisers
in
order
to
square-peg-round-hole
a
justification
to
drop
the
claim
in
front
of
Judge
Reed
O’Connor.

After
it
came
out
(in
another
matter)
that

O’Connor
owned
a
bunch
of
Tesla
stock
,
he
recused
himself
on
that
case
but
decided
the
financial
stake
in
Musk’s
business
did
not
preclude
him
from
overseeing
X’s
claims
against
Media
Matters.
The
watchdog
group
tested
X
executives’
claims
that
it
would
be

impossible

for
companies
to
find
their
ads
served
next
to
white
nationalist
rants
and
discovered
it
was…
whatever
the
exact
opposite
of
impossible
is.
Apparently
his
financial
stake
was
too
much
to
rule
against
CVS
but
just
enough
to
rule
against
Media
Matters!
His
opinion
attempting
to
justify
not
recusing
himself

was
comically
shoddy
,
leaning
on
a
tissue-paper
thin
corporate
veil
between
X
and
the
Elon
Musk
Personal
Brand
Meme
Stock
known
as
Tesla.

But
Musk’s
misadventures
with
O’Connor
don’t
stop
there!
Musk
went
to
the
trouble
of

rewriting
the
X
terms
of
service
to
place
any
dispute
against
the
social
media
company
in
front
of
O’Connor
.

When
Musk
brings
the
matter,
guaranteeing
himself
a
single
judge
in
an
out-of-the-way
courthouse
is
fine.
When
Musk
is
on
the
other
side,
bringing
a
case
in
MANHATTAN
with
a
2
percent
chance
of
catching
any
particular
judge…
OUTRAGE!
CORRUPTION!
DEEP
STATE!
DOGS
AND
CATS
LIVING
TOGETHER!

Musk’s
argument
about
judge
shopping
is
somehow
both
wrong
and
projection.
No
one
expects
Musk
or
his
followers
to
embrace

actual

reforms
to
stop
judge
shopping.
The
entire
right-wing
legal
movement
is
built
on
using
small,
rural
courthouses
to
secure
high-impact
nationwide
injunctions.
But
the
fact
that
Musk
is
trying
to
use
this
argument
at
all
means

he
knows
how
bad
it
looks
when
people
actually
understand
it
.

Unfortunately,
people
don’t
understand
it
and
most
of
the
media
seems
just
fine
letting
Musk
feed
them
this
horseshit
by
the
shovel.


Earlier
:

Judge
Told
Trump
And
Musk
To
Follow
The
Law
For
A
Week.
They’re
Calling
It
Tyranny.


Elon
Musk
Changes
X
Terms
To
Push
All
Disputes
Toward
Tesla-Investor
Federal
Judge


Unhinged
Federal
Judge
Thinks
Criticizing
Judge
Shopping
Causes
Death
Threats




HeadshotJoe
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
.

After Facing Repeated Trump Threats, Panama Canal Authority Lawyers Up With Top Biglaw Firm – Above the Law

(Photo
by
MARTIN
BERNETTI/AFP
via
Getty
Images)

President
Donald
Trump
has
insisted
that
the
U.S.
will
soon
re-take
control
of
the
Panama
Canal,
making

threat
after
threat
,
and
the
Panama
Canal
Authority
has
officially
lawyered
up.

As
first
noted
by

Reuters
,
Vinson
&
Elkins

a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,003,453,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
54
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100

is
providing
“legal
and
strategic
advice”
to
the
Autoridad
del
Canal
de
Panama
concerning
relations
with
the
U.S.
government.
Here
are
some
additional
details
on
the
representation:


The
work
includes
advising
the
canal
authority
and
potentially
engaging
with
U.S.
officials
in
connection
with
“congressional
inquiries,
legislative
actions,
executive
decisions,
treaties,
laws,
and
U.S.
policy,”
the
firm
said
in
the
filings,
which
were
dated
Jan.
31.

Among
the
Vinson
lawyers
involved
is G.
Zachary
Terwilliger
,
who
served
as
the
U.S.
attorney
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia
during
the
first
Republican
Trump
administration.

Vinson,
a
Houston-founded
firm
with
about
700
lawyers,
said
in
its
filings
that
Terwilliger
and
the
other
partners
involved
are
billing
the
Panama
Canal
Authority
between
$1,050
and
$1,500
an
hour.
The
firm
said
it
has
spent
$3.8
million
in
connection
with
its
work,
including
more
than
$780,000
on
“professional
fees
relating
to
non-registerable
legal
services”
from
U.S.
law
firm
Mayer
Brown.

Ten
Vinson
lawyers
are
working
on
the
matter,
and
the
firm
has
received
nearly
$7
million
in
fees
since
November.


Panama
Canal
Authority
hires
US
law
firm
amid
Trump
threats

[Reuters]


Staci Zaretsky




Staci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Conservatives Call The Manager On The ABA’s Diversity Programs – Above the Law

It
really
doesn’t
take
much
to
get
the
DEI
Police
up
in
arms.

Kendrick’s
halftime
show
got
slapped
with
the
DEI
label
,

a
Black
pilot
with
locs
and
a
grill
talked
about
the
importance
of
caution
and
prayer
got
tone
policed
by
thousands
of
people
that
literally
aren’t
qualified
to
do
his
job
,
and
the
legal
profession
isn’t
faring
any
better.
The
ABA’s
diversity
standards
have
been
under
attack
by
conservatives
for
a
while.
Now
they’re
so
mad
about
it
that
they’re
going
to
the
EEOC
about
it.

Reuters

has
coverage:

A
coalition
of
conservative
legal
groups
on
Monday
asked
the
U.S.
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission
to
investigate
several
of
the
American
Bar
Association’s
diversity
hiring
programs,
claiming
they
discriminate
by
giving
priority
to
minority
applicants
and
other
underrepresented
groups.

“It’s
hard
to
imagine
a
clearer
case
of
illegal
behavior
or
an
organization
that
should
more
clearly
know
better,”
said
American
Civil
Rights
Project
Executive
Director
Dan
Morenoff
in
a
prepared
statement.

Not
sure
why
Dan
didn’t
just
lead
with,
“Oh
no,
they’re
hiring
Blacks
and
women!
Will
someone
stop
this
insanity?!”

As
the
whitelash
against
DEI
continues,
expect
to
see
a
shuffling
of
definitions
and
incentives
meant
to
stop
every
position
of
authority
or
influence
from
looking
like
Orania.
And
as
sad
as
that
might
make
President
Musk
and
his
orange
VP,
sometimes
the
truth
hurts.

SFFA
v.
Harvard

may
mean
that

Bakke

is
no
longer
good
law,
but
the
fact
remains
that
there
are
cultural,
social,
and
economic
benefits
to
having
a
diverse
workforce
and
learning
environment.
The
ABA
has
already
made
a
(relatively)
strong
commitment
to
diversity
given
our
current
climate.
Will
the
ABA
go
full
Costco
and
double
down
on
their
commitments
once
lawsuits
drop
and
lawsuits
are
on
the
table?
Probably
not


lawsuits
are
scary
.
Despite
that,
there
will
likely
be
some
attempt
to
try
and
bring
veterans,
women,
racial
and
religious
minorities,
folks
with
disabilities,
and
more
into
the
fold
despite
the
risk
that
doing
so
will
invite
proxy
lawsuits

whenever
the
demographics
don’t
look
like
the
Bluth
family
.
Why?
Like
it
or
not,
globalization
is
real
and
over
time,
homogenized
silos
and
mono-cultures
won’t
be
able
to
compete.


Conservative
Groups
Call
On
EEOC
To
Investigate
ABA
Diversity
Programs

[Reuters]


Earlier
:

ABA
Takes
A
Stand
Against
Trump
Administration
Probes


The
Slippery
Slope
Of
Ending
Affirmative
Action
Has
Moved
On
To
Its
Next
Target:
Women
And
‘Proxies
For
Diversity’



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.

Former Government Officials Offer Job Assistance To Law Students, Lawyers Hit By Trump’s Hiring Freeze – Above the Law

President
Donald
Trump’s
government
hiring
freeze
continues
to
tank
budding
lawyers’
career
prospects.
Not
only
have
third-year
law
students’
permanent

job
offers
been
revoked

and
summer
internship
programs
been
canceled,
but
government
agencies
have
also
pulled
out
of
law
school
recruitment
events
for
future
legal
roles.
However,
thanks
to
a
group
of
ex-officials
from
the
Treasury
and
the
Justice
Department’s
Tax
Division,
things
are
looking
a
bit
brighter. 

As
noted
by

Bloomberg
Law
,
the
group

composed
of
lawyer
representing
law
firms,
accounting
firms,
nonprofits,
and
private
companies

has
stepped
in
to
assist
attorneys
and
law
students
find
jobs.
Here
are
some
additional
details:

The
group
has
set
up
an
email
address
([email protected])
where
students
and
attorneys
whose
offers
were
revoked
by
the
IRS
and
Justice’s
Tax
Division
can
send
their
resume,
a
writing
sample,
offer
received,
and
notice
of
rescission.

A
member
of
the
group
with
access
to
the
email
will
review
these
submissions,
ensuring
they’re
complete,
and
then
send
the
candidate
survey asking
questions
about
the
person’s
preferred
position,
preferred
employer
such
as
a
law
firm,
accounting
firm,
nonprofit,
graduation
years,
and
preferred
location.

The
information
will
be
populated
in
a
spreadsheet,
which
employers
can
use
as
a
“sortable
index
of
candidates,”
the
email
said.

Caroline
Ciraolo,
who
formerly
served
as
acting
assistant
attorney
general
for
the
Justice
Department’s
Tax
Division,
is
now
a
partner
and
founder
of
Kostelanetz’s
Washington
office,
and
acts
as
a
primary
point
of
contact
for
the
group.
“Law
firms,
accounting
and
consulting
firms,
corporations,
educational
institutions,
bar
associations,
state
and
local
government
agencies,
courts,
non-profits,
and
other
stakeholders
are
spreading
the
word
regarding
these
efforts,”
she
told
Bloomberg
Tax,
“facilitating
connections,
and
meeting
with
those
seeking
employment
to
offer
encouragement,
networking,
and
career
counseling.”

 Scott
Levine,
former
deputy
assistant
secretary
for
international
affairs
at
the
Treasury
Department,
is
trying
to
get
other
agencies
to
help
the
law
students
and
lawyers’
whose
jobs
were
lost.
“Some
of
us
are
also
reaching
out
to
other
sectors
in
an
attempt
to
replicate
this
initiative
in
other
areas
as
the
IRS
and
the
DOJ
Tax
Division
are
not
the
only
federal
agencies
to
rescind
offers,”
he
said.

This
is
a
description
from
the
group
of
those
who
now
need
help
securing
work:
“a
pool
of
approximately
200
candidates,
including:
law
students
who
accepted
summer
internships;
law
and
LLM
students
who
accepted
permanent
positions
through
the
Honors
Program;
and
lateral
attorneys
with
one
or
more
years
legal
experience.”
If
your
firm
or
company
is
willing
to
step
up
to
the
task
and
offer
assistance,
please
do
so.

Best
of
luck
to
all
aspiring
government
lawyers
who
have
been
left
out
in
the
cold
by
Trump’s
hiring
freeze.  


IRS,
DOJ
Hires
With
Rescinded
Jobs
Get
Aid
From
Ex-Officials


[Bloomberg
Law]


Staci Zaretsky




Staci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

3 Questions For A College Athlete Turned Birdie Girl (Part I) – Above the Law

As
someone
with
a
tremendous
respect
for
the
dedication
of
athletes
to
their
craft,
I
always
relish
the
opportunity
to
hear
from
those
who
have
achieved
measurable
success
in
their
sport
of
choice.
Likewise,
I
am
always
impressed
by
the
grit
and
risk-taking
of
those
who
choose
to
start
their
own
businesses,
irrespective
of
field
of
endeavor.
And
I
am
perhaps
most
interested
in
hearing
about
the
experiences
of
those
who
have
experienced
IP
litigation
from
the
client’s
perspective,
whether
as
the
claim
owner
or
accused
infringer. So
when
I
was
presented
the
opportunity
to
interview
a
former
Division
1
college
athlete
who
built
a
successful
company
and
is
now
embroiled
in
trademark
litigation,
I
jumped
at
the
opportunity.
I
am
pleased,
therefore,
to
present
this
readership
with
a
chance
to
meet
this
week’s
interviewee,
a
woman
of
many
talents
who
is
authoring
an
important
story
for
us
to
consider
as
IP
practitioners.

Lindzee
Barrera
is
the
founder
of

Birdie
Girl
Golf
,
a
brand
dedicated
to
making
women’s
golf
more
fun
and
approachable.
A
former
Division
I
golfer
at
the
University
of
Idaho,
Lindzee

grew
up

in
a
golf-loving
Seattle
family,
with
her
dad
as
her
swing
coach
and
a
golf
course
architect,
and
her
brothers
as
PGA
pros.

After
15
years
in
marketing
away
from
the
game,
Lindzee
took
a
leap
in
2024,
leaving
her
corporate
job
to
run
Birdie
Girl
full-time.
Now
based
in
Boise,
she
juggles
entrepreneurship
with
family
life,
raising
her
two
kids,
Anabel
and
Jack,
with
her
husband,
Javier.
What
started
as
a
search
for
the
perfect
ball
marker
has
grown
into
a
brand
that
celebrates
women
on
the
course
with
personality
and
playfulness.
At
the
same
time,
when
a
competitor
took
ownership
over
domain
names
critical
to
Lindzee’s
business
and
redirected
them
to
her
own
site,
Lindzee
reached
out
to
find
a
fair
resolution. 
When
the
competitor
threatened
in
response
to
cancel
Lindzee’s
trademarks
for
BIRDIE
GIRL,
Lindzee
and
her
trademark
litigation
attorneys,
Matthew
Asbell
and
Chintan
Desai
of
Lippes
Mathias,
LLP
filed
an
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
seeking
declaratory
judgment
that
her
BIRDIE
GIRL
trademarks
are
valid
and
noninfringing
and
also
requesting
transfer
of
the
domain
names
under
the
Anti-Cybersquatting
Consumer
Protection
Act. 
In
that
suit,
the
defendant
has
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
personal
jurisdiction.
That
motion
remains
pending,
but
Lindzee’s
resolve
to
protect
her
IP
rights
is
unshaken.

I
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
share
Lindzee’s
insights
once
again
with
this
audience.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
Lindzee’s
answer
to
my
first
question
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
her
answer
as
she
provided
it.


GK:
Sticking
up
for
your
IP
rights
can
be
a
challenge
for
a
small
business
owner.
What
has
driven
you
to
say
you
need
to
stand
up
for
your
company’s
rights?


LB:

Building
Birdie
Girl
has
never
been
about
just
selling
products
for
me,
it’s
about
creating
a
brand
and
community
with
women
who
love
to
golf. 
The
sport
has
opened
many
doors
for
me
throughout
my
career
and
helped
me
build
lifelong
friendships,
and
I
want
that
for
others.
When
someone
tries
to
take
that
away,
especially
through
bad-faith
tactics,
it’s
not
just
about
business
for
me.

As
a
small
business
owner,
it
probably
would
have
been
easy
to
back
down,
but
I
knew
if
I
didn’t
defend
my
trademark,
I
would
be
setting
a
precedent
that
anyone
can
walk
in
and
take
what
I
have
built.
Entrepreneurs
pour
their
hearts
into
their
businesses,
and
protecting
that
work
is
not
just
about
one
brand.
It
is
about
setting
a
precedent.
I
also
feel
a
responsibility
to
stand
up
for
other
small
business
owners
who
face
similar
challenges
but
don’t
have
the
confidence
to
fight
back. 


GK
:
There
is
no
way
to
sugarcoat
the
depth
of
the
challenge
for
small
business
owners
when
forced
to
confront
an
IP
issue,
whether
in
or
out
of
court.
This
is
particularly
true
when
the
hard-earned
IP
rights
face
attack
from
a
third-party,
whether
in
the
context
of
an
IPR
for
a
patent
owner
or
a
trademark
cancellation
proceeding
like
the
one
initiated
against
Lindzee’s
company.
It
is
clear
from
her
response
that
her
connection
to
her
company
is
one
of
passion
for
the
good
it
can
create
in
the
world,
particularly
for
women
golfers,
not
only
for
the
profit
potential
of
the
products
it
sells. 

In
some
ways,
her
decision
to
stand
up
for
her
company’s
IP
rights,
despite
the
costs
and
challenges
presented
by
doing
so,
is
a
reflection
of
her
belief
that
her
brand
is
more
than
just
a
sterile
trademark.
Rather,
it
represents
the
effort
and
sacrifice
that
went
into
building
the
Birdie
Girl
brand,
as
well
as
the
impact
that
Birdie
Girl
has
had
on
its
customers.
I
am
sure
many
other
brand
owners
feel
likewise
about
their
own
brands.
Perhaps
they
will
be
inspired
by
Lindzee’s
example
to
stand
up
for
their
rights,
just
like
she
has.

We
will
continue
with
Lindzee’s
answers
to
questions
2
and
3
next
week.
In
the
meantime,
please
take
the
opportunity
to
check
out
and
support

Birdie
Girl
,
maybe
with
a
Valentine’s
gift
for
the
female
golfer
in
your
life.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]

or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub
.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.




Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of




Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC
,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and 
Markman
Advisors
LLC
,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at 
[email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: 
@gkroub.

Senate Republicans release budget plan with $150B more for defense – Breaking Defense

Senator
Lindsey
Graham,
a
Republican
from
South
Carolina
and
chairman
of
the
Senate
Budget
Committee,
center,
arrives
with
Senator
Chuck
Grassley,
a
Republican
from
Iowa,
right,
during
a
confirmation
hearing
in
Washington,
DC,
US,
on
Wednesday,
Jan.
22,
2025.
(Photographer:
Al
Drago/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)

WASHINGTON

The
Senate
Budget
Committee
has
released
a
budget
blueprint
that,
if
ultimately
passed
by
Congress,
could
add
$150
billion
in
new
funds
for
defense.

Details
of
exactly
what
that
funding
could
pay
for
will
be
determined
by
the
House
and
Senate
Armed
Services
Committees if
the

budget
resolution

is
passed.
However,
a
summary
of
the
bill
lays
out
four
main
focus
areas:
maintaining
military
readiness;
growing
the
Navy
and
strengthening
the

shipbuilding

industrial
base;
building
an
integrated
air
and
missile
defense
for
the
United
States

a
Trump
administration
priority
it
has
termed
the
Iron
Dome
for
America


and
investments
in
the
nuclear
enterprise.

The
new
budget
resolution,
unveiled
today
by
Budget
Committee
Chairman
Sen.
Lindsey
Graham,
tees
up
a
separate
process
for
the
Senate
and
the
House
as
the
two
legislative
bodies
grapple
over
how
best
to
enact

President
Donald
Trump’s

policy
agenda.

The
goal,
as
espoused
by
Trump
and
supported
by
House
Speaker
Mike
Johnson,
is
for
“one
beautiful
bill”
containing
all
the
president’s
priorities
to
move
through
Congress
via
the
process
of
reconciliation,
which
allows
bills
to
avoid
filibuster
and
pass
with
a
simple
majority.
However,
the
Senate
is
opting
for
a
two-bill
strategy,
with
a
first
that
focuses
on
border
security,
defense
and
energy
priorities
and
a
second
to
follow
that
would
extend
tax
cuts
enacted
in
Trump’s
first
administration.

The
Senate
Budget
Committee
will
mark
up
its
version
of
the
budget
resolution
next
Wednesday
and
Thursday.
The
House
has
not
put
forward
its
own
budget
blueprint.

“To
those
who
voted
for
and
support
real
border
security
and
a
stronger
defense
in
a
troubled
world,
help
is
on
the
way,” Graham
said
in
a
statement. “This
budget
resolution
jumpstarts
a
process
that
will
give
President
Trump’s
team
the
money
they
need
to
secure
the
border
and
deport
criminals,
and
make
America
strong
and
more
energy
independent.”

In
a

January
interview

with
Breaking
Defense,
SASC
chairman

Roger
Wicker
,
R-Miss.,
said
he
was
advocating
for
“$100
billion
a
year
[for
defense]
for
the
next
two
years”
to
be
added
during
the
reconciliation
process,
which
could
help
pay
for
defense
needs
such
as
Iron
Dome,
shipbuilding
and
submarine
production,
and
sixth-generation
fighter
aircraft.

In
addition
to
the
defense
funds,
the
Senate
resolution
would
add
$175
billion
in
homeland
security
spending
and
$175
billion
in
spending
to
be
determined
by
the
judiciary
committees.

It
would
obligate
an
additional
$85.5
billion
to
the
federal
budget
each
year
from
FY25-FY28,
but
that
spending
would
be
offset
by
equivalent
cuts,
according
to
a
summary
of
the
budget.
The
text
of
the
bill
directs
several
committees,
such
as
agriculture
and
education,
to
identify
potential
cuts,
and
all
committees
would
have
until
March
7
to
provide
recommendations.

The
reconciliation
process
is
just
one
mechanism
that
Republicans
are
looking
at
in
order
to
obtain
funding
for
a
US
Iron
Dome.
Elsewhere,
Sens.
Dan
Sullivan,
R-Alaska,
and
Kevin
Cramer,
R-ND,

introduced
legislation

this
week
pushing
for
$19.5
billion
for
a
US
Iron
Dome,
with
expenses
including
$12
billion
to
expand
missile
interceptors
in
Alaska
with
Next
Generation
Interceptors,
and
$1.4
billion
for
the
Terminal
High
Altitude
Area
Defense
(THAAD)
system.

Morning Docket 02.11.25 – Above the Law

*
All
that
groveling
New
York
City
Mayor
Eric
Adams
did
to
Donald
Trump
paid
off.
[Bloomberg
News
]

*
Now
that
the
EEOC
has
stopped
investigating
actual
discrimination,
conservative
groups
are
calling
on
the
agency
to
investigate
the
American
Bar
Association.
[Reuters]

*
Trial
lawyers
hit
back
at
Elon
Musk
after
the
billionaire
complains
that
a
judge
reigned
in
his
access
to
Treasury
data.
[New
York
Law
Journal
]

*
New
partners
say
being
a
partner
is
better
than
being
an
associate,
because
obviously.
[American
Lawyer
]

*
Judge
Amy
Berman
Jackson
says
Donald
Trump
cannot
fire
federal
ethics
watchdog
Special
Counsel
Hampton
Dellinger.
[Politico]

Luigi Mangione Gets Help With His Legal Fees – See Also – Above the Law

Crowdsourced
Funds
Help
Cover
Legal
Costs:
Luigi
has
a
lot
of
supporters!
Bill
It
To
The
NFL:
Did
you
know
this
fun
fact
about
the
Super
Bowl’s
referee?
Following
The
Rules
Is
Unfair!:
The
snowflakes
in
office
hate
being
restrained
by
the
law.
Goldstein
Strikes
Again!:
Those
secret
crypto
transactions
weren’t
all
that
secret!
Milbank
Spreads
The
Bank
Around!:
Gotta
love
special
bonuses!

The Billionaire Who Wants The Supreme Court To Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan – Above the Law



Ed.
Note:

Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!


Which
billionaire
and
former
finance
chair
of
the
RNC
is
asking
the
Supreme
Court
to
reconsider
its
actual
malice

standard,
in
an
attempt
to
revive
his
defamation
lawsuit
against
the
Associated
Press
and
one
of
its
journalists
over
a
2018
article?


Hint:
Two
justices,
Clarence
Thomas
and
Neil
Gorsuch,
have
already
signaled

they’re
very
much
open

to
undoing
this
pillar
of
the
First
Amendment.



See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

K&L Gates Responds After Scrubbing Diversity Language From Website – Above the Law

Late
last
week,
we
noted
that

K&L
Gates
made
some
edits
to
the
firm
website
over
the
last
month
.
Specifically,
removing
several
references
to
diversity,
the
firm’s
Mansfield
pledge,
and
key
stats
about
firm
demographics.
The
firm’s
Diversity
and
Inclusion
committee
even
got
a
rebrand
as
the
Opportunity
and
Inclusion
committee.

It’s
the
sort
of
move
many
expected
firms
to
take
as
the
new
Department
of
Justice
publicly
announces
plans
to
use
its
power
to
prosecute
private
businesses
for
violating
its
vague
“anti-DEI”
principles,
which
in
practice
are
going
to
look
like
companies
being
dragged
into
a
USAO
conference
room
and
asked
to
specifically
justify
the
existence
of
anyone
on
staff
who
isn’t
a
white
guy.


A
firmwide
email

followed
attempting
to
explain
the
changes
to
attorneys
and
staff.

I
understand
it
is
the
start
of
the
weekend
for
many
of
you,
but
it’s
important
to
address
an
issue
that
is
front
and
center
for
K&L Gates leadership,
as
I’m
sure
it
is
for
many
of
you.
The
rollout
of
changes
to
language
on
our
Firm
website
regarding
diversity
was
not
handled
as
well
as
it
should
have
been.
Most
significantly,
we
should
have
taken
the
opportunity
to
inform
you
in
advance
of
what
changes
were
being
considered
and
why.
I
would
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
start
that
conversation

and
we,
including
the
leadership
of
the
relevant
Committees
and
other
Firm
leaders,
also
plan
on
hosting
a
videoconference
soon
to
provide
additional
detail
and
perspective.

Generally
speaking,
“we
should
have
taken
the
opportunity
to
inform
you
in
advance
of
what
changes
were
being
considered
and
why”
means
“we
hoped
we
would
never
HAVE
to
inform
you.”
Maybe
that’s
not
the
message
the
firm
wants
to
send,
but
that’s
how
it
reads
from
the
outside
and

I’m
pretty
confident

the
inside
as
well.

The
email
explains
that
the
firm’s
commitment
to
these
issues
hasn’t
changed
even
if
the
website
has.
We
foreshadowed
this
sentiment
in
our
original
coverage,
expecting
the
firm
leadership
to
express
that
they
would
“remain
committed
to
these
causes
even
if
they’ve
pushed
that
commitment
to
harder-to-find
corners
of
the
site.”
But,
as
we
also
noted,
when
the
issue
is

inclusion
,
downplaying
or
hiding
from
these
challenges
is
exclusionary
in
itself.

It
pushes
people
back
to
the
margins.

We
are
grateful
to
our
Opportunity
and
Inclusion
Committee,
our
Women
in
the
Profession
Committee,
various
related
groups
and
committees,
and
our
internal,
allied
professional
team
supporting
their
initiatives
and
efforts. These
conversations
can
be
challenging,
but
critical
to
upholding
our
values
and
preserving
our
culture.

For
example,
as
we
noted
in
the
last
piece,
the
firm
had
in
the
past
referenced
the
“Women
in
the
Profession
Committee,
Opportunity
&
Inclusion
Committee,
LGBTQ+
Subcommittee,
Disability
Inclusion
Taskforce,
and
Veterans
Taskforce.”
It
seems
the
LGBTQ+
Subcommittee,
Disability
Inclusion
Taskforce,
and
Veterans
Taskforce
all
got
demoted
to
“various
related
groups
and
committees.”

This
is
the
money
passage
though:

[T]he
website
changes
are
reflective
of
guidance
being
received
by
many
clients
and
others,
as
entities
understandably
are
taking
a
hard
look
at
how
to
preserve
their
values
amid
fluctuating
internal
and
external
expectations
and
to
ensure
they
remain
compliant
with
shifting
laws
and
regulations.

In
the
first
Trump
administration,
most
clients
saw
Trump
and
his
causes
as
a
toxic
stain
on
their
brands
and
didn’t
even
want
their
law
firms
tied
to
him.
This
time
around,
even
if
the
disdain
hasn’t
ebbed,
companies
are
worried
enough
about
the
existential
threat
of
a
vindictive
administration
to
play
ball.
K&L
Gates
may
or
may
not
harbor
that
fear,
but
the
“many
clients
and
others”

who
curiously
seem
to
have
had
more
of
a
hand
in
this
website
redesign
than
the
firm
rank-and-file

are
worried
enough
about
Trump
to
think
this
is
a
good
idea.

But
also,
full
credit
to
the
ominous
phrasing
of
“shifting
laws
and
regulations.”


(Email,
in
relevant
part,
reproduced
on
the
next
page…)


Earlier
:

Biglaw
Firm
Quietly
Begins
Purging
Diversity
Language
From
Website




HeadshotJoe
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
.