It
is
in
the
service
of
excellence
that
we
expand
the
Supreme
Court
bar,
and
the
people
who
are
in
court
as
litigators.
For
younger
trans
lawyers,
I
know
how
important
it
is
to
see
versions
of
yourself
reflected
in
different
spaces.
— Chase
Strangio,
co-director
for
transgender
justice
with
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
in
comments
given
to
the
ABA
Journal,
concerning
the
addition
of
more
transgender
lawyers
to
the
Supreme
Court
bar.
Strangio
made
history
in
December
2024
as
the
first-ever
openly
transgender
lawyer
to
argue
before
the
Supreme
Court.
During
his
appearance
inU.S.
v.
Skrmetti,
Strangio
shared
time
with
the
Biden
administration,
arguing
that
Tennessee’s
ban
on
gender
affirming
care
for
minors
violates
the
Constitution’s
equal
protection
clause.
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.
In
the
world’s
least
surprising
plot
twist,
the
Justice
Department
has
withdrawn
its
appeal
to
the
Eleventh
Circuit
in
the
stolen
documents
case.
And
—
don’t
stop
the
presses!
—
Trump’s
henchmen
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
have
no
objection.
This
turn
of
events
became
inevitable
on
November
5,
when
Trump
won
the
election.
But
it’s
an
exceptional
fuck
you
in
light
of
everything
that
happened
in
the
past
three
weeks.
To
refresh:
Trump’s
favorite
jurist,
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
of
the
Southern
District
of
Florida,
used
the
pending
appeal
as
justification
to
bury
half
of
Special
Counsel
Jack
Smith’s
final
report.
Her
theory
was
that
the
report
could
not
be
released,
even
in
camera,
to
the
leaders
of
the
House
and
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
lest
its
conclusions
leak
and
damage
the
integrity
of
the
trial.
Of
course,
there
was
never
going
to
be
a
trial.
Judge
Cannon
dismissed
the
case
last
summer
on
the
theory
that
special
counsels
are
somehow
illegal
—
a
conclusion
which
managed
to
elude
every
other
jurist
who
examined
it,
including
the
ones
at
One
First
Street.
That
dismissal
was
on
appeal
to
the
Eleventh
Circuit,
which
would
appear
to
divest
the
trial
court
of
jurisdiction.
But
lack
of
jurisdiction
has
never
stopped
Judge
Cannon
before!
The
Eleventh
Circuit
declined
to
intervene
to
stop
the
special
counsel
from
publishing
Volume
1,
which
dealt
with
the
election
interference
case,
or
from
sharing
Volume
2
with
Congress.
But
the
appeals
court
refused
to
tell
Judge
Cannon
to
knock
it
off,
so
she
dutifully
dove
on
the
grenade.
On
the
Friday
before
Trump’s
inauguration,
she
held
a
hearing
—
complete
with
oral
argument
by
amici,
natch
—
before
deciding
that
release
of
the
report
would
compromise
the
cases
of
poor
Nauta
and
De
Oliveira.
But
that
decision
came
after
Trump
was
safely
sworn
in,
at
which
point
the
prospect
of
anyone
seeing
that
report
was
functionally
nil.
Acting
Attorney
General
James
McHenry
fired
a
dozen
experienced
prosecutors
who
worked
on
the
special
counsel
investigation,
writing
“Given
your
significant
role
in
prosecuting
the
President,
I
do
not
believe
that
the
leadership
of
the
Department
can
trust
you
to
assist
in
implementing
the
President’s
agenda
faithfully.”
(Is
the
Justice
Department
supposed
to
be
“implementing
the
President’s
agenda
faithfully?”)
Ed
Martin,
the
interim
US
Attorney
for
DC,
is
now
investigating
the
January
6
prosecutors
for
charging
so
many
defendants
with
obstructing
an
official
proceeding
under
18
USC
§
1512,
calling
it
the
“great
failure
of
our
office,”
and
dubbing
his
quest
“Project
1512.”
Martin,
a
former
Trump
PAC
official
who
marched
on
the
Capitol
on
January
6,
seems
unbothered
by
the
fact
that
every
trial
judge
but
one
agreed
with
the
DOJ’s
interpretation
of
the
law,
and
upwards
of
100
defendants
were
convicted
by
juries
under
it.
And
no
one
expects
Pam
Bondi
to
concern
herself
much
with
28
CFR
§
600.9
and
its
mandate
that
“The
Attorney
General
will
notify
the
Chairman
and
Ranking
Minority
Member
of
the
Judiciary
Committees
of
each
House
of
Congress”
of
the
special
counsel’s
declination
decisions,
along
with
an
explanation.
She’ll
probably
be
too
busy
indicting
Jack
Smith
for
malicious
jaywalking
and
cutting
Trump
a
$100
million
check
in
his
tort
suit
against
the
DOJ
for
the
“illegal”
judicially
authorized
search
of
Mar-a-Lago.
Dismissing
the
appeal
means
the
DOJ
is
now
stuck
with
Judge
Cannon’s
fakakta
precedent
on
special
counsels.
It’s
a
small
price
to
pay
to
blow
up
the
last
vestiges
of
accountability
for
the
man
who
tried
to
mount
a
coup
to
stay
in
power.
The
Trump
administration
can
always
ignore
the
ruling
when
they
want
to
appoint
a
special
counsel
to
prosecute
Jack
Smith
—
they’re
certainly
not
averse
to
ignoring
laws
and
precedents
as
the
situation
requires.
Earlier
this
month,
Charlie
Adelson’s
lawyer
argued
that
his
client
should
be
resentenced
over
a
counting
error.
After
what
is
a
very
short
turnaround
considering
how
drawn
out
these
cases
have
been,
a
judge
has
ruled
on
if
the
bad
arithmetic
should
change
Adelson’s
sentencing.
WCTV
has
coverage:
Judge
Stephen
Everett
issued
the
order
last
week,
saying
while
there
were
two
errors
on
Adelson’s
scoresheet
it
did
not
affect
his
ultimate
sentence.
“When
the
Court
imposed
its
sentence,
it
did
not
refer
to
or
mention
the
scoresheet
at
all,
demonstrating
the
Court
was
not
relying
on
the
computation
of
the
lowest
permissible
prison
sentence,”
the
judge
wrote
in
his
order.
Due
process
is
a
vital
part
of
our
justice
system,
it
is
a
win
for
the
process
that
his
objections
were
heard
and
handled
in
a
reasonable
time
frame.
This
isn’t
the
end
of
the
overall
saga
—
Charlie’s
mother,
Donna
Adelson,
still
has
to
sit
through
being
tried
for
murder
and
conspiracy.
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.
The
federal
funding
freeze
never
rested
on
anything
approaching
firm
legal
footing,
so
when
the
administration
swiftly
issued
a
retraction
before
Judge
McConnell
of
the
District
of
Rhode
Island
was
set
to
hear
the
matter,
that
seemed
to
be
the
end
of
this
farcical
episode.
But
it
was
actually
the
beginning
of
an
even
dumber
legal
strategy
that
has
now
imploded
like
one
of
Elon’s
rockets.
All
because
the
new
White
House
Press
Secretary
decided
to
head
to
social
media
to
brag
that
the
administration
would
never
back
down
and
appears
to
have
accidentally
admitted
that
the
administration
was
trying
to
defraud
the
court
all
along.
Oops.
This
is
NOT
a
rescission
of
the
federal
funding
freeze.
It
is
simply
a
rescission
of
the
OMB
memo.
Why?
To
end
any
confusion
created
by
the
court’s
injunction.
The
President’s
EO’s
on
federal
funding
remain
in
full
force
and
effect,
and
will
be
rigorously
implemented.
That’s
the
Press
Secretary
explaining
that
they
really
only
retracted
the
memo
but
not
the
policy.
What
does
that
even
mean?
Nothing
coherent,
but
the
tea
leaf
reading
is
that
the
White
House
thought
that
it
could
bypass
the
court
challenge
if
they
just
removed
the
paper
trail.
Or
Leavitt
has
no
idea
what
she’s
doing
and
is
free
to
make
public
statements
on
behalf
of
the
administration
on
matters
before
the
courts
without
oversight
from
any
lawyers.
Either
way,
it
really
makes
you
wonder
if
any
attorneys
over
there
have
any
clue
what
they’re
doing.
And
it
didn’t
take
long
for
the
court
to
recognize
this
ploy
as
legally
meritless,
calling
out
Leavitt
specifically
in
the
process.
Judge
MCCONNELL
will
*grant*
the
restraining
order,
saying
the
withdrawal
of
the
“hugely
ambiguous”
OMB
order
is
only
a
distinction
without
a
difference
“based
on
comments
by
the
president’s
press
secretary.”
Yesterday
the
Trump
administration
attempted
one
of
the
crueler
plays
in
the
Project
2025
playbook
—
cutting
off
federal
funds
for
all
federal
public
loans,
grants,
and
other
assistance.
This
resulted
in
hours
of
chaos
and
panic
as
Americans
who
depend
on
those
federal
funds
were
thrown
into
limbo
before
District
of
Columbia
district
court
judge
Loren
L.
AliKhan
issued
a
temporary
injunction
against
the
spending
freeze.
Today
has
resulted
in
even
more
confusion,
as
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
rescinded
the
memo
that
ordered
the
spending
freeze,
but
then
Press
Secretary
Karoline
Leavitt
“clarified”
the
move:
“In
light
of
the
injunction,
OMB
has
rescinded
the
memo
to
end
any
confusion
on
federal
policy
created
by
the
court
ruling
and
the
dishonest
media
coverage.
The
Executive
Orders
issued
by
the
President
on
funding
reviews
remain
in
full
force
and
effect
and
will
be
rigorously
implemented
by
all
agencies
and
departments.
This
action
should
effectively
end
the
court
case
and
allow
the
government
to
focus
on
enforcing
the
President’s
orders
on
controlling
federal
spending.
In
the
coming
weeks
and
months,
more
executive
action
will
continue
to
end
the
egregious
waste
of
federal
funding.”
Which
is
some
prime
doublespeak,
but
it
does
appear
the
Trump
administration
is
moving
forward
with
their
plan
—
despite
the
high
likelihood
it’s
unconstitutional.
And
it’s
more
than
just
libs
that
give
the
funding
cut
the
constitutional
side-eye.
As
reported
by
The
Lever,
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
has
already
weighed
in
on
the
executive’s
ability
to
unilaterally
impound
funds
allocated
by
Congress
and
he
thinks
it’s
a
pretty
bad
idea.
Back
in
1985,
Ronald
Reagan’s
Staff
Secretary
David
Chew wanted
to
know
if
Reagan
could
impound
federal
funds
designated
by
Congress.
Roberts,
then
in
the
White
House
Counsel’s
office,
wrote
a
memo
explaining
his
legal
rationale
that
no,
the
president
can’t
usurp
Congress’s
power
of
the
purse
like
that.
In
that
memo,
Roberts
declared
that
“the
question
of
whether
the
president
has
such
authority
(to
block
congressionally
mandated
spending)
is
not
free
from
doubt,
but
I
think
it
clear
that
he
has
none
in
normal
situations.”
Roberts
added:
“We
should
discourage
Chew
and
others
from
considering
impoundment
as
a
viable
budget
planning
option.
Our
institutional
vigilance
with
respect
to
the
constitutional
prerogatives
of
the
presidency
requires
appropriate
deference
to
the
constitutional
prerogatives
of
the
other
branches,
and
no
area
seems
more
clearly
the
province
of
Congress
than
the
power
of
the
purse.”
Daniel
Schuman,
executive
director
of
the
American
Governance
Institute,
thinks
this
should
be
dispositive,
“John
Roberts’
August
1985
memorandum
clearly
articulates
his
legal
opinion
that
the
president
cannot
exceed
the
Impoundment
Control
Act
to
impound
funds
in
‘normal’
situations,
perhaps
not
in
any
circumstances.
Roberts
declares
the
power
of
the
purse
is
the
ultimate
congressional
prerogative.
Impoundment,
he
warns,
cannot
be
used
to
achieve
‘budget
goals,’
yet
the
stated
goal
of
Trump’s
OMB
Memorandum
25-13
is
for
‘advancing
presidential
priorities’
on
a
wide
array
of
issues.
There
is
no
reconciling
Roberts’
views
with
Trump’s
facially
unlawful
impoundment
directive.”
Roberts
isn’t
the
only
Chief
Justice
with
a
pretty
clear
stance
on
the
matter.
While
at
the
Department
of
Justice,
William
Rehnquist
also
thought
the
constitution
prevented
a
president
from
making
that
play:
“With
respect
to
the
suggestion
that
the
President
has
a
constitutional
power
to
decline
to
spend
appropriated
funds,
we
must
conclude
that
existence
of
such
a
broad
power
is
supported
by
neither
reason
nor
precedent,”
Rehnquist
wrote
in
1969
while
serving
as
assistant
attorney
general.
“It
is
in
our
view
extremely
difficult
to
formulate
a
constitutional
theory
to
justify
a
refusal
by
the
president
to
comply
with
a
congressional
directive
to
spend.”
Rehnquist
went
on
to
note,
“It
may
be
argued
that
the
spending
of
money
is
inherently
an
executive
function,
but
the
execution
of
any
law
is,
by
definition,
an
executive
function,
and
it
seems
an
anomalous
proposition
that
because
the
executive
branch
is
bound
to
execute
the
laws,
it
is
free
to
decline
to
execute
them.”
All
of
which
is
encouraging
for
those
who
hope
the
court
system
will
stymie
Trump’s
spending
freeze
permanently.
Hopefully
Roberts
still
feels
the
same
about
presidential
power
plays
in
2025.
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].
If
you’re
in
Biglaw,
unless
you’re
representing
Donald
Trump
or
Rudy
Giuliani,
you
generally
don’t
have
to
worry
too
much
about
getting
paid.
Huge
corporate
clients
don’t
run
away
from
their
legal
bills.
It’s
a
different
story
at
a
small
or
midsize
law
firm.
Longtime
readers
might
recall
the
story
of
how
I
got
stiffed
out
of
$40,000
after
my
first
trial
—
hilarious,
given
that
I
wasn’t
an
equity
partner
and
I
could
easily
point
out
how
it
was
100
percent
the
fault
of
someone
who
was.
When
you’re
running
your
own
shop,
though,
or
are
(understandably)
more
worried
than
I
was
about
getting
into
trouble,
you
can’t
take
a
$40k
hit.
Fortunately
there
is
a
reasonable
solution
to
this
problem,
and
it
is
easier
to
implement
than
you
might
think.
There
is
an
almost
infinite
supply
of
potential
clients
out
there
who
want
to
sue
someone
and
mistakenly
think
a
few
thousand
bucks
is
enough
to
get
somewhere
with
that.
A
large
number
of
these
folks
cannot
be
convinced
that
litigation
is
actually
a
bad
idea
—
I’ve
lost
count
of
how
many
people
I’ve
failed
to
talk
out
of
hiring
a
lawyer
—
and
they
almost
throw
their
little
war
chest
in
your
direction
at
the
outset.
Now,
that’s
fine,
it’s
a
free
country.
Those
who
have
more
money
than
sense
may
certainly
fund
a
donation
to
their
local
law
firm
should
that
be
their
desire.
The
big
problem
for
the
lawyer,
however,
doesn’t
take
long
to
surface.
Your
relatively
small
bills
for
the
first
couple
months
might
get
paid.
You
may
even
be
holding
a
large
enough
retainer
deposit
to
feel
comfortable
with
the
first
few
monthly
bills
going
unpaid.
But
at
some
point
the
other
side
is
going
to
hire
one
of
those
firms
whose
sole
strategy
is
to
spend
the
other
side
into
the
dirt,
or
someone’s
going
to
file
a
big
dispositive
motion,
or
one
of
the
million
other
things
that
can
turn
a
case
into
your
whole
life
for
a
month
is
going
to
take
place.
When
that
happens,
if
you
don’t
have
a
tremendous
retainer
deposit
comfortably
squirreled
away
in
your
trust
account,
you’re
screwed.
Ethical
rules
about
when
and
how
you
can
legitimately
withdraw
from
a
case
vary
widely
by
jurisdiction,
of
course.
Almost
everywhere
nonpayment
is
a
good
enough
justification
for
an
attorney
to
hit
the
bricks.
Yet,
you
can’t
just
abandon
a
client
on
the
intuition
that
they
are
probably
not
going
to
pay
the
current
month’s
humongous
bill
when
it
eventually
gets
sent
out,
even
if
you’ve
lived
through
that
scenario
again
and
again.
The
financial
management
of
the
aforementioned
firm
where
I
failed
to
collect
on
$40,000
was
not
what
I
would
describe
as
“responsible.”
When
I
was
new
there,
I
can’t
tell
you
how
many
times
I
participated
in
cases
in
which
we
had
to
harangue
former
clients
over
unpaid
legal
bills.
We
were
almost
never
made
fully
whole,
tons
of
firm
resources
that
could
have
been
better
applied
elsewhere
were
dedicated
to
collections,
and
it’s
not
exactly
a
marketing
win
to
be
seen
seeking
judgments
against
your
own
former
clients.
As
soon
as
I
got
enough
power
at
that
place
to
be
managing
my
own
caseload,
I
tripled
the
minimum
retainer
deposit
I’d
accept
in
order
to
open
a
new
file.
I
didn’t
bill
against
it,
just
held
it
to
cover
future
unpaid
balances,
and
the
moment
monthly
bills
were
going
unpaid
reminder
letters
went
out.
A
huge
weight
fell
from
my
shoulders.
I
never
had
to
deal
with
this
problem
again.
Sure,
if
you
turn
away
potential
clients
who
only
have
a
few
thousands
dollars
to
spend
on
what
looks
to
you
like
an
ultimately
expensive
case,
you
are
leaving
a
lot
of
money
on
the
cutting
room
floor.
That’s
a
good
place
for
it
though.
It
will
never
be
worth
the
extra
time
and
expense
of
all
the
free
work
you’re
going
to
put
into
these
cases,
and
you’re
not
really
helping
underrepresented
indigent
people
by
spending
down
their
meager
savings
only
to
have
to
leave
them
in
the
lurch
when
they’ve
run
dry.
Government
lawyers,
contingency
litigators,
in-house
counsels:
my
congratulations
on
never
having
to
deal
with
this.
But
if
you’re
the
kind
of
lawyer
who
bills
by
the
hour
and
handles
cases
that
can
get
very
expensive
very
fast,
trust
me
on
this.
Should
you
have
any
doubts
whatsoever
about
a
potential
client’s
ability
to
pay,
think
of
what
the
bill
would
be
for
the
most
wildly
expensive
month
you
can
conceive
of,
then
at
least
double
that
amount.
The
resulting
figure
is
your
minimum
retainer
deposit.
.
Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
(Photographer:
Jabin
Botsford/The
Washington
Post/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)
For
years,
Donald
Trump
was
radioactive
in
elite
legal
circles.
No
white-shoe
law
firm
would
touch
him.
Todd
Blanche
had
to
quit
Cadwalader
when
he
took
on
Trump’s
defense
in
2023
—representing
Trump
was
a
redline
for
deep-pocketed
clients
who
wanted
nothing
to
do
with
Muslim
bans
or
rape
allegations.
After
January
6,
they
definitely
didn’t
want
to
be
associated
with
storming
the
Capitol
and
toilet
bowl
nuclear
secrets.
But
now
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
will
step
in
as
Trump
prepares
another
challenge
to
his
conviction
in
the
New
York
hush
money
case.
What
a
difference
eight
years
and
a
dose
of
obsequiousness
can
make.
Unlike
eight
years
ago,
this
time
all
those
big-money
corporate
clients
got
seats
right
behind
Trump
at
the
inauguration.
The
best
strategy
the
Democrats
have
come
up
with
is
“Jesus
take
the
wheel.”
All
those
hard-charging
#Resistance
folks
have
largely
settled
into
detached
horror.
Firms
can
read
the
room
and
see
an
opportunity
to
cozy
up
to
the
ascendent
autocrat
without
fear
of
compromising
their
client
base.
The
cost
of
open
collaboration
has
gone
down,
and
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
is
wasting
no
time
cashing
in.
Robert
Giuffra,
the
firm’s
co-chair,
will
quarterback
the
effort.
Politico
reports
that
James
McDonald,
Morgan
Ratner,
Jeff
Wall,
and
Matthew
Schwartz
will
join
the
effort.
This
marks
a
turning
point
for
Trump
—
trading
in
parking
garage
lawyer
Alina
Habba
for
one
of
the
most
prestigious
firms
in
the
world.
A
real
representational
glow-up.
“President
Donald
J.
Trump’s
appeal
is
important
for
the
rule
of
law,
New
York’s
reputation
as
a
global
business,
financial
and
legal
center,
as
well
as
for
the
presidency
and
all
public
officials,”
Giuffra
said
in
a
statement.
“The
misuse
of
the
criminal
law
by
the
Manhattan
DA
to
target
President
Trump
sets
a
dangerous
precedent,
and
we
look
forward
to
the
case
being
dismissed
on
appeal.”
The
legal
foundation
of
the
hush
money
case
—
weirdly
bootstrapping
a
misdemeanor
into
a
felony
—
may
be
bizarre,
but
it’s
nonetheless
exactly
what
the
New
York
law
says.
Last
year,
I
argued
that
it
was
a
case
of
“coulda
but
shouldna”
because
it
struck
me
as
a
Catch-22
that
if
campaign
funds
couldn’t
legally
be
used
to
pay
hush
money,
it
seems
unfair
that
a
personal
payment
for
this
purpose
could
be
an
illegal
campaign
contribution.
But
despite
my
misgivings,
that
is
how
the
law
reads.
The
legislature
may
want
to
change
it
but
as
far
as
the
“rule
of
law”
goes,
Trump
violated
this
statute.
Looks
like
the
legal
profession’s
brief
flirtation
with
principles
ended
with
a
quiet
ghosting.
Less
than
two
business
weeks
have
passed
since
Donald
Trump
was
inaugurated
as
president,
but
in
that
short
amount
of
time,
the
country
has
been
thrown
into
legal
chaos
thanks
to
a
series
of
executive
orders
that
don’t
exactly
pass
the
constitutional
smell
test.
Luckily,
several
Biglaw
firms
—
including
Gibson
Dunn,
Akin,
Littler,
Brownstein,
and
Sheppard
Mullin
—
have
introduced
tools
that
can
be
used
to
keep
track
of
Trump’s
presidential
whims.
Here’s
a
brief
note
provided
by
Akin
to
describe
its
Trump
Tracker,
and
how
it
can
be
used:
The
Trump
Administration’s
executive
orders
cut
across
dozens
of
industries.
This
searchable
tool
breaks
down
the
orders
and
their
impact.
Akin
will
update
the
Tracker
as
orders
are
published
and
provide
in-depth
analysis
of
specific
orders.
(Screenshot
via
Akin)
Tools
like
these
will
certainly
come
in
handy
over
the
course
of
the
next
four
years.
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.
Chiwenga
who
is
acting
in
Mnangagwa’s
absence
on
leave,
recently
warned
corrupt
individuals
within
the
ruling
ZANU
PF
party,
accusing
them
of
enriching
themselves
through
ill-gotten
gains.
He
made
these
remarks
at
the
burial
of
former
Deputy
Chief
Secretary
to
the
President
and
Cabinet,
Justin
Mupamhanga,
at
the
National
Heroes
Acre
on
Monday.
In
his
speech,
Chiwenga
referenced
individuals
who,
during
the
liberation
struggle,
were
known
as
“zvigananda,”
a
term
used
to
describe
people
who
had
gained
wealth
through
dishonest
means.
Chiwenga
said
the
founding
principles
of
Zimbabwe
were
based
on
equal
opportunities
for
all,
not
for
those
who
profit
from
corruption
and
looting.
He
said:
We
all
swore
to
a
shared
future
in
which
everyone
had
a
place
on
the
table,
a
place
in
the
sun,
for
a
culture
of
equal
opportunity
where
every
Zimbabwean
served
in
equal
measure.
Zveubvanzu
ubvanzu
kudya
kwemhumi
takazviramba.
Our
Vision
2030
is
for
all
of
us,
kwete
dzamunoti
mbinga,
kuhondo
taizviti
zvigananda,
those
who
grow
big
tummies
through
ill-gotten
wealth
and
questionable
morals.
Some
interpreted
this
as
a
thinly
veiled
reference
to
Chivayo,
who
has
been
accused
of
amassing
large
sums
from
inflated
state
tenders.
In
a
statement
posted
on
his
social
media
pages
on
Wednesday,
Chivayo
responded,
declaring
that
he
would
not
be
“moved
by
nor
shaken
by
any
veiled
threats
from
failed
politicians.”
He
wrote:
I
will
always
support
President
E.D.
Mnangagwa
and
ZANU
PF’s
vision,
and
no
individual,
Big
or
Small,
can
instill
fear
in
me
to
decide
otherwise.
I
will
neither
be
moved
by
nor
shaken
by
any
veiled
threats
from
failed
politicians.
In
the
same
statement,
Chivayo
also
denied
any
involvement
in
a
letter
allegedly
written
by
him,
which
reportedly
requested
local
banks
to
permit
him
to
withdraw
up
to
US$20
million
per
month
for
various
transactions.
In
2005,
Chivayo
was
convicted
of
money
laundering.
He
received
a
five-year
prison
sentence,
with
two
years
suspended.
The
case
involved
R837,000,
which
was
part
of
the
proceeds
of
a
crime.
Douglas
Mahiya,
the
ZANU
PF
Secretary
for
War
Veterans,
Ex-Political
Prisoners,
Detainees,
and
Restrictees,
has
criticized
ZANU
PF
Central
Committee
member
and
fellow
war
veteran
Blessing
Runesu
Geza
for
opposing
the
party’s
plans
to
amend
the
Constitution,
which
would
allow
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
to
run
for
a
third
term.
Douglas
Mahiya
On
Sunday,
January
26,
Geza,
along
with
five
other
veterans,
publicly
called
for
Mnangagwa
to
step
down,
declaring
that
he
was
“not
fit
to
run
this
country.”
The
group
also
rejected
any
changes
to
the
Constitution
and
dismissed
Mnangagwa’s
assurances
that
he
had
no
intentions
of
staying
in
power
beyond
2028.
In
an
interview
with The
Herald in
Harare
on
Tuesday,
Mahiya
dismissed
their
position
as
part
of
a
“foreign
agenda”
aimed
at
sowing
discord
within
the
party.
Said
Mahiya:
ZANU
PF
will
not
listen
to
misguided
elements.
Cde
Geza’s
sentiments
do
not
represent
the
position
of
war
veterans.
They
are
advancing
the
interests
of
their
handlers,
who
are
yet
to
be
identified.
This
is
a
foreign
agenda
meant
to
cause
disharmony
within
the
party.
Once
a
decision
is
made
at
the
conference
or
congress,
war
veterans
cannot
oppose
it.
The
decision
of
the
majority
will
stand.
At
the
conference
held
in
Bulawayo
in
October
2024,
ZANU
PF
passed
a
resolution,
Resolution
Number
1
from
the
21st
National
People’s
Conference,
to
amend
the
Constitution
for
the
President
to
remain
in
office
until
2030.
Kathryn
