Author: TSA Press

Yesterday
was
the
inauguration
of
Donald
Trump
as
the
47th
president
of
the
United
States.
In
between

the
billionaires
that
Trump
saved
the
best
seats
for
were
current
and
former
government
officials
in
attendance.
Though

Michelle
Obama
sat
this
one
out,
there
were
plenty
of
folks
there
who
just
seemed
to
be

bearing
witness
to
history.

Supreme
Court
justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
was
one
of
those
who
showed
up
to
the
inauguration.
And
her
outfit
spoke
volumes.
On
top
of
her
judicial
robes
she
wore
a
jabot,
that
seemed
to
shout
a
deeper
meaning.
The
late
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
would
use
her
vast

collection
of
jabots
to
communicate
with
observers
(like
using
her

“dissent”
jabot
to
notch
her
displeasure
at
the
first
election
of
Trump).
And
that’s
exactly
what
people
think
KBJ
was
doing
yesterday.

Protection
against
evil?
That
feels
appropriate,
a
little
on
the
nose,
maybe
but
appropriate.
As
Vogue

notes,
the
meaning
for
her
sartorial
choice
feels
especially
meaningful
on
MLK
Day.

While
the
shell
was
used
as
currency
in
a
variety
of
ancient
cultures
around
the
world,
it
was
especially
prized
in
African
cultures,
where
it
signified
prosperity
and
protection.
Meanwhile,
the
National
Museum
of
African
American
History
and
Culture
notes
that,
in
America,
the
shell
is
thought
to
be
a
totem
used
to
resist
enslavement.
Justice
Jackson
herself
is
a
descendant
of
enslaved
people.
The
connection
feels
particularly
prescient
on
Martin
Luther
King
Jr.
Day,
which
happened
to
coincide
with
the
Inauguration.

The
cowrie
is
also
associated
with
womanhood,
which
feels
pointed
at
the
man
who
once

boasted
of
grabbing
“them
by
the
pussy,”
and
whose
enduring
legacy
is

stripping
women
of
rights.

KBJ’s
jabot
is
a
beautiful
piece
of
art
with
a
poignant
message.

---

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].

Last
night
President
Trump
signed
dozens
of
executive
orders
of
dubious
legality.
Among
the
many
federal
laws
and
constitutional
provisions
he
purported
to
cancel
with
a
stroke
of
his
pen
was
the

Protecting
Americans
from
Foreign
Adversary
Controlled
Applications
Act
(PAFACA),
AKA
the
TikTok
ban.

Citing
his
“unique
constitutional
responsibility
for
the
national
security
of
the
United
States”
and
the
“unfortunate
timing
of
section
2(a)
of
the
Act
—
one
day
before
I
took
office
as
the
47th
President
of
the
United
States,”
he

ordered
the
DOJ
not
to
enforce
the
law
for
75
days
“to
permit
my
Administration
an
opportunity
to
determine
the
appropriate
course
of
action
with
respect
to
TikTok.”

Publicly
Trump
is
floating
a
bid
for
the
US
government
to
buy
half
of
the
Chinese-owned
app.

“TikTok
is
worthless,
worthless
if
I
don’t
approve
it,
it
has
to
close.
I
learned
that
from
the
people
that
own
it.
If
I
don’t
do
the
deal,
it’s
worthless,
worth
nothing.
If
I
do
the
deal,
it’s
worth
maybe
a
trillion
dollars,
a
trillion,”
he

babbled
as
he
signed
the
order.
“If
I
do
the
deal
for
the
United
States,
then
I
think
we
should
get
half.
In
other
words
wait,
I
think
the
US
should
be
entitled
to
get
half
of
TikTok.
And
congratulations,
TikTok
has
a
good
partner,
and
that
would
be
worth,
you
know,
could
be
$500
billion
or
something.”

The
president,
who
claimed
that
it
violated
his
First
Amendment
rights
to
kick
him
off
social
media
platforms
in
January
of
2021
alleging
that
they
were
functionally
the
US
government,
would
like
his
own
government
to
literally
own
a
social
media
platform.
And
he’s
apparently
in

direct
talks
with
Chinese
President
Xi
Jinping
—
dictator
to
dictator
—
to
make
it
happen.

He

scoffs
at
the
very
security
concerns
that
a
bipartisan
Congress
and
the
Biden
administration,
not
to
mention
the
Supreme
Court,
agreed
justified
the
ban.

“Remember,
they
make
telephones
in
China.
They
make
all
sorts
of
things
in
China.
Nobody
ever
complains
about
that.
Here
they’re
complaining
about
this,
so
many
different
products
made
in
China,
nobody
ever
complained
about
the
only
one
they
complain
about
is
TikTok,”
he
went
on,
adding
that
it
was
fine,
really
if
China
exfiltrates
data
on
American
users
because
it’s
mostly
young
people
who
use
the
app,
and
“If
China
is
going
to
get
information
about
young
kids
out
of
it,
to
be
honest,
I
think
we
have
bigger
problems
than
that.”

This
is
a
guy
who
signed
an

executive
order
in
2020
banning
TikTok
because
“the
spread
in
the
United
States
of
mobile
applications
developed
and
owned
by
companies
in
the
People’s
Republic
of
China
(China)
continues
to
threaten
the
national
security,
foreign
policy,
and
economy
of
the
United
States.”

Perhaps
unsurprisingly,
the
tech
companies
are
unsure
of
how
to
proceed.
Under
the
plain
language
of
PAFACA,
US
entities
may
not
“distribute,
maintain,
or
update
(or
enable
the
distribution,
maintenance,
or
updating
of)”
any
application
owned
by
TikTok’s
parent
company
ByteDance,
and
the
attorney
general
“shall
conduct
investigations
related
to
potential
violations”
of
the
law.

Trump’s
EO
instructs
the
AG
“to
issue
a
letter
to
each
provider
stating
that
there
has
been
no
violation
of
the
statute
and
that
there
is
no
liability
for
any
conduct
that
occurred
during
the
above-specified
period,
as
well
as
for
any
conduct
from
the
effective
date
of
the
Act
until
the
issuance
of
this
Executive
Order.”

Clearly
distributing
TikTok
violates
PAFACA.
This
order
is
more
than
a
promise
to
forego
prosecution
—
it’s
a
declaration
that
the
law
is
what
Trump
says
it
is,
Congress
be
damned.

But
even
if
companies
had
confidence
that
Trump
wouldn’t
change
his
mind

again
and
decide
that
TikTok
is
a
threat
to
national
security,
PAFACA
has
a
five-year
statute
of
limitations.
Trump’s
successor
could
still
enforce
the
fines
of
$5,000
per
user
in
violation
of
the
law.
Plus,
the
EO
includes
boilerplate
language
specifying
that
“nothing
in
this
order
shall
be
construed
to
impair
or
otherwise
affect
the
authority
granted
by
law
to
an
executive
department
or
agency,
or
the
head
thereof”
and
that
it
“does
not,
create
any
right
or
benefit,
substantive
or
procedural,
enforceable
at
law
or
in
equity
by
any
party
against
the
United
States,
its
departments,
agencies,
or
entities,
its
officers,
employees,
or
agents,
or
any
other
person.”
So
even
if
Pam
Bondi
(assuming
she
gets
confirmed)
sends
out 
notes
pinky-swearing
not
to
prosecute
anyone
for
violating
PAFACA,
that
won’t
help
if
the
tech
companies
find
themselves
in
court.

As
it
stands,
the
tech
companies
appear
to
be
divided.
Oracle
and
Akamai,
which
provide
web
support
for
TikTok,

restored
access
over
the
weekend
before
Trump
even
took
office
and
signed
the
order.
But
TikTok
remains
unavailable
in
the
Apple
and
Google
app
stores.
Apple

informs
users
that
it
is
“is
obligated
to
follow
the
laws
in
the
jurisdictions
where
it
operates”
and
so
it
cannot
offer
new
downloads,
updates
for
existing
users,
or
in-app
purchases.

And
so
the
question
is
whether
the
tech
companies
are
going
to

fall
on
their
swords
and
risk
billions
of
dollars
in
fines
by
opening
up
shop
to
the
170
million
American
users
of
the
app
(most
of
whom
are
adults,
BTW).

Turns
out
Trump
was
right
in
2020
when
he
said
the
app
could
be
used
for
“blackmail.”
Just
…
not
in
the
way
we
expected.

---

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

Are
you
happy
with
what
you’re
doing?
If
the
answer
is
no,
it’s
time
to
reconsider
what
you’re
doing,
why
you’re
doing
it,
and
how
you’re
doing
it.
It’s
easy
to
feel
stuck
when
the
pressures
of
performance
and
prestige
can
overshadow
any
sense
of
fulfillment.
But
here’s
the
truth:
you
have
choices
and
those
choices
can
lead
you
to
a
career
and
life
that
brings
you
joy
and
purpose.
I
didn’t
always
believe
that
was
possible.

Early
in
my
career,
I
was
a
litigation
associate
at
a
law
firm,
working
cases
and
chasing
billable
hours.
My
days
were
consumed
by
the
relentless
grind,
and
my
life
outside
the
office
seemed
nonexistent.
I
measured
my
vacations
not
in
weeks
or
months
but
by
the
moment
I
hit
my
billable
target
for
the
year
—
only
then
could
I
truly
breathe.

But,
the
work
felt
empty.
It
had
no
meaning
for
me,
and
as
a
result,
no
joy.
I
would
finish
a
case,
meet
a
goal,
or
close
a
deal,
yet
feel
no
satisfaction
in
the
accomplishment.
My
days
became
a
cycle
of
tasks
completed
for
their
own
sake,
not
because
they
mattered
to
me.

Eventually,
the
unhappiness
became
too
much.
I
decided
to
leave
the
law
all
together.
For
a
short
time,
I
stepped
away,
hoping
that
a
break
from
the
profession
would
restore
my
sense
of
self.
It
didn’t.
During
that
brief
hiatus,
I
discovered
something
surprising:
I
was
just
as
unhappy
without
the
law
as
I
had
been
with
it.
The
problem
wasn’t
necessarily
the
work
—
it
was
how
I
was
approaching
it
and
who
I
was
working
for.

With
this
realization,
I
decided
to
return
to
the
profession
but
to
do
so
differently.
I
took
a
job
that
paid
a
fraction
of
what
I
had
earned
before,
still
as
a
litigator
and
still
billing
hours.
On
the
surface,
it
might
have
looked
like
a
step
down,
but
this
time,
something
was
different.

For
the
first
time,
I
found
a
client
who
truly
mattered
to
me.
My
work
wasn’t
just
about
hours
and
deliverables;
it
was
about
supporting
a
mission
and
aligning
with
values
that
resonated
with
me.
This
client
became
the
anchor
for
my
professional
reinvention.
Over
time,
their
goals
became
my
goals,
their
challenges
became
my
challenges,
and
their
success
became
my
joy.
I
believed
in
what
they
were
trying
to
achieve,
and
that
belief
transformed
my
relationship
with
the
law.

One
day,
this
client
asked
me
to
work
for
them
exclusively.
Saying
yes
to
that
opportunity
changed
my
life.
At
that
moment,
it
wasn’t
about
money,
title,
or
prestige.
It
was
about
purpose.
I
became
an
in-house
lawyer,
joining
a
single
team
with
a
shared
mission.
My
work
was
no
longer
defined
by
an
endless
list
of
cases
or
a
clock
ticking
toward
the
next
billable
hour.
It
was
defined
by
solving
problems
and
making
a
difference
for
something
I
believed
in.

Since
that
day,
I
have
never
looked
back.
I
no
longer
work
for
that
first
in-house
client,
but
every
role
I’ve
taken
since
has
been
chosen
with
intention.
I
no
longer
chase
money,
titles,
or
status.
Instead,
I
choose
clients
and
organizations
whose
values
align
with
mine,
whose
missions
inspire
me,
and
whose
work
gives
me
a
sense
of
purpose.

This
journey
taught
me
an
important
lesson:
happiness
in
your
career
is
a
choice.
If
you’re
unhappy,
it’s
your
responsibility
to
change
it.
No
one
else
can
do
it
for
you.
Change
doesn’t
have
to
mean
walking
away
from
the
law
or
abandoning
everything
you’ve
built.
Sometimes
it’s
about
reassessing
what
truly
matters
to
you
and
aligning
your
work
with
your
values.

So,
if
you’re
unhappy,
stop
chasing
the
things
that
don’t
truly
fulfill
you.
Titles,
money,
and
prestige
may
seem
like
the
ultimate
goals,
but
they
often
leave
us
feeling
empty.
Instead,
take
a
step
back
and
ask
yourself:
What
inspires
me?
What
motivates
me?
What
gives
me
a
sense
of
purpose?
Then,
make
choices
that
reflect
those
answers.

Doing
nothing
is
also
a
choice
—
but
it’s
not
one
that
will
bring
you
closer
to
happiness.
You
have
nothing
to
lose
by
trying
something
different
and
everything
to
gain.
You
may
find
that
the
law
can
be
more
than
a
job.
It
can
be
a
calling,
a
way
to
connect
with
others,
and
a
means
to
create
impact
in
the
world.

Take
it
from
someone
who’s
been
there:
you
have
the
power
to
change
your
story.
If
you
decide
to
make
a
change
in
2025,
choose
purpose,
choose
joy,
and
choose
something
that
matters
to
you.

---

Lisa
Lang
is
an
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
who
is
passionate
about
all
things
in-house. 
She
has
recently
launched
a
website
and
blog
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com
)
to
serve
as
a
resource
for
in-house
lawyers. 
You
can
e-mail
her
at




[email protected]


,
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn 
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/)
or
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@lang_lawyer).

Diversity,
Equity,
and
Inclusion
(DEI)
initiatives
often
spark
heated
debate,
but
their
importance
in
today’s
workplace
is
undeniable.
In
a
thought-provoking
episode
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”
Malobi
Achike,
CEO
and
founder
of
DEI
Directive,
discusses
how
DEI
isn’t
just
a
moral
imperative
—
it’s
a
business
necessity.

From
addressing
professional
trauma
to
leveraging
technology
for
better
outcomes,
Malobi
offers
actionable
insights
for
companies
and
individuals
alike.
Here’s
a
closer
look
at
the
highlights
from
this
enlightening
conversation.

The
Origin
Story:
From
Corporate
Frustration
To
DEI
Directive

Malobi’s
journey
began
in
corporate
America,
where
she
witnessed
firsthand
the
systemic
challenges
and
professional
trauma
many
employees
faced.
Her
turning
point
came
during
the
early
days
of
the
pandemic,
following
the
murder
of
George
Floyd.
The
corporate
response
—
a
sea
of
black
social
media
tiles
—
felt
insufficient
to
her.

“I
asked
myself,
what
can
organizations
do
better?
And
how
can
I
help
them
do
that
better?”

That
question
led
to
the
creation
of
DEI
Directive,
a
tech
platform
designed
to
empower
HR
professionals
with
data-driven
tools
to
foster
inclusivity.

Professional
Trauma:
The
Hidden
Cost
Of
Inequality

Malobi
highlights
the
subtle
and
not-so-subtle
inequities
that
can
create
lasting
professional
trauma.
From
inconsistencies
in
promotions
to
disparities
in
how
misconduct
is
addressed,
employees
often
feel
the
brunt
of
these
systemic
failures.

“I’ve
seen
people
navigate
situations
where
their
contributions
are
undervalued
or
overlooked
—
and
it
takes
a
toll.”

Building
trust
within
an
organization
is
key,
she
explains.
Employees
must
feel
confident
that
HR
will
advocate
for
fairness,
not
just
the
company’s
bottom
line.

DEI
Misconceptions:
Myths
That
Hold
Us
Back

Malobi
addresses
some
common
myths
surrounding
DEI:

• 
  DEI
  means
  hiring
  unqualified
  candidates.
  
  DEI
  isn’t
  about
  lowering
  standards.
  It’s
  about
  expanding
  access
  and
  opportunity
  to
  qualified
  individuals
  who’ve
  historically
  been
  excluded.
• 
   DEI
  is
  just
  about
  ethics.
  
  While
  ethics
  play
  a
  role,
  DEI
  has
  a
  proven
  business
  case.
  Diverse
  teams
  drive
  innovation,
  employee
  engagement,
  and
  better
  financial
  performance.
• 
  DEI
  only
  benefits
  minority
  groups.
  
  In
  reality,
  DEI
  initiatives
  improve
  workplace
  culture
  for
  everyone
  by
  fostering
  fairness,
  collaboration,
  and
  a
  sense
  of
  belonging.

The
Business
Case:
Diversity
As
A
Competitive
Advantage

Malobi
cites
compelling
research
to
underline
why
DEI
isn’t
optional:

• 
  Companies
  in
  the
  top
  quartile
  for
  racial
  diversity
  outperform
  those
  in
  the
  bottom
  quartile
  by
  36%.
• 
  Gender-diverse
  companies
  see
  a
  25%
  
  performance
  boost.
• 
  Employees
  who
  feel
  they
  belong
  are
  more
  engaged,
  productive,
  and
  likely
  to
  stay.

“When
employees
feel
valued
and
included,
their
contributions
drive
the
company
forward.
DEI
is
simply
good
for
business.”

Leveraging
Technology
For
DEI
Success

Malobi
emphasizes
the
role
of
technology
in
measuring
and
improving
DEI
outcomes.
Organizations
must
gather
quantitative
data

(e.g.,
demographics,
representation
at
different
levels)
and
qualitative
data

(e.g.,
employee
sentiment)
to
truly
understand
their
current
state
and
where
they
need
to
go.

“You
can’t
change
what
you
don’t
measure.
Data
is
the
foundation
for
meaningful
DEI
progress.”

Key
metrics
include
representation
across
leadership
levels,
pay
equity,
and
employee
perceptions
of
inclusion
and
belonging.

What
Happens
If
You
Ignore
DEI?

The
risks
of
sidelining
DEI
efforts
are
significant:

• 
  Talent
  Loss.
  
  Companies
  that
  fail
  to
  build
  inclusive
  cultures
  struggle
  to
  attract
  and
  retain
  top
  talent.
• 
  Innovation
  Stagnation.
  
  Homogeneous
  teams
  are
  less
  likely
  to
  challenge
  ideas
  or
  drive
  breakthroughs.
• 
  Market
  Irrelevance.
  
  As
  the
  world
  becomes
  increasingly
  global,
  companies
  that
  don’t
  embrace
  diversity
  risk
  falling
  behind.

Malobi
likens
ignoring
DEI
to
being
Blockbuster
in
the
age
of
Netflix:


“Which
company
do
we
still
recognize
today?”

Practical
Steps
For
Leaders

• 
  Start
  Where
  You
  Are.
  
  Whether
  you’re
  a
  CEO
  or
  an
  individual
  contributor,
  small
  actions
  —
  like
  recommending
  diverse
  speakers
  or
  mentoring
  colleagues
  —
  can
  make
  a
  big
  impact.
• 
  Be
  Honest
  About
  Data.
  
  Use
  technology
  to
  assess
  your
  organization’s
  DEI
  state
  and
  identify
  gaps.
• 
  Commit
  to
  Change.
  
  Roadblocks
  are
  inevitable,
  but
  persistence
  is
  key.
  Doing
  nothing
  is
  not
  an
  option.

A
Vision
For
The
Future

Malobi
believes
that
creating
a
culture
of
inclusion
isn’t
just
about
meeting
quotas
—
it’s
about
building
workplaces
where
everyone
feels
they
belong.

“When
employees
thrive,
companies
thrive.
DEI
isn’t
a
nice-to-have;
it’s
a
must-have
for
any
organization
that
wants
to
succeed
in
today’s
world.”

For
more
insights
and
actionable
strategies,
watch
the
full
episode
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self.”

(P.S.:

Diversity

starts
with
the
small
steps
—
sometimes
as
simple
as
stepping
into
someone
else’s
shoes.)

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Ed.
note
(January
21,
2025):
In
light
of
Donald
Trump’s
recent
executive
order
revoking
birthright
citizenship,
consider
this
thorough
takedown
of
the
argument
from
2018.

When
you
attack
birthright
citizenship,
I
know
what
you
are
really
doing.
I
know
you
are
really
trying
to
lay
down
intellectual
covering
fire,
under
which
your
argument
for
white
nationalism
can
be
brought
to
the
masses.
I
know
you
are
afraid
of
the

browning
of
the
country,
I
know
you’ve
crunched
the
numbers
and
have
come
to
the
obvious
conclusion
that
you
can’t
deport
your
way
into
a
future
of
white
majorities.
I
know
you
have
two
options:
double
down
on
apartheid
rule,
or
strip
away
rights
from
non-white
people
who
you
can’t
stop
from
living
here.
The
Electoral
College
is
going
to
do
the
work
of
the
former,
so
when
you
come
for
birthright
citizenship,
I
know
you
are
fighting
for
the
latter
goal.

I
also
know
that
you
count
on
decent
people
being
too
weak
or
frightened
to
stand
up
to
you
when
you
try
to
infect
people
with
your
bigotry
and
stupidity.

You
can’t
get
an
op-ed
in
the
Washington
Post
if
you
titled
it
“America
Needs
To
Be
Ethnically
Cleansed
Of
Illegals.”
Somebody
over
there
would
notice
that
as
inappropriate.
But,
if
you
call
it:
“Citizenship
shouldn’t
be
a
birthright,”
well
the
Post

ran
that
very
piece
of
racist
drivel
yesterday.
I’m
sure
somebody
over
there
noticed
that
as
inappropriate
too…
but
somebody
else
probably
said,
“Hey,
there
are
good
people
on
both
sides.”

The
argument
against
birthright
citizenship
is
a
common
one
in
white
nationalist
circles.
But
unlike
most
of
their
stink,
this
one
comes
perfumed
with
an
air
of
Constitutional
interpretation.
That
thin
veneer
occasionally
gets
the
dumbass
argument
repeated
or
published
by
mainstream
sources,
because
otherwise
intelligent
and
upstanding
mainstream
non-lawyers
can
be
easily
intimidated
by
things
that
sound
like
they
have
some
basis
in
the
Constitution.
Essentially,
the
argument
comes
in
three
parts:

1.
The
original
Constitution
did
not
define
“citizenship.”
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
blown)
2.
Birthright
citizenship
stems
from
a
misinterpretation
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
confused)
3.
Birthright
citizenship
encourages
illegal
immigration.
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
intrigued)

The
Post
op-ed
was
written
by

Michael
Anton,
a
former
Trump
national
security
adviser.
It
quotes
the
work
of
Edward
Ehler,
an
anti-immigration
author.
It
hits
all
of
these
classic
points.

1.

The
notion
that
simply
being
born
within
the
geographical
limits
of
the
United
States
automatically
confers
U.S.
citizenship
is
an
absurdity
—
historically,
constitutionally,
philosophically
and
practically.

2.

Constitutional
scholar
Edward
Erler
has
shown
that
the
entire
case
for
birthright
citizenship
is
based
on
a
deliberate
misreading
of
the
14th
Amendment.

3.

Practically,
birthright
citizenship
is,
as
Erler
put
it,
“a
great
magnet
for
illegal
immigration.”
This
magnet
attracts
not
just
millions
of
the
world’s
poor
but
also
increasingly
affluent
immigrants.

Usually,
these
central
premises
stand
unopposed.
Lawyers
don’t
fight
these
white
nationalists
on
the
law,
because
their
interpretation
is
so
stupid
that
it’s
barely
worth
their
time.
And
liberals
don’t
fight
on
the
law,
they
fight
on
the
policy
that
immigration
is
good
for
the
country,
a
point
on
which
there
is
overwhelming
evidence.

But,
I
have
the
time.
As
a
wise
man
once
said:

“If
the
milk
turns
out
to
be
sour,
I
ain’t
the
type
of
pussy
that’d
drink
it.”

1.
The
Constitution
didn’t
define
federal
citizenship,
because
it
was
taken
as
an
article
of
faith
that
citizenship
flowed
from
the
individual
states,
and
not
the
federal
government.
Our
entire
concept
of
“diversity
jurisdiction”
rests
on
the
concept
of
people
being
citizens
of
different
states
and
not
one
country
as
a
whole.
That
doesn’t
mean
that
the
Founders
thought
birthright
citizenship
was
“absurd.”
It
just
means
that
they
didn’t
think
it
was
their
call
to
make.

2.
The
Constitution
does
weigh
in
on
the
issue
with
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
Everybody
agrees
that
the
whole
point
was
to
grant
citizenship
to
newly
freed
slaves,
citizenship
that
was
taken
from
them
by
the
Dred
Scott
decision.^[1]
To
give
African-Americans
citizenship,
it
had
to
be
as
a
matter
of
birth.
There
was
no
other
way.
You
couldn’t
do
it
through
whether
their
parents
were
citizens,
because
Dred
Scott
said
their
parents
were
not.
You
couldn’t
do
it
as
a
one-time
grant
to
newly
freed
slaves,
because
that
would
leave
out
all
already
free
blacks.
The
only
way
to
do
the
thing
we
all
agree
they
were
trying
to
accomplish
was
to
make
citizenship
attach
upon
birth.

WHERE
IS
THE
MISINTERPRETATION?
These
white
assholes
keep
saying
that
we’re
misreading
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
HOW?
The
writers
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
wanted
to
do
a
thing.
They
did
it
in
the
only
way
they
could.
THEY
WROTE
IT
DOWN.
Where’s
the
freaking
confusion?

If
you
pin
one
of
these
jerks
down,
they’ll
start
talking
about
Native
Americans.
The
Fourteenth
Amendment
didn’t
confer
citizenship
to
Native
Americans,
who
were
clearly
born
here,
and
thus,
they
argue,
citizenship
wasn’t
meant
to
be
a
birthright.
I
have
little
patience
for
people
who
use
our
racism
towards
the
First
Americans
to
justify
racism
towards
New
Americans,
but
there
you
go.
If
you
think
that
our
treatments
towards
Native
Americans
was
a
feature
instead
of
a
bug,
that’s
your
argument.

3.
Birthright
citizenship
is,
almost
exclusively,
a
“New
World”
phenomenon.
In
Europe
and
Africa,
citizenship
generally
flows
from
the
parents,
not
the
place
of
birth.

Why?
Well…
slavery.
Other
New
World
nations
had
the
same
problem
America
did
after
the
Civil
War.
Having
a
system
where
rights
flow
from
the
parents
is
UNWORKABLE
in
a
society
made
up
of
newly
freed
people.
Conversely,
European
colonists
wanted
their
kids
to
be
citizens
of
their
home
countries,
even
as
they
were
traipsing
about
the
world,
oppressing
others.
Almost
all
the
countries
in
the
Western
Hemisphere
tie
citizenship
to
the
land.

That
reality
means
we
can
test
the
white
nationalist
assumptions
that
birthright
citizenship
has
the
unintended
consequence
of
creating
a
perverse
incentive
for
illegal
immigration.
When
we
look
at
Europe
do
we
see
countries
that
are
free
from
the
challenges
presented
by
illegal
immigration?
No?
Then
I
think
these
white
nationalists
need
to
STFU
and
come
up
with
an
argument
that
is
grounded
in
REALITY.

*************************
This
stuff
isn’t
hard,
folks.
Birthright
citizenship
is
NOT
a
controversial
proposition.
Mainstream
media
is
hell-bent
on
creating
an
argument
where
there
isn’t
one,
in
their
endless
effort
to
normalize
white
supremacists.
Not
all
arguments
are
created
equal,
and
it
really
shouldn’t
be
too
much
to
ask
a
national
publication
like
the
Washington
Post
to
be
able
to
READ
THE
FIRST
SENTENCE
OF
THE
FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
before
publishing
white
nationalists’
talking
points.

People
who
make
arguments
against
birthright
citizenship
are
racist,
dumb,
or
both.
Here
endeth
the
lesson.

[1]
As
an
aside,
it’s
an
article
of
faith
that
Dred
Scott
necessitated
the
Fourteenth
Amendment,
but
you
could
just
as
easily
argue
that
Dred
Scott
was
wrong
on
the
law
at
the
time
it
was
decided.
Maybe
if
we
weren’t
so
quick
to
excuse
racist
white
men
as
“trapped
by
their
times,”
we’d
more
easily
recognize
that.

Citizenship
shouldn’t
be
a
birthright
[Washington
Post]

---

Elie
Mystal
is
the
Executive
Editor
of
Above
the
Law
and
the
Legal
Editor
for

More
Perfect.
He
can
be
reached

@ElieNYC
on
Twitter,
or
at


[email protected].
He
will
resist.

The
first
month
of
the
new
year
is
nearly
over,
but
it
was
just
enough
time
for
another
Biglaw
firm
to
shut
down
an
office
in
China.
This
is
the
second
large
law
firm
to
close
the
doors
of
a
Chinese
office
in
2025.

As
noted
by
the

American
Lawyer,
Morgan
Lewis
&
Bockius
has
shut
down
its
Shenzhen
office,
which
was
first
opened
less
than
two
years
ago.
Morgan
Lewis
now
becomes
the
16th
U.S.
firm
to
shutter
an
office
in
mainland
China
since
the
exodus
began
in
2024.

It
seems
that
the
firm’s
office
leader
lateraled
to
DLA
Piper
back
in
November,
and
unable
to
fill
his
shoes,
Morgan
Lewis
decided
to
shutter
the
office.
Am
Law
has
additional
details:

Morgan
Lewis
confirmed
the
office
closure.
“We
parted
ways
with
our
only
two
lawyers
in
Shenzhen
and
reestablished
our
China-based
intellectual
property
practice
in
our
Shanghai
office,
where
it
was
initially
established
in
2017,”
Lesli
Ligorner,
[of]
Morgan
Lewis’
Shanghai
office
said.
…

“Our
combined
Beijing,
Hong
Kong,
and
Shanghai
offices
provide
corporate,
capital
markets,
corporate
investigations,
investment
management,
employment,
litigation,
and
intellectual
property
services
to
firm
clients
through
almost
70
lawyers,
supported
by
46
professional
staff,
including
our
October
2024
addition
of
Bingna
Guo
in
Beijing,”
Ligorner
said.

Which
Biglaw
firm
will
be
the
next
say
zàijiàn
to
its
offices
in
China?
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
if
you
have
any
intel.
Thank
you.

Morgan
Lewis
Closes
Shenzhen
Office
After
Less
Than
Two
Years
[American
Lawyer]

---

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 Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Pfizer
Chairman
and
CEO
Albert
Bourla
did
not
mince
his
words
at
the
43rd
annual
J.P.
Morgan
Healthcare
Conference
in
San
Francisco
on
Monday
regarding
the

controversial
positions
that
Robert
F.
Kennedy
Jr.
has
taken
on
vaccines.
Kennedy
is
President-elect
Donald
Trump’s
nominee
to
lead
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
but
needs
to
be
confirmed
by
the
Senate.

Bourla,
whose
company
is
synonymous
with
the
Covid
vaccines
in
the
mainstream
American
consciousness,
was
asked
by
Chris
Schott,
a
J.P.
Morgan
analyst,
about
how
he
believes
things
might
change
on
the
vaccine
front.

“Clearly,
the
things
that
he
has
said
for
the
vaccines
in
the
past
are
in
complete
contradiction
with
what
we
believe
and
what
the
medical
community
believes,
and
what
the
scientific
community
believes
and
what
regulators
all
over
the
world
believe.
And
vaccines
are
the
most
effective,
cost-effective
health
care
intervention
that
have
existed
since
clean
water,”
Bourla
said,
according
to
a
recording
of
the
session.

While
reiterating
that
he
has
already
engaged
with
the
President-elect
and
his
team
and
would
like
to
work
with
Trump
on
areas
of
mutual
interest,
Bourla
issued
a
clear
warning

“On
the
vaccines,
if
he
[Kennedy]
does
some
of
the
things
that
he
has
spoken
in
the
past,
I
think
he
will
find
in
front
of
him,
not
[just]
us,
but
the
entire
medical
community,
the
entire
scientific
community,
the
entire
health
care
[community]
—
in
terms
of
insurance
companies
because
they
know
that
this
is
very
cost
effective.
And
also
the
employers
who
are
really
believing
that
by
using
vaccination,
they
are
reducing
their
health
care
costs
rather
than
increasing
it,”
Bourla
declared.

The
rate
of
childhood
vaccinations
has
been
dropping
in
the
United
States,
and
Bourla
warned
that
this
might
lead
to
the
worsening
of
diseases
should
Kennedy
act
on
his
beliefs.

“And
even
worse,
if
he
does
some
of
the
things,
because
already
…
we
are
losing
some
vaccinations
in
[chicken]
pox
and
…
polio,
in
terms
of
how
many
people
are
vaccinating.
If
we
go
below
a
specific
threshold,
we
will
start
having
an
epidemic,
and
that
will
be
detrimental
for
him
and
for
the
administration.
So
I
think
we
made
that
very
clear,”
he
said.

In
fact,
vaccination
rates
in
kindergarteners
have
declined
since
2020.
According
to
the

CDC,
“After
10
years
of
near
95%
nationwide
vaccination
coverage,
coverage
with
measles,
mumps,
and
rubella
vaccine
(MMR);
diphtheria,
tetanus,
and
acellular
pertussis
vaccine
(DTaP);
poliovirus
vaccine
(polio);
and
varicella
vaccine
(VAR) declined
to
approximately
93%
over
the
2020–21
and
2021–22
school
years
and
remained
essentially
unchanged
during
the
2022–23
school
year.”

After
painting
the
picture
of
a
worst-case
scenario
in
the
U.S.,
Bourla
struck
a
more
conciliatory
tone
by
saying
how
he
can
work
with
the
Trump
administration
on
areas
of
mutual
interest.

“He
has
seen
a
lot
of
his
friends
and
people
that
he
knew
dying
from
cancer,
and
he
keeps
asking
every
time
I
meet
—
‘What
are
we
doing
with
cancer?’
and
‘Can
we
cure
it?’
And
I
think
that’s
an
opportunity
to
try
to
build
programs
that
will
accelerate
the
cancer
development,”
Bourla
said.

Aside
from
Pfizer,
other
companies
were
also
asked
if
they
expect
any
changes
from
the
incoming
administration
on
vaccines.
The
CEO
of
Moderna,
which
created
the
mRNA
Covid
vaccine,
and
has
other
vaccines
in
its
pipeline
said
that
it
is
too
early
to
know
what
the
Trump
administration
is
going
to
do
in
terms
of
vaccines.
But
Stéphane
Bancel
went
on
to
add
the
following
in
more
detail:

The
piece
that
we
are
confident
in,
I
think,
is
that
every
elected
leader
and
every
public
health
leader
in
those
agencies
—
FDA,
CMS,
CDC
and
so
on
—
want
to
protect
the
American
people,
want
to
make
America
healthy
again.
And
so
vaccine
is
a
very
important
tool.
If
you
think
about
vaccines
in
the
elderly,
if
a
recommendation
was
to
be
changed,
the
impact
will
be
seen
in
the
same
season
—
in
which
you
might
see
in
increase
in
costs
…
in
the
same
season
because
we
know
that
[if]
a
70-year-old
person
is
hospitalized,
[that
person]
is
of
course
going
to
cost
much
more
that
same
year
by
being
hospitalized
with
very
high
cost.
And
so
there’s
a
lot
of
doctors,
scientists
in
all
those
agencies
that
know
the
facts
and
will
be
able
to
provide
to
the
new
elected
leaders
those
facts
so
that
they
understand
the
benefit
and
the
risk-benefit
[ratio]
in
terms
of
vaccinations
that
has
been
known
and
demonstrated
for
a
long
time.

And
so
we’re
going
to
collaborate
with
the
new
administration,
like
we’ve
always
done
with
every
administration
in
every
country
where
we
operate.
We
believe
that
focusing
on
the
data
and
the
risk-reward
ratio
will
be
the
right
way
to
do
it.

The
CEO
of
GSK
(GlaxoSmithKline)
wasn’t
asked
specifically
about
the
prospect
of
vaccines
under
Trump,
but
Emma
Walmsley
did
sing
their
praises.

“The
reality
is
there
is
no
better
return
on
healthcare
budget
investments
than
investing
in
vaccines
that
stop
disease
before
it
starts.
That’s
why
you’re
seeing
a
regulatory
environment
that,
in
the
IRA
[Inflation
Reduction
Act],
has
been

removing
copays,”
she
said
according
to
a
transcript
of
her
session
at
JPM.

Photo:
WhataWin,
Getty
Images

*
TikTok
is
back
in
business
with
Trump
declaring
that
he
won’t
enforce
the
law
at
this
time.
That’s
not
a
power
granted
by
the
statute
but…
YOLO.
[Reuters]

*
Trump
says
he
wants
the
death
penalty
for
anyone
killing
cops…
then
pardoned
a
bunch
of
people
who
tried
to
kill
cops.
[AP
News]

*
“What
To
Expect
From
Trump’s
Judicial
Nominations”…
well
if
Aileen
Cannon
made
his

first
cut,
the
cupboard
might
be
bare.
[Law360]

*
Prince
Harry’s
lawsuit
against
the
Murdochs
on
hold
pending
a
reportedly
massive
settlement
offer.
[Newsweek]

*
The
role
of
the
Chief
Justice
in
the
inauguration…
how
did
that
guy
get
there?
[One
First]

*
Trump
signs
executive
order
nullifying
Fourteenth
Amendment
and
a
lawsuit
is
already
filed.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Tom
Goldstein’s

wild
poker
and
women
indictment
may
just
be
the
beginning
of
his
problems.
[National
Law
Journal]

They
continued
to
weaponize
the
criminal
justice
system
against
perceived
critics
and
the
political
opposition.
Impunity
for
the
ruling
party
ZANU-PF
violence,
intimidation,
harassment,
and
repression
against
opposition
members
and
civil
society
activists
restricted
civic
and
political
space.

The
authorities
failed
to
uphold
the
government’s
domestic
and
international
human
rights
obligations
to
respect
peaceful
activism.

Intensified
Crackdown
on
Government
Critics

Ahead
of
the
August
17
Southern
African
Development
Community
(SADC)
heads
of
state
summit
in
Zimbabwe’s
capital,
Harare,
the
authorities
intensified
the
crackdown
on
opposition
members
and civil
society activists.
Security
forces
arrested
more
than 160
people,
including
a
religious
leader,
elected
parliament
and
council
officials,
political
activists,
union
leaders,
students,
and
journalists.

On
June
16,
police  arrested over
70
people
at
a
private
event
to
commemorate
the
Day
of
the
African
Child
at
the
home
of
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
(CCC)
party
leader,
Jameson
Timba.
The
police
charged
the
detainees,
including
Timba
with
“participating
in
a
gathering
with
the intent
to
promote
violence,
breaches
of
peace
or
bigotry,”
as
well
as
disorderly
conduct.
The
detainees’
lawyers
said
the
police
had
beaten
their
clients
during
arrest,
and
further
ill-treated,
tortured,
and
denied
them
medical
care
and
other
rights
in
detention.
The
detainees
included
a
woman
with
a year-old
child.  Tambudzai
Makororo,
whose
leg
was fractured during
the
arrest,
was
not
allowed
surgery
until
23
days
later.
Makororo’s
son
died
while
she
was
in
custody,
but
the
authorities denied her
request
to
attend
the
funeral.

On
June
24,
police arrested
44
members of
the
Zimbabwe
National
Students
Union,
including
its
president,
Emmanuel
Sitima,
and
required
them
to
pay
fines
for
“disorderly
conduct”
before
releasing
them.

At
a
ZANU-PF
meeting
on
June
27,
President
Emerson
Mnangagwa
said
he
was
“aware
of
certain
rogue
elements within
the
nation
who
are
bent
on
peddling
falsehoods
and
instigating
acts
of
civil
disorder,
especially
before,
during,
and
after
regional
and
world
stage
events.”
He
said
security
agencies
were
on
high
alert
to
decisively
deal
with
the
so-called
rogue
elements.

Police
on
June
29
arrested
in
a
private
home,
five
members
of
a
movement
called National
Democratic
Working
Group, for
allegedly
holding
an
“unsanctioned
gathering”
and
“agitating
for
criminal
acts
in
the
country.”
A
spokesperson
for
the
five
said
they
were meeting
to
organize food
disbursements
to
needy
people
in
their
area. On
June
30,
authorities disrupted a
memorial
event
for
an
opposition
supporter
killed
in
2022
and
arrested
several
participants.

On
July
31,
suspected
state
agents pulled
four
activists off
a
plane
before
takeoff
at
the
Harare
International
airport,
and
forcibly
disappeared
them
for
nearly
eight
hours.
Lawyers
said
the
agents
subjected
all
four
to torture
and
other
ill-treatment,
and
that
the
agents threatened
to
rape and
kill
the
wife
of
Robson
Chere,
one
of
the
detained
activists.
The
authorities
charged
the
four
activists
with
“disorderly
conduct”
for
allegedly
participating
in
a
protest
on
June
27.
Three
of
the
four
activists
were granted
bail after
35
days
in
detention.

On
August
2,
Jacob
Ngarivhume,
leader
of
the
opposition
party
Transform
Zimbabwe,
was
arrested
and
charged
for
allegedly
participating
in
a
July
16
event
where
police
arrested
over
70
CCC
members. Ngarivhume
was granted
bail on
October
23,
after
82
days
in
detention.

The
authorities
have
continued
to
deny
those
arrested
their
rights
to
bail
and
a
fair
trial.
A
leading
opposition
politician,
Job
Sikhala, was
freed in
January
after
being
jailed
for
595
days
on
charges
of
inciting
public
violence.

On
August
20,
the
ZANU-PF
spokesperson
said
activists
had
been
arrested
as
a
“preventative
measure”
and
could
be
released
following
the
“success”
of
the
SADC
Summit.
However,
authorities
at
time
of
writing
are
yet
to
unconditionally
release
detained
activists
and
opposition
members
since
the
SADC
Summit
ended
in
August.

Repression
of
Civil
Society
Organizations

The
authorities
have
continued
to
restrict
civic
space
and
the
rights
to
freedom
of
expression,
association,
and
peaceful
assembly.
The
government
has
sought
to
enact,
or
has
enacted,
legislation
that
would
substantially
compound
existing
restrictions
on
human
rights. The
Private
Voluntary
Organizations
Amendment
Bill 2021
passed
by
parliament
in
February
2023
failed
to
get presidential
assent and
lapsed
in
August
2023.
A
new
bill
was
passed
by
the
senate
on
October
17
and
if
signed
into
law
by
the
president,
it
will
directly
affect
the
structure
and
management
of
civil
society
organizations.
It
will
also
allow
the
authorities
to
cancel
the
registration
of
organizations
deemed
to
have
“political
affiliation”
with
little
to
no
recourse
to
judicial
review.
Actions
considered
in
violation
of
certain
provisions
of
the
law
could
be
prosecuted,
with
penalties
ranging
from
heavy
fines
to
imprisonment.

Impunity
for
Abuses

The
authorities’
failure
to
investigate
and
prosecute
abuses
primarily
committed
by
state
security
agents
has
entrenched
the
culture
of
impunity.
On
June
29,
2024,
media
quoted
the
National
Army
commander,
Lt.
Gen. Anselem
Sanyatwe,
who
has
been
placed
under
sanctions
by
the
United
States
government,  as
saying that
in
future
elections,
people
would
be
marched
to
polling
stations
to
vote
for
the
ruling
ZANU-PF
party,
“whether
you
like
it
or
not.”

For
decades,
Zimbabwe’s
military
and
other
state
security
forces
have interfered in
the
nation’s
political
and
electoral
affairs
in
violation
of
citizens’
civil
and
political
rights. The
government
and
military
hierarchies
have
repeatedly
ignored
the
provisions
of Zimbabwe’s
Constitution, which
prohibits
members
of
security
agencies
from
acting
in
a
partisan
manner,
further
the
interests
of
any
political
party,
or
cause
or
violate
anyone’s
fundamental
rights
or
freedoms.

In
March,
the
US
government
renewed sanctions
against
11
individuals,
including
President
Mnangagwa,
and
three
entities
for
their
involvement
in
corruption
or
serious
human
rights
abuses.
The
announcement
noted
that
Zimbabwe’s
security
forces
had
engaged
in
the
violent
repression
of
political
activists
and
civil
society
organizations.

Proposed
Abolition
of
the
Death
Penalty

In
March,
Zimbabwe’s
cabinet
approved a
bill that,
if
passed
by
parliament,
would
abolish
the
death
penalty.
Although
Zimbabwe
carried
out
its
last
executions
in
2005,
courts
have
continued
to
impose
the
death
sentence.
There
are
currently 63
prisoners on
death
row. The Constitution  protects
the
right
to
life,
but
empowers
courts
in
limited
circumstances
to
impose
the
death
penalty
for
people
convicted
of
the
charge
of
aggravated
murder.
The
proposed
law
would
prohibit
the
imposition
of
death
penalty
in
the
country
and
would
require
the
Supreme
Court
to
substitute
the
death
penalty
on
appeal,
for
some
other
appropriate
penalty.

Sexual
Orientation
and
Gender
Identity

Section
73
of
the
2006
Criminal
Code
of
Zimbabwe
criminalizes
same-sex
sexual
activities
between
men.
Sentences
include
a
maximum
penalty
of
one
year
and
a
fine.
Article
78(3)
of
the
Constitution
prohibits
same-sex
marriage.
Lesbian,
gay,
bisexual,
and
transgender
people
frequently
face
threats,
harassment
and
violence.
In
August
2024,
two
men
were arrested
and
charged
under
sodomy
laws while
they
were
seeking
justice
for
blackmail
and
extortion.

Children’s
Rights

Child
labor remained
a serious
problem, with
children
participating
in
hazardous
work
in tobacco
farming and
other
sectors. School
fees continued
to
pose
a barrier to education. Pregnant
girls
and
adolescent
mothers continued
to
face
challenges
continuing
formal
education.

Post
published
in:

Featured