Author: TSA Press

Last
month,
I
presented

Part
I
of
my
written
interview
with
patent
attorney
and
host
of

Clause
8,

Eli
Mazour.
That
column
presented
his
answer
to
the
first
of
my
three
questions
and
focused
on
the
evolution
of
the
Clause
8
podcast
series.
What
follows
are
Eli’s
answers
to
my
remaining
two
questions.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
his
answers
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
his
answers
as
he
provided
them.

Gaston
Kroub:
What
has
been
notable
about
the
early
days
of
the
Voice
of
IP
newsletter?

Eli
Mazour:
I
have
ended
up
doing
much
more
original
reporting
about
the
United
States
Patent
and
Trademark
Office
(USPTO)
than
I
expected.
My
most
popular
newsletter,
so
far,
solved
the

mystery
surrounding
a
“Welcome
Letter”
issued
by
the
USPTO.
In
the
process,
I
talked
to
a
USPTO
official
and
broke
some
other
news
related
to
the
USPTO’s
current
efforts.
Other
popular
ones
broke
news
of

soaring
rates
of

Section
101
rejections
at
the
USPTO
and
USPTO’s
plans
for
new
Section
101
guidance.
I
ended
up
writing
about
these
topics
because
curious
patent
practitioners
reached
out
and
I
decided
to
look
further
into
the
topics.

The
USPTO
is
a
$4.5
billion
government
agency
that
wields
enormous
power.
As
far
as
I
know,
except
for
IPWatchdog
breaking
big
USPTO
news
and
Julie
Burke
on
LinkedIn,
there’s
no
one
constantly
looking
into
what
the
agency
is
up
to.
So,
although
the
USPTO
is
full
of
well-meaning
people,
it’s
used
to
operating
mostly
below
the
radar.
I
think
there’s
a
great
appetite
from
the
IP
community
to
know
more
about
what
is
happening
with
the
USPTO
and
why.
I’m
not
sure
if
I’ll
be
able
to
keep
breaking
news
about
the
USPTO,
but
I
want
to
continue
to
help
explain
what
the
USPTO
is
currently
doing,
shed
light
on
what
it’s
likely
to
do
in
the
future,
and
provide
practical
tips
for
dealing
with
those
developments
along
the
way.

GK:
Eli’s
reporting
on
the
scuttlebutt
out
of
the
USPTO
continues
the
storied
tradition
of
this
site’s
predecessor,
Underneath
Their
Robes,
David
Lat’s
insider
look
at
the
judiciary.
Considering
its
importance
to
today’s
IP-driven
economy,
it
is
surprising
that
there
is
not
more
coverage
of
USPTO
goings-on.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
great
that
the
Voice
of
IP
has
managed
to
fill
some
of
the
void,
which,
coupled
with
Eli’s
podcasting
prowess,
allows
readers
and
listeners
to
learn
things
about
the
IP
ecosystem
that
are
simply
unavailable
elsewhere.
I
for
one
am
looking
forward
to
more
Voice
of
IP
scoops
on
under-reported
on
IP
developments
going
forward.

GK:
What
excites
you
most
about
your
return
to
Biglaw
practice?

EM:
I’m
most
excited
about
joining
a
team
at
Foley
that
believes
in
the
value
of
patents
and
helping
clients
obtain
patents
in
the
best
possible
way.
It
has
also
been
really
cool
to
meet
and
learn
from
other
Foley
attorneys
from
very
different
practice
areas.

To
be
honest,
I
never
thought
I’d
move
back
to
Biglaw
before
my
now
colleague
Ngai
Zhang
asked
me
to
join
his
team
at
Foley.
However,
there’s
a
few
reasons
I’m
particularly
excited
about
making
this
switch
at
this
moment
in
time.

First,
over
the
last
few
seasons
of
Clause
8,
I’ve
noticed
the
best
chief
IP
and
patent
counsel
taking
a
step
back
and
asking
fundamental
questions
about
their
companies’
patent
strategies.
I
think
the
impact
of
the
great
recession
coinciding
with
the
weakening
of
America’s
patent
system
caused
many
tech
companies
to
focus
on
cutting
fees
while
continuing
to
pursue
the
same
large
number
of
patents.
To
some
extent,
their
thinking
was
that
patents
aren’t
important
but
they’ll
have
a
huge
stack
in
case
they
ever
need
to
rely
on
them.
However,
when
they
ended
up
being
involved
in
some
cross-licensing
negotiation,
litigation,
or
tricky
deal,
they
discovered
it
doesn’t
quite
work
that
way.
Huge
stacks
of
likely
worthless
patents
not
tied
to
any
implemented
technology
aren’t
any
better
in
those
situations
than
small
stacks
of
patents.
If
anything,
those
companies
wasted
more
engineers’
time
and
company
resources
obtaining
and
maintaining
those
patents.
At
the
same
time,
even
with
all
the
changes
to
America’s
patent
system,
it’s
still
possible
to
build
valuable,
relatively
reliable
patent
portfolios.

The
savviest
in-house
patent
counsel
observed
all
of
that
and
concluded
that
obtaining
patents
just
for
the
sake
of
obtaining
patents
is
the
wrong
approach.
If
the
objective
is
to
save
money,
the
best
way
to
do
that
is
not
to
file
patent
applications
altogether.
However,
if
the
objective
is
to
contribute
to
a
company’s
success,
then
the
company
needs
a
clear
vision
about
the
role
of
patents
for
the
company.
That
seems
to
be
leading
many
of
them
to
conclude
that
if
their
companies
will
be
making
the
significant
investment
internally
and
externally
to
obtain
patents,
then
they
should
focus
on
building
valuable
patent
portfolios
that
the
company
can
hopefully
rely
upon
as
expected.

So,
I
believe
there’s
a
real
appetite
for
innovative
patent
prosecution
counsel
that
knows
the
most
effective
approach
to
achieve
that
overall
strategy.
I
think
that
can
be
done
at
any
sized
firm
but
fits
well
within
a
firm
driven
by
delivering
the
best
possible
outcomes
for
sophisticated
business
clients
instead
of
just
churning
out
patents.

Second,
I’m
excited
about
how
advancements
in
automation,
AI,
and
other
technologies
will
increasingly
make
it
possible
to
efficiently
provide
the
same
types
of
legal
services
at
any
sized
firm.
I’ve
previously
enjoyed
helping
develop
and
implement
such
systems.
However,
I
do
think
there’s
a
risk
of
sacrificing
quality
by
prioritizing
relying
on
those
types
of
technologies
purely
for
time
savings
instead
of
focusing
on
leveraging
the
technology
to
provide
even
better
results.
I
think
the
latter
really
does
have
to
be
part
of
the
DNA
of
a
patent
prosecution
practice
to
sustain
that
focus
over
time.

I’m
also
looking
forward
to
helping
diverse
clients
in
a
more
holistic
way.
For
example,
I’ve
loved
providing
guidance
throughout
the
years
about
navigating
and
impacting
patent
policy
developments
at
the
USPTO,
in
Congress,
and
other
parts
of
government.
I’m
excited
about
the
possibility
of
incorporating
that
as
a
more
regular
part
of
my
practice.

GK:
As
Eli’s
answer
demonstrates,
Biglaw
firms
continue
to
offer
a
compelling
potential
home
for
forward-thinking
and
client-focused
patent
attorneys.
As
with
anything,
timing
is
of
paramount
importance
when
considering
a
career
move,
so
it’s
great
to
see
that
Foley
and
Eli
were
able
to
sync
up
at
a
point
where
Eli’s
skill
set
can
be
put
to
optimal
use
in
terms
of
providing
strategic
patent
advice
to
Foley’s
existing
and
prospective
client
base.
It
will
be
exciting
to
see
this
new
partnership
in
action
over
the
coming
years.

My
thanks
to
Eli
for
the
insights
and
cooperation,
and
I
wish
him
continued
success
and
fulfillment
with
his
return
to
Biglaw
and
the
Voice
of
IP
newsletter.
As
I
have
said
before,
it
is
always
a
privilege
to
hear
from
an
established
IP
personality,
especially
one
with
such
a
big
role
to
play
in
shaping
today’s
discourse
around
patent
issues.
I
am
always
open
to
conducting
interviews
of
this
type
with
other
IP
thought
leaders,
so
feel
free
to
reach
out
if
you
have
a
compelling
perspective
to
offer.

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.

The
summer
of
2024
was
pretty
exciting
for
summer
associates
—
after
all,
summer
programs
now
seem
to
be
back
to
the
days
of
yore,
sparing
no
expense
to
impress
would-be
associates
with
fun
times
and
fun
work,
too.
From
setting
sail
for
luxurious
yacht
parties
to
attending
the
NBA
draft
to
seeing
Hamilton
from
orchestra
seats,
this
year’s
summer
associate
experience
did
not
disappoint.

But
what
matters
most
to
summer
associates,
and
which
firms
did
they
like
best?

This
year’s
crop
of
summers
were
impressed
not
just
by
their
extravagant
outings,
but
by
the
quality
of
the
real
work
they
were
able
to
do,
and
the
bird’s-eye
view
they
got
of
life
behind
the
scenes
at
their
firms.
Here
are
some
of
the
details
from
the

American
Lawyer:

Asked
what
the
most
memorable
part
of
the
experience
was,
far
more
summers
gushed
about
the
real
legal
work
they
did
and
the
mentorship
they
got
along
the
way.
A
Debevoise
&
Plimpton
summer
said
their
most
memorable
experience
was
“royally
screwing
up
an
assignment
and
getting
some
of
the
best,
most
constructive
feedback
I
have
ever
gotten,”
the
associate
said.
“That
alone
endeared
me
to
the
firm
and
firm-life.
Showed
me
it
was
a
place
I
can
grow
in.”

Summers
also
remarked
on
firm
culture
and
work-life
balance.
Contrary
to
what
they’d
heard
in
law
school,
this
year’s
summer
associates
encountered
partners
who
achieve
a
healthy
balance
between
work,
family
life
and
hobbies.
“People
were
genuinely
happy
to
work
here
because
discussions
often
encompassed
non-work
topics
(e.g.,
hobbies,
travel
plans,
etc.),”
said
an
O’Melveny
&
Myers
summer.

With
an
average
weekly
pay
of
$4,543,
summers
were
indeed
quite
happy
with
their
firms,
with
the
median
firm
scoring
4.865
out
of
5
for
summer
associate
satisfaction.

Before
we
get
to
the
rankings,
let’s
discuss
the
methodology
used
by
American
Lawyer.
Firms
were
ranked
by
their
average
scores
based
on
the
following
categories:
partner
access
and
mentorship,
interactions
with
other
associates,
interesting
legal
work,
firms’
alignment
with
their
own
stated
goals
and
self-image,
and
whether
summers
were
concerned
with
their
mental
health
or
well-being
as
an
attorney.

Without
further
ado,
here
are
the
Top
10
firms:

1. Paul
   Hastings
2. Clifford
   Chance
3. Morgan
   Lewis
4. Baker
   McKenzie
5. Duane
   Morris
6. A&O
   Shearman
7. Fenwick
   &
   West
8. Cadwalader
9. Proskauer
   Rose
10. Blank
    Rome

Click

here
to
see
the
full
list.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
firms
that
earned
the
respect
and
appreciation
of
their
summer
associates.

Wine,
Dine
and
Grind
(Through
the
Weekend):
Summer
Associates
Thirst
For
Experience
in
‘Real
Matters’
[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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Shortly
after
releasing
a

scathing
interim
report
in
July
that
revealed
how
three
players
dominate
the
pharmacy
benefit
manager
market
and
raise
drug
costs
for
patients,
the
Federal
Trade
Commission
is
turning
its
words
into
action.

Late
last
week,
the
agency

sued
the
three
largest
PBMs
—

CVS
Caremark,

Express
Scripts
and

Optum
Rx
—
and
their
affiliated
group
purchasing
organizations
for
“engaging
in
anticompetitive
and
unfair
rebating
practices”
as
it
relates
to
insulin.
For
example,
the
PBMs
use
restrictive
drug
formularies
to
exclude
some
drugs
from
coverage,
and
demand
high
rebates
from
drug
manufacturers
to
get
their
products
on
their
formularies,
the
FTC
argues.
While
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act
already
caps
monthly
insulin
out-of-pocket
expenses
at
$35
for
Medicare
patients,
this
lawsuit
aims
to
help
everyone
taking
insulin.
 

In
its
administrative

complaint,
the
FTC
alleges
that
these
practices
violate
the
FTC
Act,
artificially
inflate
prices
and
make
it
more
difficult
for
patients
to
access
insulin.

Will
the
FTC
be
successful
in
its
pursuit
to
reign
in
PBMs?
According
to
one
legal
expert,
that
“depends
on
the
momentum
they
maintain”
moving
forward. 

“I
will
say
that
right
now
on
the
issue
of
insulin,
the
momentum
favors
the
FTC,”
said
Lucas
Morgan,
partner
in
Frier
Levitt’s
Healthcare
and
Life
Sciences
groups,
in
an
interview.
“As
far
as
I
can
tell,
they
have
a
lot
of
very
detailed
information
and
evidence
to
show
exactly
what
[the
PBMs]
did
and
why
it
was
problematic.
…
I
would
also
say
that
they
have
the
public
support
in
their
favor,
because
who
isn’t
going
to
be
an
advocate
for
lowering
the
cost
of
these
types
of
medications
that
so
many
people
rely
on?
Whether
you’re
a
diabetic
or
not
a
diabetic,
I
think
most
people
are
going
to
side
with
patients
over
large
corporations
and
their
profits.”

What
the
complaint
alleges

According
to
the
complaint,
insulin
is
the
“poster
child
of
[the
PBMs’]
broken
drug
pricing
system.”

The
complaint
explains
that
diabetes
is
one
of
the
most
widespread
diseases
in
the
U.S.,
affecting
more
than
38
million
Americans.
For
some
Americans,
insulin
is
the
only
way
they
can
manage
the
disease. 

The
medications
weren’t
always
unaffordable
either.
The
average
list
price
for
commonly
used
insulin
Humalog
was
just
$21
in
1999,
according
to
the
complaint.
In
2017,
the
price
reached
more
than
$274.

PBMs’
practices
are
largely
to
blame
for
this
increase
in
insulin
prices,
the
complaint
alleges.
CVS
Caremark,
Express
Scripts
and
Optum
Rx
administer
about
80%
of
all
prescriptions
in
the
U.S.,
and
they
have
“significant
influence
over
which
drugs
patients
can
access,
and
at
what
price.” 

About
a
decade
ago,
the
three
PBMs
created
restrictive
drug
formularies
(lists
of
preferred
and
non-preferred
drugs)
to
exclude
some
medications
from
coverage,
the
FTC
argued.
This
puts
drug
manufacturers
at
risk
of
not
having
their
products
covered
for
millions
of
Americans.
PBMs
“began
demanding
higher
and
higher
rebates
from
drug
manufacturers
in
exchange
for
placing
those
drugs
on
their
restrictive
formularies,”
the
complaint
alleges.

The
FTC
noted
that
drug
manufacturers
aren’t
blameless,
and
specifically
called
out
insulin
manufacturers
Eli
Lilly,
Sanofi
and
Novo
Nordisk.
Because
of
the
demand
for
larger
rebates,
drug
manufacturers
began
to
increase
the
list
price
of
their
drugs,
“leading
to
artificially
inflated
list
prices
that
are
disconnected
from
the
actual
cost
of
the
drugs
to
insurers,”
the
complaint
states.
Patients’
out-of-pocket
expenses
are
often
tied
to
these
inflated
prices,
as
uninsured
patients
might
have
to
pay
the
full
list
price
and
insured
patients
with
high-deductibles
or
coinsurance
may
experience
costs
based
on
the
higher
list
price.

“Although
not
named
in
this
case,
all
drug
manufacturers
should
be
on
notice
that
their
participation
in
the
type
of
conduct
challenged
here
can
raise
serious
concerns,
with
a
potential
for
significant
consumer
harm,
and
that
the
Bureau
of
Competition
reserves
the
right
to
recommend
naming
drug
manufacturers
as
defendants
in
any
future
enforcement
actions
over
similar
conduct,”
said
Rahul
Rao,
deputy
director
of
the
FTC
Bureau
of
Competition,
in
a

statement.

These
issues
go
beyond
insulin,
according
to
the
complaint.

“The
Respondents’
demand
for
larger
rebates
has
also
inflated
list
prices
for
other
critical
drugs
including
treatments
for
autoimmune
diseases
and
inflammatory
conditions,”
the
complaint
states.
“Patients
whose
out-of-pocket
costs
are
tied
to
these
inflated
list
prices
may
spend
hundreds
of
dollars
per
prescription.
In
some
cases,
the
patient
may
pay
more
at
the
pharmacy
counter
than
the
actual
cost
to
their
commercial
insurer.
In
other
words,
the
insurer
functionally
makes
a
profit
from
the
prescription,
instead
of
paying
its
share
of
the
cost.
This
turns
the
normal
insurance
model
on
its
head
with
the
sick
subsidizing
the
healthy,
rather
than
the
other
way
around.” 

A
‘baseless
action’

As
expected,
the
Big
Three
PBMs
defended
themselves
against
the
FTC’s
complaint. 

“This
baseless
action
demonstrates
a
profound
misunderstanding
of
how
drug
pricing
works,”
said
Elizabeth
Hoff,
an
Optum
Rx
spokesperson.
“For
many
years,
Optum
Rx
has
aggressively
and
successfully
negotiated
with
drug
manufacturers
and
taken
additional
actions
to
lower
prescription
insulin
costs
for
our
health
plan
customers
and
their
members,
who
now
pay
an
average
of
less
than
$18
per
month
for
insulin.”

Cigna’s
chief
legal
officer,
Andrea
Nelson,
said
the
complaint
“continues
a
troubling
pattern
from
the
FTC
of
unsubstantiated
and
ideologically-driven
attacks
on
pharmacy
benefit
managers.”
Express
Scripts
also
recently

filed
a
lawsuit
against
the
FTC,
demanding
that
the
commission
withdraw
its
interim
report
on
PBMs
released
in
July.

A
spokesperson
for
CVS
Caremark
claimed
that
the
company
has
“led
the
way”
in
driving
down
insulin
costs,
noting
that
its
members
usually
pay
less
than
$25
on
average.
The
company
also
pointed
the
finger
at
drugmakers,
stating
that
limiting
PBM
negotiating
tools
would
reward
the
pharmaceutical
industry.

“The
FTC
has
missed
the
mark
entirely.
Not
only
is
the
FTC
letting
off
the
hook
the
drugmakers
who
historically
hiked
the
price
of
insulin,
last
week’s
announcement
threatens
to
limit
the
country’s
best
counterweight
against
future
drugmaker
price
gouging,”
said
David
Whitrap,
vice
president
of
external
affairs
at
CVS
Health,
in
an
email.
“And
the
FTC
is
choosing
to
do
so
at
a
time
when
the
American
healthcare
system
is
already
grappling
with
how
to
pay
for
these
same
manufacturers’
most
profitable
drugs,
the
GLP-1s.”

Meanwhile,
one
national
pharma
lobby
group
said
the
complaint
is
“the
latest
evidence
showing
that
PBMs
use
their
control
over
the
market
to
drive
up
patient
costs
and
limit
access.”

“Rebates
and
discounts
have
lowered
list
prices
for
the
most
commonly
used
insulins
by
84%,
yet
PBMs
use
those
savings
in
the
system
to
boost
their
own
profits
rather
than
pass
them
along
to
patients,”
said
Nick
McGee,
DVP
public
affairs
at
PhRMA,
in
an
email.
“This
move
by
the
FTC
just
adds
to
the
overwhelming
echo
chamber
of
support
for
reforms
that
will
fix
the
misaligned
incentives
in
the
system
and
hold
PBMs
accountable.”

What
could
come
out
of
this?

If
successful
in
this
lawsuit,
the
complaint
notes
that
the
commission
could
call
for
the
following
relief:

• Prohibit
  PBMs
  from
  excluding
  or
  disadvantaging
  lower
  wholesale
  acquisition
  cost
  (WAC)
  versions
  of
  high
  WAC
  drugs
  from
  the
  same
  manufacturers
  when
  the
  respondent
  includes
  the
  high
  WAC
  drug
  on
  a
  formulary
• Ban
  PBMs
  from
  taking
  compensation
  based
  on
  a
  drug’s
  list
  price
• Stop
  PBMs
  from
  designing
  benefit
  plans
  that
  base
  patients’
  deductibles
  on
  the
  list
  price
  versus
  the
  net
  cost
  after
  rebates

“The
FTC’s
administrative
action
seeks
to
put
an
end
to
the
Big
Three
PBMs’
exploitative
conduct
and
marks
an
important
step
in
fixing
a
broken
system
—
a
fix
that
could
ripple
beyond
the
insulin
market
and
restore
healthy
competition
to
drive
down
drug
prices
for
consumers,”
Rao
of
the
FTC
said
in
a
statement.

Morgan
of
Frier
Levitt
noted
that
this
case
will
ultimately
be
heard
by
an
administrative
law
judge
versus
a
federal
district
court
judge,
which
could
bode
well
for
the
FTC.

“This
is
an
administrative
proceeding,
as
opposed
to
one
that’s
in
federal
district
court.
That
is
a
venue
that
favors
the
FTC
and
the
agency,
as
opposed
to
the
PBMs
and
their
GPOs,”
he
said.
“That’s
not
to
say
that
if
the
FTC
were
in
court,
they
still
couldn’t
prove
their
case
or
that
the
PBMs
and
the
GPOs
aren’t
capable
of
defending
it
in
either
venue.
Agency
proceedings
tend
to
be
more
streamlined
and
tend
to
be
a
little
more
deferential
to
the
agency.”

The
FTC
succeeding
in
this
lawsuit
is
certainly
an
outcome
that
one
pharmacy
advocacy
organization
hopes
for.

“It’s
often
left
to
the
pharmacist
to
sort
of
be
the
insurance
agent,
if
you
will,
for
the
patient
when
they
come
in
and
are
told
that
their
inhaler
or
their
insulin
is
no
longer
on
formulary,”
said
Matthew
Seiler,
general
counsel
for
the
National
Community
Pharmacists
Association.
“The
pharmacist
has
to
call
an
insurance
company
and
try
to
get
a
generic
or
some
other
equivalent
that
is
on
formulary
or
that
is
cheaper,
so
that
can
take
multiple
calls,
multiple
hours
of
time,
and
sometimes
pharmacists
are
not
able
to
do
that.
…
I’m
hopeful
that
this
action
by
the
FTC
will
benefit
a
lot
of
patients
and
the
pharmacists
that
are
trying
to
serve
patients
as
best
they
can.”

Patients
for
Affordable
Drugs,
an
independent
patient
advocacy
organization,
would
also
like
to
see
action
taken
against
PBMs,
but
stressed
that
more
is
needed
beyond
that.

“Let’s
be
clear,
this
lawsuit
is
key
but
we
cannot
let
drug
manufacturers
off
the
hook
for
their
role
in
setting
high
list
prices
for
life-saving
medication
like
insulin,”
urged
Merith
Basey,
executive
director
of
Patients
for
Affordable
Drugs,
in
an
email. 

Photo:
bong
hyunjung,
Getty
Images

*
Judge
reassigned
after
mining

In
Living
Color
for
the
jokes
best
left
in
the
90s
during
a
whole
day
of
inappropriate
remarks
because,
to
put
it
in
terms
he
might
understand,
“the
court
system
don’t
play
that.”
[ABA
Journal]

*
Big
win
for
legal
reporting
in
Idaho,
where
the
top
court
official
had
been
holding
pleadings
back
in
an
effort
to
keep
them
from
making
the
news.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
El
Chapo
lawyer
launches
music
career.
[AP]

*
Blame
US
Trade
laws
for
fentanyl.
[Reuters]

*
Alaska’s
taxing
AI
and
they’ve
got
a
pretty
good
plan.
[Law360]

*
It’s
not
really
an
answer
to
antitrust
to
spin
off
stores
into
a
new
competitor…
and
then
immediately
shut
down
that
competitor.
[Law360]

*
Lawyer
cops
to
fraudulent
Iraq
war
claims.
[Guardian]

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

On
Thursday,
which
Senator
introduced
legislation
to
expand
the
Supreme
Court
by
six
seats?

Hint:
The
likely
unsuccessful
legislation
proposal
from
the
Democratic
senator
would
also
require
a
Court
super
majority
to
overturn
federal
legislation.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

“I
have
been
clear
that
I
will
not
tolerate
the
participation
of
noncitizens
in
our
elections,”
Alabama
Secretary
of
State
Wes
Allen
said
on
August
13
as
he
announced
that
he
had
ordered
that
3,251
voters
to
be
kicked
off
the
rolls.
According
to
a

press
release
from
his
office,
Allen
ordered
the
purge
after
discovering
that
the
affected
individuals
“have
been
issued
noncitizen
identification
numbers
by
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.”

Turns
out
the
word
“have”
is
doing
a
lot
of
work
there,
since
at
least
700
of
the
affected
voters
have
since
become
citizens,
so
the
fact
that
these
people
at
one
point

had
such
an
identifier
is
irrelevant.
But
what

is
relevant
is
Section
8(c)(2)
of
the

National
Voter
Registration
Act
(NVRA),
which
specifies
a
90-day
“quiet
period”
before
the
election
in
which
states
shall
not
“clean”
their
voter
rolls.

A
State
shall
complete,
not
later
than
90
days
prior
to
the
date
of
a
primary
or
general
election
for
Federal
office,
any
program
the
purpose
of
which
is
to
systematically
remove
the
names
of
ineligible
voters
from
the
official
lists
of
eligible
voters.

According
to
calendars
—
which
are
WOKE!
—
August
13
was
84
days
before
November
5,
2024,
and
thus
Allen
was
in
flagrant
violation
of
the
NVRA.

Allen
was
promptly
sued twice,
once
by
a
coalition
of
voting
rights
groups
and
affected
voters,
and
then
last
week
by
the
Justice
Department.

The

DOJ
suit
requests
injunctive
relief
ordering
Allen
to
reactivate
the
purged
voters
and
send
them
curative
letters
explaining
that
he
screwed
up.
The
Civil
Division
didn’t
even
ask
for
Allen
to
undergo
remedial
Election
Law
for
Dummies
training.
(Although
the
court
could
order
it
sua
sponte!)

The
civilian
plaintiffs
include
Roald
Hazelhoff,
who
was
born
in
the
Netherlands
and
became
a
US
citizen
in
2022,
and
James
Stroop,
who
was
born
in
Florida
and
has
been
a
US
citizen
all
his
life.

These
are
embarrassing
errors
that
were
almost
inevitable
when
Allen

announced
in
2023
that
he
was
pulling
the
state
out
of
the
Electronic
Registration
Information
Center
(ERIC),
the
multi-state
compact
which
uses
drivers
license
and
other
data
to
compare
voter
rolls
across
states
and
eliminate
duplication
registrations.
Mumbling
nonsense
about
George
Soros’s
involvement
in
ERIC,
Allen
trumpeted
the
development
of
the
Alabama
Voter
Integrity
Database
(AVID),
which
would
do
what
ERIC
did
but
way
less
accurately.

“We
are
the
first
state
in
the
nation
to
implement
a
system
like
this,”
he
said
proudly.

AVID
seems
to
have
worked
by
combing
public
records
for
any
indication
that
a
voter
was
at
one
time
a
non-citizen,
and
then
flagging
that
person
for
deactivation.
In
the
case
of
Stroop,
he
appears
to
have
inadvertently
checked
a
box
on
an
unemployment
application
in
2021
saying
he
was
a
non-citizen.
When
the
unemployment
office
asked
him
about
it,
he
immediately
amended
his
application.
But
there
are
no
backsies
in
Alabama,
and
so
Allen’s
office
not
only
kicked
him
off
the
rolls,
but
informed
him
he’d
have
to
re-register
when
he
called
up
to
complain
about
the
purge
letter.

The
civilian
plaintiffs

advocate
a
return
to
the
pre-Shelby
County
preclearance
days:

Enter
an
order
pursuant
to
Section
3(c)
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act,
52
U.S.C.
§
10302(c),
retaining
jurisdiction
for
such
period
of
time
as
may
be
appropriate,
and
requiring
preclearance
of
voting
changes
that
the
State
of
Alabama
enacts
or
seeks
to
administer
with
respect
to
removal
of
persons
from
the
voting
rolls
on
grounds
of
alleged
non-citizenship,
as
specified
in
Section
3(c);

The
cases
have
been

consolidated
and
are
before
Judge
Anna
Manasco,
the
Trump
appointee
who

tossed
Alabama’s
racially
gerrymandered
districts
for
violating
Section
2
of
the
VRA.
That
case,
which
went
to
the
Supreme
Court
twice,
also
featured
Allen
as
the
defendant.
Seems
like
he’s
on
track
for
another
cracking
victory
this
go
round.

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It’s
so
disgraceful,
this
court,
that
it
shouldn’t
even
be
allowed
to
be
called
the
Supreme
Court.
It
isn’t.
It’s
an
insult
to
Motown
to
call
it
the
Supreme
Court.
It’s
not
even
a
court.
It’s
only
a
court
in
the
sense
that
the
court
of
Louis
the
16th
was
a
court.
Basically,
it’s
a
harem.
It’s
Trump’s
harem.

What
Biden
should
do,
not
that
you
asked,
but
when
they
passed
that
law,
that
ruling,
where
they
said
‘you’re
not
the
president,
there’s
a
king,’
which
is
what
that
ruling
is,
you
can
do
whatever
you
want,
you
can
never
be
held
responsible,
I
thought,
‘You
know,
Biden
is
still
the
president.
No
one
seems
to
notice.’
But
I
think
Biden
should
dissolve
the
Supreme
Court.

—
Author

Fran
Lebowitz,
in
comments
given
during
a
recent

appearance
on
Bill
Maher’s
Real
Time,
where
she
suggested
that
President

Joe
Biden
do
away
with
the
Supreme
Court
after
speaking
about

Trump
v.
U.S.,
the
landmark
presidential
immunity
case.
“I
always
feel
sorry
for
the
three
real
judges
on
the
court,”
she
went
on
to
tell
Maher.
“Could
you
imagine
having
to
go
to
work
every
day
with
Alito?
With
Kavanaugh?
It
must
be
horrible.”

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Federal
judges
are
some
of
the
most
unaccountable
members
of
the
government,
since
they
are
exempt
from

Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964.

Judges,
simply
put,
are
above
the
anti-discrimination
laws
they
interpret.
And
law
clerks
—
the
public
servants
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
—
lack
basic
workplace
protections.

Not
for
much
longer,
if
Congress
acts.

Thanks
to
sustained
advocacy
and
public
consciousness-raising,
last
week,
with
little
fanfare,
Congress
reintroduced
the
Judiciary
Accountability
Act
(JAA)
(House/Senate),
legislation
that
will
extend
federal
anti-discrimination
protections
to
more
than
30,000
federal
judiciary
employees,
including
law
clerks
and

federal
public
defenders.

Importantly,
Article
I
federal
courts
—
including
the
D.C.
courts,

where
I
clerked
—
are
included,
thereby
ensuring
those
who
clerk
in
courts
created
by
Congress,
for
judges
who
are
confirmed
by
the
Senate
for
terms
of
15
years
or
less,
also
enjoy
basic
workplace
protections.

The
federal
judiciary,
unlike
the
two
other
branches
of
government
and
most
private
workplaces,
is
uniquely
exempt
from
not
just
Title
VII,
but
also
from
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
the
Rehabilitation
Act,
and
the
Age
Discrimination
Act.

The
JAA
would
correct
this
injustice
by:

1. Extending
   protection
   against
   discrimination
   based
   on
   gender,
   gender
   identity,
   race,
   disability,
   and
   age;
   as
   well
   as
   whistleblower
   protection
   against
   retaliation.
2. Standardizing
   internal
   
   Employee
   Dispute
   Resolution
   (EDR)
   Plans
   in
   all
   federal
   circuits.
3. Revising
   the
   judicial
   complaint
   process
   under
   the
   Judicial
   Conduct
   and
   Disability
   Act
   so
   judicial
   misconduct
   investigations 
   can
   continue
   even
   after
   judges
   step
   down.
4. Creating
   confidential
   reporting
   channels
   for
   clerks.
5. Requiring
   the
   federal
   judiciary
   to
   collect
   and
   report
   data
   —
   publicly
   and
   to
   Congress
   —
   annually
   on
   demographics
   in
   law
   clerk
   hiring,
   outcomes
   of
   judicial
   misconduct
   complaints,
   an
   annual
   workplace
   culture
   assessment,
   and
   an
   assessment
   of
   the
   EDR
   Plan’s
   effectiveness,
   since
   quantifying
   the
   scope
   of
   these
   problems
   is
   the
   first
   step
   toward
   crafting
   effective
   solutions.

What
does
it
mean,
in
practice,
to
work
in
an
environment
that’s
exempt
from
anti-discrimination
laws?

If
you
are
a
disabled
clerkship
applicant,
judges
can
legally
refuse
to
hire
you.
As
a
clerk,
they
can
refuse
to
provide
you
reasonable
accommodations,
or
fire
you
rather
than
accommodate
your
disability.

Suppose
you
are
a
female
clerk
who,

like
me,
presents
as
“bossy”
or
assertive.
In
that
case,
the
judge
can
fire
you
—
and
you
have
no
legal
recourse
for
harm
done
to
your
career,
reputation,
or
future
earning
potential.

If
you
get
pregnant
during
your
clerkship,
or
you
have
childcare
responsibilities,
it
is

up
to
the
judge’s
discretion
whether
to
offer
any
parental
leave.
Too
often,
judges

consider
this
a
“disruption”
to
chambers
and
opt
for
the
“easier”
path
—
telling
the
clerk
to
leave.

And,
of
course,
because
the
judiciary
refuses
to
collect
and
report
any
data
on
the
demographics
of
law
clerk
hiring,
we
know
very
little
about
the
demographics
of
judges’
chambers
or
their
hiring
practices
—
except
when
judges
announce
who
they’re

boycotting
that
day.

As
long
as
judges
are
immune
from
accountability,
there
will
be
no
guardrails
in
place
to
protect
against
some
of
the
worst
human
impulses,
particularly
in
small,
secluded,
stressful,
hierarchical
work
environments
—
such
as
screaming
at
and
berating
subordinates,
throwing
things,
and
even
firing
clerks
in
moments
of
frustration
—
because
judges
cannot
be
held
legally
accountable
for
abusive
conduct.
Title
VII
sets
a
bare
minimum
for
workplace
conduct
standards
—
one
the
judiciary
falls
short
of,
even
as
judges
preside
over
Title
VII
cases
themselves.
This
exemption
also
reinforces
the
warped
idea
of
a
judge’s
chambers
as
their
little
“fiefdom”
—
where
each
individual
judge
is
hiring
coordinator,
human
resources
director,
and
DEI
manager,
even
though
they
often
lack
the
training
and
expertise
for
these
roles.

Due
to
the
dangerous
combination
of
the
lack
of
workplace
protections,
lack
of
outside
oversight
over
judges’
dealings
with
clerks
or
training
on
management
style,
and
decentralized
nature
of
the
judiciary,
the
Administrative
Office
of
the
U.S.
Courts
(AO)
and
Judicial
Conference
have
gotten
away
with
turning
a
blind
eye
to
judicial
misconduct
for
decades.
And
law
clerks
—
the
least
powerful
members
of
the
judicial
branch
—
are
typically
silenced
due
to
fear
of
reputational
harm
or
retaliation,
and

self-interest.

While
the
AO
occasionally
engages
in
signaling
mechanisms
following
high-profile
scandals
—
for
example,
making
some
window
dressing
changes
to
internal
policies
following
notorious
Ninth
Circuit
harasser
Alex
Kozinski’s
2017
resignation
—
they
seem
intent
on
riding
out
one
scandal
and
waiting
for
the
next,
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
they
have
used
the
same
stock
statement
—

claiming
that
they
have
“robust
internal
reporting
mechanisms”
in
place
—
in
response
to
news
stories
about
multiple
scandals
this
summer.

Sadly,
as
long
as
neither
Congress
nor
the
media
holds
the
Third
Branch
accountable,
by
asking
tough
questions
about
or
reporting
on
their
repeated
failures
to
ensure
safe
work
environments
for
employees
or
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct,
the
judiciary
will
conduct
business
as
usual,
rather
than
engage
in
the
hard
work
of
implementing
meaningful
reform
—
especially
if
it
would
uncover
actionable
misconduct
in
their
ranks
and
require
disciplining
their
colleagues.

I
—
and
later

The
Legal
Accountability
Project
—
have
been
sounding
the
alarm
bells
about
the
urgency
of
passing
the
JAA
since
the
bill
was
first
introduced
in
2021.

When
I
started
this
work,
few
knew
the
federal
judiciary
was
exempt
from
Title
VII,
let
alone
cared
enough
to
ask
about
the
legislation’s
status.
Now,
broad
public
awareness
and
support
extend
far
beyond
the
legal
profession.

Why
now?

This
legislation
has
garnered
renewed
attention
—
and
the
federal
judiciary,
renewed
scrutiny
—
this
summer,
in
the
wake
of
former
Alaska
federal
judge

Joshua
Kindred’s
resignation.

Kindred

resigned
in
scandal
in
July
after
a
rare
20-month

Ninth
Circuit
Judicial
Council
investigation
revealed
appalling
—
but
not
surprising
—
abuse
and
sexual
harassment
in
his
judicial
chambers.
And,
in
another
rare
move
by
the
Judicial
Conference,
the
federal
judiciary’s
policy-making
body,
even
after
Kindred
resigned,

recommended
the
U.S.
House
of
Representatives
consider
potential
impeachment
proceedings.
If
successful,
impeachment
would
bar
Kindred
from
holding
public
office
again.

This
may
also
be
why
the
JAA

garnered
support
from
Alaska
Republican
Sen.
Lisa
Murkowski,
who
has
been
vocal
about
the
need
for
reform
since

Kindred’s
resignation.
Of
course,
judicial
accountability

is
not
a
partisan
issue:
both
Democratic
and
Republican
judicial
appointees
mistreat
their
clerks,
and
both
liberal
and
conservative
clerks
are
mistreated
by
the
most
powerful
members
of
the
profession,
with
no
legal
recourse.
Yet
this
issue
warrants
a
broader
bipartisan
legislative
response.

Soon
after
Kindred’s
resignation,
back
to
back
reports
were
released
—
from
the

Federal
Judicial
Center
and
National
Academy
of
Public
Administration,
then
by
the

U.S.
Government
Accountability
Office
—
underscoring
enormous
deficiencies
in
the
federal
judiciary’s
internal
mechanism
of
“self-policing,”
the

Employee
Dispute
Resolution
(EDR)
Plan.
These
reports
highlighted
a
lack
of
standardized
processes,
metrics
for
success,
data
collection,
and
transparency
—
as
well
as
a
lack
of
training
for
the
EDR
Coordinators
and
Directors
of
Workplace
Relations
tasked
with
enforcing
the
plan
in
courthouses
nationwide.
Mistreated
clerks’
courthouse
and
circuit

points
of
contact
are
not
there
to
represent
their
interests
or
help
them
navigate
the
byzantine
reporting
and
complaint
processes.
Rather,
they
serve
as
“HR
for
the
judiciary.”

The
federal
judiciary’s
insular
insistence
on
strictly
“self-policing”
—
eschewing
any
attempts
by
Congress
at
outside
oversight
—
has
led
to
an
outrageous
lack
of
accountability
for
judges
who
commit
misconduct,
including
those
who
mistreat
their
clerks.

Sexual
and
gender-based
harassment,
discrimination,
bullying,
abusive
conduct,
and
retaliation
are
pervasive
and
unaddressed
in
the
federal
courts.
Yet
the
judiciary
has
historically
been
unwilling
to
collect
and
report
any
data
—
the
first
step
toward
crafting
effective
solutions,
nor
admit
the
scope
of
these
problems
—
let
alone
enact
the
sweeping
reforms
necessary
to
fix
them.

My
nonprofit,
The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
runs
a
nationwide

Centralized
Clerkships
Database,
compared
to
“Glassdoor
for
Judges,”
containing
over
1,300
candid
reviews
about
more
than
900
federal
and
state
judges.
I
also
spend
extensive
time
counseling
clerks
on
their
options
and
speaking
with
law
school
clerkship
advisors,
federal
judges,
and
occasionally
others
within
the
federal
courts
about
how
to
foster
transparency
and
accountability
in
judicial
clerkships
and
the
judiciary.

It’s
clear
these
problems
run
much
deeper
than
anyone
would
care
to
admit.
Clerks
who
were
bullied,
harassed,
or
terminated
(or

quit
rather
than
endure
abuse),
or
retaliated
against,
overwhelmingly
have
not
and
would
not
report
the
mistreatment
to
the
federal
judiciary,
either
under
the
EDR
Plan
or
the

Judicial
Conduct
and
Disability
Act.
Clerks
believe
their
concerns
will
not
be
taken
seriously.
And
perhaps
even
more
importantly,
they
are

not
legally
protected
under
Title
VII
against
retaliation
by
judges
—
their
powerful,
life-tenured
bosses
who
wield
enormous
power
over
their
careers
and
reputations.
When
the
stakes
are
high
and
the
likelihood
of
success
is
low,
they’re
unlikely
to
stick
their
necks
out
by
reporting
misconduct.

A
wholly
internal
mechanism
of
dispute
resolution
that
relies
on
subordinates
—
fresh-out-of-law-school
clerks,
in
their
first
legal
jobs,
totally
dependent
on
judges
for
references
and
career
advancement
—
reporting
on
their
powerful
superiors
—
life-tenured
federal
judges,
the
most
powerful
(and
unaccountable)
members
of
our
profession
—
does
not
and
will
not
work,
unless
clerks
are
legally
protected
against
retaliation.

It
is
the

height
of
injustice
that
law
clerks
—
who
support
the
daily
functioning
of
our
courts
—
lack
basic
workplace
protections.
There
is
no
better
time
to
pass
the
JAA
—
when
these
issues
are
particularly
salient
in
the
public
consciousness
—
to
finally
ensure
legal
accountability
for
judges
who
mistreat
clerks,
as
well
as
safe
work
environments
for
law
clerks.

The
JAA
is
a

forceful
step
toward
ensuring
safe,
supportive
work
environments
for
judiciary
employees
through
legal
accountability.
As
someone
who
not
only
could
have
benefited
from
these
protections
myself,
but
who

now works
to
fix
the
systems
that
failed
me
when
I
was
a
clerk, I
hope
Congress
will
make
passing
this
legislation
a
priority.

There
is
no
substitute
for
congressional
action.
Correcting
this
injustice
has
never
been
more
urgent,
as
another
class
of
eager
young
attorneys
are
embarking
on
federal
clerkships,
and
thousands
more
are
about
to
begin
the

clerkship
application
process.

We
should
hold
the
federal
judiciary
to
the
highest
ethical
standards,
not
the
lowest.
And
in
the
face
of
repeated
evidence
of
egregious
misconduct
and
repeated
failures
to
enact
change,
we
should
demand
not
just
answers,
but
action
—
from
both
the
judiciary
and
lawmakers.

Judges
should
not
be
above
the
laws
they
interpret.
And,
if
we
can
inspire
some
steely
spines
and
congressional
action,
they
won’t
be
any
longer.

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

It’s
not
a
bribe,
it’s
a
gratuity!

That
is
the
actual
argument
New
York
Mayor
Eric
Adams
makes
in
his
motion
to
dismiss
the
bribery
count
in
the
federal
indictment
unsealed
last
Thursday.

“First,
the
statute
prohibits
only
bribes,
not
gratuities,”
he
argues,
pointing
to
Count
V,
which
charges
him
with
bribery
under
18
USC
§666.
He
adds
that
“Importantly,
gratuities
come
in
two
forms:
(i)
something
‘given
after
the
fact,
as
‘thanks’
for
an
act
but
not
in
exchange
for
it,’
and
(ii)
something
‘given
with
a
nonspecific
intent
to
‘curry
favor’
with
the
public
official
to
whom
it
was
given.’”

The
argument
is
that,

yes,
Adams
accepted
free
travel
perks
and
straw
man
donations
for
the
Turkish
government.
But
that
wasn’t
connected
to
any
official
act,
and
thus
it
doesn’t
count
as
a
bribe.
And,

fine,
okay,
he
did
lean
on
the
Fire
Department
Commissioner
in
September
of
2021
to
approve
a
building
permit
so
that
the
newly
constructed
Turkish
House
would
be
open
in
time
for
Turkish
President
Erdagon’s
visit.
But
he
was
only
Brooklyn
Borough
President
at
the
time,
not
the
mayor,
having
won
the
Democratic
primary
but
not
the
general
election.
So
texting
the
Fire
Department
Commissioner
wasn’t
an
official
act,
it
was
just,
uh,
friendly
advice.
So
there
was
no
quid,
and
no
quo,
and
certainly
no
pro.

And
thanks
to
the
Supreme
Court,
it
just
might
work.

Chief
Justice
Roberts
and
his
pals
have
been
on
a
years-long
crusade
to
legalize
political
corruption.
In
2016,
they

reversed
the
conviction
of
former
Virginia
Governor
Bob
McDonnell,
who
took
money
and
favors
from
a
supplement
salesman
and
talked
up
his
product,
but
didn’t
do
any
“official
act”
to
support
him,
so
it
was

totes
cool.
In
2024,
the
conservative
justices

tossed
the
bribery
conviction
of
the
former
mayor
of
Portage,
Indiana,
who
awarded
$1.1
million
in
trucking
contracts
to
a
company
in
2013,
and
then
took
a
$13,000
check
the
following
year.

“‘[G]ratuities
after
the
official
act
are
not
the
same
as
bribes
before
the
official
act,”
Justice
Kavanaugh
wrote
cheerfully
for
the
Court’s
six
conservatives.
He
did
concede
that
“gratuities
can
sometimes
also
raise
ethical
and
appearance
concerns,”
but
then
scoffed
that
federal
regulation
would
criminalize
a
Christmas
gift
to
the
mailman,
conveniently
ignoring
the
actual
payoff
at
issue
in
the
case
before
him.

Plus
there
was
that
whole
unpleasantness
where
the
Court
ruled
that
you
have
to
let
presidents
do
crimes
or
they’ll
be
hindered
from
boldly
mounting
a
coup.
So
perhaps
it’s
unsurprising
that
Adams
is
making
this
“it’s
not
a
bribe,
it’s
a
sparkling
gratuity”
argument.
After
all,
he
did
have
the
forethought
to
begin
taking
favors
from
Turkish
government
agents
early
in
his
career,
before
he
had
anything
real
to
offer.
So
perhaps
that
will
insulate
him
from
charges
of
bribery
now,
despite
the
fact
that
the
Turkish
official
who
requested
Adams’s
intercession
claimed
it
was
“his
turn”
to
support
his
Turkish
handlers,
to
which
Adams’s
staffer
responded,
“I
know.”

Perhaps
most
amazingly,
Adams
argues
that
the
FDNY
Commissioner
was threatening
to
fire
his
subordinates
if
they
didn’t
greenlight
the
permit
for
Turkish
House,
rather
than
suggesting
that
Adams
would
fire
them
all
in
November
if
he
didn’t
get
what
he
wanted.
Maybe
Curtis
Sliwa
could
have
pulled
it
off!

In
short,
they’ve
got
chutzpah
filing
this
thing,
and
it
probably
won’t
work
with
Judge
Dale
Ho.
But
with
Chief
Justice
Roberts?

Probably.

US
v.
Adams
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

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