Author: TSA Press

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
three
U.S.
cities
have
played
home
to
the
Supreme
Court?

Hint:
Not
counting
the
nearby
homes
and
taverns
they
used
in
the
1800s
when
construction
forced
them
to
find
temporary
meeting
spots,
the
Supreme
Court
has
met
in
five
building
cross
these
three
cities.

See the
answer
on
the
next
page.

With
the
election
right
around
the
corner,
the
National
Police
Accountability
Project
(NPAP),
a
non-profit
dedicated
to
ending
law
enforcement
abuse
through
legal
action
and
educational
programming,
has
prepared
a
detailed
breakdown
of
where
each
presidential
candidate
stands
on
key
areas
of
law
enforcement
regulation.
Reviewing
five
categories
of
reform
—
accountability,
independent
oversight,
transparency,
conditions
of
confinement,
and
reducing
contact
with
the
police
—
the
organization
presents
a
fact-based
and
nonpartisan
review
of
the
candidates
without
taking
sides.

I,
on
the
other
hand,
am
happy
to
get
a
little
pushy
with
my
analysis
of
these
records.

First,
let’s
check
out
what
NPAP
has
to
say
about
VP
Harris
on
the
subject
of
accountability:

While
in
Congress,
she
co-authored
the
first
draft
of
the
George
Floyd
Justice
in
Policing
Act,
which
would
increase
accountability
for
law
enforcement
misconduct
and
enhance
pathways
for
victims
to
seek
justice.

Harris
supports
limiting
qualified
immunity
as
a
defense
to
liability
and
lowering
the
criminal
intent
standard—from
willful
to
knowing
or
reckless—to
convict
a
law
enforcement
officer
for
misconduct
in
a
federal
prosecution.

Harris
also
supports
the
prevention
and
remedy
of
racial
profiling
by
law
enforcement,
as
well
as
limiting
unnecessary
use
of
force
and
restricting
dangerous
practices,
including
no-knock
warrants,
chokeholds,
and
carotid
holds.
She
has
also
rejected
the
arming
of
police
agencies
with
military
equipment.

Qualified
immunity
continues
to
be

the
world’s
most
destructive
scrivener’s
error.
Whenever
cops

light
a
man
on
fire
and
avoid
legal
repercussions,
it
undermines
public
faith
in
the
whole
institution.
While
there
are
occasional
outliers
where
bad
cops
face
prosecution,
the
headline-grabbing
exceptions
largely
prove
the
rule.

Meanwhile…

Donald
Trump
supports
reducing
liability
for
police
officers,
including
strengthening
qualified
immunity
and
increasing
penalties
for
assaults
on
law
enforcement.

Trump
would
give
police
more
authority
and
has
been
vocal
in
his
support
of
the
use
of
violent
force.
He
notably
pledged
to
militarize
local
police
departments
and
threatened
to
send
in
the
National
Guard
and
federal
prosecutors
in
response
to
protests
and
“high-crime”
areas.
During
the
Trump
Presidency,
the
ACLU​​
filed
more
than
430
legal
actions
against
the
administration,
including
lawsuits
aimed
at
defending
the
right
to
protest
against
police
brutality
and
stopping
mass
surveillance
by
law
enforcement.

Up
there
with
“can
God
create
a
boulder
so
big…”
on
the
list
of
paradoxical
questions
has
to
be
“can
qualified
immunity
be
strengthened
and
still
be

qualified?”
Today’s
immunity
jurisprudence
runs
right
up
to
the
line
on
absolute
immunity.
Any
further
and
cops
could
just
shoot
people
on
Fifth
Avenue
and
get
away
with
it,
which
is
admittedly
Trump’s
vision.

On
the
subject
of
independent
oversight:

Harris
supports
the
federal
establishment
of
uniform
accreditation
standards
for
law
enforcement
agencies
that
would
require
law
enforcement
officers
to
complete
training
on
racial
profiling,
implicit
bias,
and
the
duty
to
intervene
in
cases
of
excessive
force
by
another
officer.
She
supports
federal
oversight
of
police
agencies
who
present
a
pattern
and
practice
of
misconduct
as
well
as
administrative
subpoena
power
to
the
DOJ
In
these
investigations.

Trump
has
no
corresponding
section
here,
though
he
probably
would
nationalize
the
cops
to
pursue
immigrants
or
the
“enemy
within”
which
is
a

kind
of
oversight.

But
this
brings
us
to
Trump’s
stance
on
transparency,
which
might
add
insight
to
this
rejection
of
any
role
for
federal
law
enforcement:

During
his
time
as
President,
Trump
cast
doubt
on
federal
monitoring
of
local
departments
and
suggested
in
2023
that
Congress
should
“defund
the
DOJ
and
FBI”
for
their
role
in
investigating
him.
He
has
expressed
he
believed
that
body-worn
cameras
should
not
be
required,
but
rather
up
to
the
individual
officer’s
discretion.

Another
important
indicator
for
Trump’s
stance
on
accountability
is
his
endorsement
by
police
unions,
one
of
the
most
powerful
and
vocal
opponents
of
reform,
accountability,
and
transparency
for
police
officers
across
the
country.

Meanwhile,
Harris
seems
a
lot
more
supportive
of
a
DOJ
role:

Harris
supports
the
development
of
a
national
police
misconduct
registry
and
would
establish
new
reporting
requirements,
including
on
the
use
of
force,
officer
misconduct,
and
routine
policing
practices
(e.g.,
stops
and
searches).

Harris
is
supportive
of
body
worn
cameras,
which
were
introduced
under
her
watch
in
California,
though
she
refused
to
support
statewide
standards
regulating
their
use.

During
her
time
as
the
Attorney
General
of
California,
Harris
was
criticized
for
not
using
her
office
to
investigate
police
shootings,
rejecting
legislation
that
would
have
mandated
her
office
investigate
all
fatal
police
shootings.
There
have
also
been
criticisms
of
her
decision
to

uphold
wrongful
convictions,
especially
those
secured
through
official
misconduct.

Candidates
can
evolve
and
her
role
as
California
AG
carried
different
institutional
demands
than
serving
as
president,
but
there’s
some
dissonance
in
calling
for
more
accountability
and
pushing
back
on
qualified
immunity
while
having
a
demonstrated
record
of
pushing
back
against
efforts
to
investigate
police
misconduct
or
question
wrongful
convictions.

Prison
is
an
awful
place
to
end
up,
but
government
leaders
can
set
the
tone
for
how
America
incarcerates
people:

In
her
2020
campaign
for
President
she
promised
to
end
federal
mandatory
minimum
sentences
and
to
end
solitary
confinement
and
cash
bail.
She
has
been
silent
on
these
issues
in
her
2024
campaign.
She
has
also
refused
to
comment
on
her
previous
promise
to
close
private
prisons
and
detention
facilities.

Under
her
watch,
the
Attorney
General’s
office
argued
against
releasing
incarcerated
individuals
who
were
eligible
for
early
release
because
the
state
needed
their
cheap
labor
to
fight
California
wildfires.
Harris

claimed
at
the
time
that
she
was
not
aware
of
her
office’s
stance.

Pulling
back
from
her
2020
pledges
leaves
the
electorate
a
little
in
the
dark.
Private
prisons
would,
one
would
think,
be
the
easiest
stance
to
take
because
even
law
and
order
folks
question
the
idea
of

a
private
company
suing
the
state
for
not
having
enough
prisoners.
It
offends
even
the
most
hardcore
that
taxpayers
should
be
on
the
hook
to
pay
corporations
when
crime
goes
down.

But
then
again,
I
don’t
understand
how
ending
cash
bail
is
controversial
since,
if
someone
is
eligible
for
cash
bail,
it’s
someone
who’s

already
getting
out
of
jail
if
they
have
enough
money
to
pay
a
bond.
Once
someone
is
designated
not
enough
threat
to
be
kept
in
jail,
there’s
no
need
to
artificially
run
up
a
bunch
of
fees
on
them
to
get
a
bond.
Yet
“ending
cash
bail”
is
a
mantra
all
over
local
campaign
ads
despite
no
one
making
a
coherent
argument
why
it’s
therefore
OK
to
let
someone
out
as
long
as
they
have
$500
that
the
government
will
end
up
refunding
anyway.

Trump
has
promised
to
accelerate
mass
incarceration
by
directing
federal
prosecutors
to
seek
the
most
serious
charges
and
maximum
sentences.
Within
carceral
settings,
he
has
proposed
punitive
policies,
including
the
continuation
of
solitary
confinement
and
the
elimination
of
restoration
programs.
He
has
expressed
he
does
not
believe
incarcerated
individuals
should
retain
the
right
to
vote.
He
has
expressed
support
for
the
continuation
of
contracts
with
private
jail
and
prison
operators.

He
might
need
to
personally
reconsider
whether
or
not
felons
should
vote.

When
it
comes
to
reducing
contact
with
police:

Harris
has
a
mixed
record
on
criminalization.
Harris
has
said
she
regrets
her
support
of
truancy
prosecution
as
California
Attorney
General,
which
criminalized
the
parents
of
children
who
missed
school.
She
has
vocally
opposed
the
criminalization
of
abortion
and
co-sponsored
a
bill
to
reclassify
marijuana’s
addiction
level
and
its
criminal
consequences
to
less
than
that
of
heroin.

On
the
other
hand,
she
has
also
supported
criminalization
efforts
with
damaging
consequences.
On
the
campaign
trail,
Harris
has
shifted
to
positioning
herself
as
pro-immigration
to
pledging
restrictive
immigration,
asylum,
and
border
policies.
She
co-sponsored
FOSTA/SESTA
to
limit
sex
work
online,
which
advocates
say
have
resulted
in
sex
workers
being
forced
into
more
dangerous
work
on
the
streets.

Harris
has
long
touted
her
prosecutorial
outlook.
And
when
she
laughs
about
criminalizing
single
working
moms
to
solve
truancy
or
going
after
sex
workers
as
a
roundabout
answer
to
trafficking,
it
normalizes
the
idea
that
we
live
in
a
world
of
nails
and
the
criminal
justice
system
should
be
the
hammer.
The
Overton
Window
(at
the
risk
of
oversimplification,
the
idea
that
folks
generally
accept
as
“reasonable”
a
point
between
the
extremes
set
by
the
two
parties)
is
real,
and
it’s
deeply
problematic
that
the
left
pole
is
getting
set
at
“arrest
more
people.”

That
said…

Trump
has
voiced
support
for
outdated
policing
strategies
including
“stop
and
frisk,”
eliminated
in
many
cities
for
racial
profiling.
This
and
other
aggressive
policing
strategies
would
increase
civilian
interactions
with
the
police,
therefore
increasing
the
likelihood
of
violence
and
fatalities
for
all
involved.

Trump
has
advocated
for
sending
drug
users
to
prison
for
simple
possession,
where
overdose
and
withdrawal
deaths
are
already
on
the
rise.
He
has
also
stated
he
wants
to
move
the
unhoused
out
of
cities,
a
process
that
would
likely
involve
unnecessary
and
violent
law
enforcement
interaction
with
a
community
that
is
above
all
in
need
of
housing
and
care.

Trump
supports

criminalizing
transgender
youth
for
participating
in
sports
and/or
seeking
gender-affirming
care,
a
stance
that
introduces
police
into
the
lives
of
children
and
their
parents
in
what
should
be
personal
and
medical
choices.

A
cornerstone
of
Trump’s
campaign
has
been
his
promise
to
criminalize
both
legal
and
illegal
immigrants.
Trump
promises
to
restrict
legal
immigration,
including
a
ban
on
travelers
from
some
Muslim
countries.
He
has
stated
he
would
eliminate
asylum
for
undocumented
immigrants
and
would
initiate
mass
deportations,
including
those
that
do
not
require
due
process.

Just
because
the
Overton
Window
is
moving
toward
expanding
the
reach
of
criminal
prosecution
doesn’t
mean
we
shouldn’t
still
support
the
less
fascist
option.
I
harbor
deep
reservations
about
Harris
based
on
her
lengthy
record
in
this
space…
but
I’m
also
not
going
to
embrace
an
authoritarian
crackdown
just
because
the
other
candidate
is
a
regressive
prosecutor.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Boris
Epshteyn
is
an
attorney
and
MAGA-land
fixture
—
who

may
or
may
not
actually
represent
the
former
president
Donald
Trump.
He
even
made
a
pitstop
in
Biglaw
(Milbank)
before
turning
to
politics.
But
he’s
making
headlines
for
some
unconventional
advice
—
some
might
even
say
it’s
downright
dangerous.

As

reported
by
the
New
York
Times,
a
memo
being
pushed
by
Epshteyn
is
circulating
in
the
GOP
contender’s
circle
suggesting
that,
if
elected,
Trump
do
away
with
FBI
checks
for
appointees
needing
security
clearance
instead
farming
the
job
to
private
security
firms.

But
it
would
allow
him
to
quickly
install
loyalists
in
major
positions
without
subjecting
them
to
the
risk
of
long-running
and
intrusive
F.B.I.
background
checks,
potentially
increasing
the
risks
of
people
with
problematic
histories
or
ties
to
other
nations
being
given
influential
White
House
roles.
Such
checks
hung
up
clearances
for
a
number
of
aides
during
Mr.
Trump’s
presidency,
including
Mr.
Trump’s
son-in-law
Jared
Kushner
and
Mr.
Epshteyn
himself.

Well,
we
wouldn’t
want
a
potential
Epshteyn
White
House
Counsel
role
being
held
up
by
something
like
an

indictment
in
the
Arizona
fake-elector
scheme.

The
potential
for
everything
with
this
plan
to
go
pear-shaped
was
quickly
noted.

As
the
Times
is
quick
to
point
out,
Trump
hasn’t
explicitly
backed
the
proposal.
And
when
asked
about
it,
Trump
spokesperson

Steven
Cheung
responded
with
a
doublespeak
attack
on
Democrats
instead
of
just
responding.

Asked
about
the
proposal,
Steven
Cheung,
a
spokesman
for
the
Trump
campaign,
responded
with
an
attack
on
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris,
saying
she
and
Democrats
“have
weaponized
the
Department
of
Justice
to
attack
President
Trump
and
his
supporters”
and
that
Mr.
Trump
would
use
“the
full
powers
of
the
presidency”
to
build
his
administration
starting
on
Inauguration
Day.

And
let’s
be
clear
—
in
a
sane
timeline,
the
spokesperson
of
a
major
party’s
presidential
nominee
would
quickly
and
loudly
just
deny
it
because
eliminating
law
enforcement’s
role
in
security
clearances
is
patently
absurd.
But
that
is
not
the
world
we
live
in,
and
this
is
far
from
the

most
ridiculous
and
authoritarian
thing
Donald
Trump
will
do
if
elected
next
week.

---

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].

This
statement
follows
comments
from
prominent
lawyer
Advocate
Thabani
Mpofu,
who
said
on
Monday
that
the
ZiG
lost
its
legal
tender
status
on
October
4,
when
the
law
that
established
it
expired.
He
said:

As
of
October
4,
2024,
the
statutory
instrument
that
introduced
the
ZIG
currency
expired
without
extension.
Consequently,
from
October
5,
2024,
the
ZIG
ceased
to
be
a
valid
currency
in
Zimbabwe,
leaving
the
US
dollar
as
the
sole
currency.

In
a
belated
but
incompetent
attempt,
authorities
tried
to
revive
the
ZIG
through
the
Finance
Act
on
Sunday,
October
27,
2024
(This
had
been
hinted
on
in
the
Friday
Gazette
but
the
Act
had
not
been
published).
However,
this
effort
was
futile
since
the
ZIG
had
already
lost
its
validity.

Moreover,
Section
21
of
the
Finance
Act’s
attempt
to
retroactively
validate
the
ZIG
is
unlawful,
as
it
contradicts
Section
6
of
the
Presidential
Powers
(Temporary
Measures)
Act.

The
explicit
reference
to
the
expired
statutory
instrument
in
Section
21
only
reinforces
this
illegality
in
that
it
establishes
the
connection
between
the
S.I.
and
the
Act
(A
clever
person
would
have
avoided
that
connection).

However,
in
a
statement
issued
on
Monday
evening,
the
RBZ
said
the
ZiG
was
established
through
Presidential
Powers
(Temporary
Measures)
under
S.I.
60
of
2024,
representing
a
one-time
act
of
currency
reform.

The
Central
Bank
insisted
that
currency
reform
measures
do
not
expire
simply
because
the
legal
instrument
that
initiated
them
has
lapsed.
Reads
the
statement:

The
Reserve
Bank
of
Zimbabwe
wishes
to
advise
the
public
and
all
stakeholders
that
there
is
no
gap
at
law
regarding
the
Zimbabwe
Gold
currency.

The
Zimbabwe
Gold
currency,
(ZiG)
was
established
through
Presidential
Powers
(Temporary
Measures)
proclaimed
under
S.I
60
of
2024,
which
constitutes
a
one-time
act
of
currency
reform.

Currency
reform
measures
by
their
nature
do
not
lapse
simply
because
the
instrument
that
introduced
the
reforms
has
lapsed.

The
lapsing
of
the
Presidential
Temporary
Powers
that
established
the
currency
does
not,
therefore,
create
a
gap
in
the
law.
Legally,
currency
reform
measures
are
only
revoked
by
another
legal
instrument.

Meanwhile,
it
should
be
noted
that
The
Finance
Act
which
has
since
been
gazetted
into
law,
simply
declares
the
provisions
of
S.I
60
of
2024
and
is
not
meant
to
validate
them.

Thus,
ZiG
remains
the
country’s
legal
tender,
and
the
Reserve
Bank
will
continue
to
consolidate
its
use
and
stability.

Meanwhile,
Corban
Madzivanyika,
the
Member
of
Parliament
for
Mbizo
and
a
member
of
the
CCC,
has
called
on
the
RBZ
to
clarify
the
basis
for
its
assertion
that
currency
reform
measures
can
only
be
revoked
by
another
legal
instrument. He
said:

Kindly
specify
the
law
that
allows
currency
reform
measures
to
remain
in
force
even
after
the
expiry
of
the
Presidential
powers
(Temporary
measure)
SI
60
of
2024.
Which
law
says
currency
reform
measures
can
only
be
revoked
by
another
legal
instrument?
Explain
well
to
us.

Post
published
in:

Business