Author: TSA Press

Doug
Emhoff,
America’s
first
ever
Second
Gentleman,
will
be
returning
to
Biglaw
after
his
stint
at
the
White
House.
He

left
DLA
Piper
in
November
2020
before
his
wife,
Kamala
Harris,
assumed
the
role
of
Vice
President
of
the
United
States.
But
which
firm
did
he
land
at?

As
noted
by
the

American
Lawyer,
Emhoff
is
headed
to
Willkie
Farr
&
Gallagher
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$1,500,000,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
30
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
where
he’ll
focus
his
practice
on
business
litigation,
splitting
his
time
between
Los
Angeles
and
New
York.
“I
am
delighted
to
be
joining
Willkie,
where
I
am
looking
forward
to
working
alongside
trusted
and
innovative
legal
counselors,”
Emhoff
said,
according
to
a
statement.
“I
couldn’t
be
more
thrilled
to
join
this
talented
and
collaborative
team.”

Here’s
what

Willkie’s
leaders
said
about
Emhoff’s
decision
to
join
the
firm:

“Doug’s
leadership
and
his
service
as
a
trusted
counselor
to
many
global
business
leaders
across
a
broad
range
of
industries,
as
well
as
his
extensive
legal
expertise
and
business
acumen,
make
him
a
tremendous
asset,”
said
Firm
Chairman
Thomas
Cerabino.
“We’re
thrilled
to
be
adding
Doug
to
the
Willkie
partnership
during
this
period
of
transformational
firm
growth.”

“Doug
is
trusted
by
business
leaders
around
the
world
who
have
counted
on
him
over
the
years
as
an
advisor
and
counselor
as
they
have
navigated
some
of
the
most
complex
and
dynamic
challenges
in
high-stakes
situations,”
said
Matthew
Feldman,
Chairman
of
the
Firm.
“His
deep
knowledge
of
global
markets,
policy
and
the
law
will
be
an
invaluable
resource
to
our
firm’s
teams
and
our
clients.”

Congratulations
to
Doug
Emhoff
on
finding
his
new
Biglaw
home,
and
best
wishes
as
he
returns
to
private
practice!

Willkie
Welcomes
Douglas
C.
Emhoff
as
Partner
[Willkie]

Doug
Emhoff,
Husband
of
Former
VP
Harris,
Lands
at
Willkie
[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.

Some
see
the
legal
profession
as
more
of
a
“calling”
than
simply
a
job.
For
more
religious
would-be
law
students,
faith
is
of
such
importance
that
they
may
seek
it
out
in
their
legal
educations.
If
you’re
searching
for
an
institution
where
spirituality
is
as
important
as
the
law,
then
have
we
got
a
ranking
for
you.

The
National
Jurist’s
preLaw
Magazine
recently
released
its
Most
Devout
Law
Schools
ranking,
highlighting
the
schools
that
are
really
doing
their
homework
when
it
comes
to
incorporating
matters
of
faith
into
their
teaching
of
the
law.
For
the
second
time
in
the
history
of
this
ranking,
the
schools
are
being
presented
in
a
single
ranking,
as
opposed
to
separate
rankings
of
the
best
law
schools
by
denomination.

Here’s
the
methodology
that
was
used:

The
Most
Devout
Honor
Roll
is
based
on
information
gathered
from
law
schools
and
other
sources,
including
the
percentage
of
students
and
faculty
who
belong
to
the
faith;
the
number
of
religion-focused
courses
and
other
ways
the
school
incorporates
faith
into
its
curriculum;
religion-related
journals,
centers
and
clinics;
religious
services
and
clergy
at
the
law
school;
and
the
mission
of
the
law
school.

Without
further
ado,
here
are
the
top
10
most
devout
law
schools:

1. Liberty
   University 
   –
   Baptist
2. Brigham
   Young
   University
   –
   Church
   of
   Jesus
   Christ
   of
   Latter-day
   Saints
3. Regent
   University
   –
   Interdenominational
   Evangelical
4. Ave
   Maria
   School
   of
   Law
   –
   Roman
   Catholic
5. University
   of
   St.
   Thomas
   (MN)
   –
   Roman
   Catholic
6. Trinity
   Law
   School
   –
   Evangelical
   Free
   Church
   of
   America
7. Catholic
   University
   –
   Roman
   Catholic
8. Mississippi
   College
   –
   Southern
   Baptist
9. Pepperdine
   University
   –
   Church
   of
   Christ
10. Gonzaga
    University
    –
    Roman
    Catholic
    –
    Jesuit

Click

here
to
see
the
rest
of
the
ranking.

Congratulations
to
each
of
the
law
schools
listed!

The
Most
Devout
Law
Schools
[preLaw
Magazine
/
National
Jurist]

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.

The
term
“fascism”
and
its
conjugations
have
been
thrown
out
often
on
the
road
to
Americans
voting
for
a
second
season
of
The
Apprentice:
White
House
Edition,
but
it
is
rarer
to
see
someone
take
a
moment
to
sit
with
a
(proposed)
policy
change
and
explain
how
it
fits
into
the
conservative
revolution
happening
in
front
of
us.
In

The
14
Characteristics
Of
Fascism,
Lawrence
Britt
laid
out
—
you
guessed
it
—
14
characteristics
that
he
saw
shared
by
several
fascist
regimes.
For
now
let’s
focus
on
the
11th,
disdain
for
intellectuals
and
the
arts:

Fascist
nations
tend
to
promote
and
tolerate
open
hostility
to
higher
education,
and
academia.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
professors
and
other
academics
to
be
censored
or
even
arrested.
Free
expression
in
the
arts
is
openly
attacked,
and
governments
often
refuse
to
fund
the
arts.

This
has
been
happening
in
real
time
for
years
now.
Book
bans
and

banning
the
darker
parts
of
American
history
from
being
taught
in
classrooms
have
been
going
on
for
a
while
now,
but
the
attack
on
tenure
is
a
major
step
against
academics.
Tenure
means
nothing
if
it
doesn’t
protect
professors
from
being
fired
for
expressing
their
political
opinions.
Not
the

casual
Wikipedia-anchored
racism
you’d
expect
of
a
drunk
aunt
at
the
Thanksgiving
table
a
la
Amy
Wax,
but
legitimate,
fleshed-out
thoughts
about
the
politics
of
our
time.
Maura
Finkelstein
was

fired
for
sharing
an
anti-Zionist
post
on
Instagram
in
May
of
last
year.
Law
professor
Ken
Levy
was
recently
removed
from
his
classes
over
political
comments.
These
retaliations
didn’t
portend
well
for
the
sanctity
of
tenure,
and
the
bills
being
introduced
Texas
and
North
Dakota
definitely
aren’t
helping.

Forbes
has
coverage:

[P]erhaps
emboldened
by
the
re-election
of
Donald
Trump,
who’s
often
ridiculed
colleges
as
being
instruments
of
liberal
indoctrination,
two
states
—
Texas
and
North
Dakota
—
have
introduced
bills
that
would
ban
tenure,
and
Ohio
is
reconsidering
a
bill
that
faculty
fear
could
weaken
tenure’s
protections.

Law
isn’t
some
abstract
force
without
origin,
it
arises
from
a
need
to
regulate
and
engage
with
the
world
as
we
are
confronted
with
it.
It
is
no
surprise
that
teaching
the
law
lends
itself
to
contemporary
relevant
events.
Say
you’re
in
a
Criminal
Law
class
and
getting
cold
called
on

People
v.
Goetz.
It’s
a
1986
case
where
a
guy
on
a
train
responded
to
being
asked
for
money
by
shooting
four
people
and
claiming
self-defense.

There
was
a
clear
racial
element
to
the
case
—
Goetz
was
White
and
the
four
men
he
shot
were
Black.
During
the
trial,
he
was
hailed
as
a
hero
for
what
he
did.
It
doesn’t
take
much
of
a
stretch
of
the
imagination
for
the
fact
pattern
to
make
you
think
of
the
recent
case
where
Daniel
Penny
killed
Jordan
Neely
after
complaining
that
he
was
hungry
and
thirsty.

As
a
professor,
do
you
ask
your
students
if
the
outcome
could
have
been
different
if
instead
of
four
Black
men
Goetz
shot
four
White
women
who
were
asking
him
for
change?
If
the
jury
would
buy
Penny’s
“I
was
protecting
the
people”
argument
if
Neely
were
a
plainclothes
Biglaw
associate
who
was
going
through
a
mental
episode?
Can
you
ask
them
that?
Is
it
worth
risking
the
line
of
questioning
being
framed
as
imposing
“wokeness”
on
your
captive
students
or
forcing
opinions
down
their
throats?
Could
a
Con
Law
professor
give
their
honest
assessment
of
a
president
using
an
executive
order
to
mandate
something
that
explicitly
flies
in
the
face
of,
say,
the
Fourteenth
Amendment?
Would
that
be
a
lecture
on
the
separation
of
powers
or
a
reason
to
remove
the
professor
from
the
classroom?

On
November
26th
of
last
year,
Louisiana
Governor
Jeff
Landry
openly
called
for
LSU
professor
Nick
Bryner

to
be
punished
for
commenting
on
Trump’s
policies
and
the
people
who
voted
for
him.
This
should
read
as
an
obvious
attempt
to
stifle
free
speech
and
censor
professors
for
making
political
commentary
on
the
sort
of
material
they
are
literally
there
to
teach
on.
That
said,
the
number
of
Jeff
Landry
types
could
grow
and
gain
teeth
over
the
next
few
years
if
protections
on
campus
free
speech
continue
to
wane.

States
Once
Again
Considering
Bills
To
Ban
Or
Limit
Faculty
Tenure
[Forbes]

Earlier:

Tenured
Law
Professor
Allegedly
Removed
From
Class
Over
Political
Comments

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.

We’re
still
in
the
early
days
of
the
Trump
II
administration,
but
they’re
rapidly
remaking
the
landscape
of
the
federal
government.
Amongst
the
moves
the
administration
is
making
is
firing
a
bunch
of
career
Senior
Executive
Service
employees
in
the
Department
of
Justice
—
with
none
of
the
standard
protections
for
civil
servants.

The
president’s
authority
to
fire
career
civil
servants
is
far
from
settled,
as

reported
by
Government
Executive,
on
Inauguration
Day:

Trump

signed
a
presidential
memorandum that
emphasized
career
SESers
must
adhere
to
the
policies
of
the
administration.
It
did
not
create
new
firing
authorities—as another
Trump
order will
seek
to
do—instead
designing
a
new
oversight
system
that
allows
for
more
political
influence
over
the
nearly
9,000
SES
members’
hirings
and
performance
reviews.

The
fired
employees
are
reportedly
“considering
their
options.”

But
hidden
in
this
story
of
Trump’s
power
grab
is
a
laughable
typo.
In
the
documentation
informing
employees
they
lost
their
jobs,
there
was
an
explanation
for
the
dismissal,
which
said
it
came
from
the
president’s
power
under
“Title
II
of
the
Constitution.”
Which,
yeah,
doesn’t
exist.

Like,
come
on.
This
is
shockingly
amateur
—
it’s
the
damn
Constitution!
Even
pre-law
students
*know*
it’s
Article
II.
That
this
made
its
way
into
an
official
Department
of
Justice
document
is
wild.

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].