Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
According
to
Leopard
Solutions’
Feb.
2025
Law
Jobs
Report,
total
open
jobs
increased
by
how
much
year
over
year?
Hint:
Leopard
reports
a
strong
job
market
with
firms
actively
expanding
their
workforce
or
replacing
talent
at
an
accelerated
clip.
See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.
NSA
cybersecurity
Rob
Joyce
testifies
to
Congress
in
2021
(Al
Drago/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images
WASHINGTON
—
The
former
leader
of
the
National
Security
Agency’s
unit
dedicated
to
cracking
foreign
computer
systems
warned
lawmakers
today
that
the
potential
mass
firings
of
probationary
federal
employees
would
have
bleak
consequences
for
the
country’s
cybersecurity
posture,
especially
when
contending
with
malicious
cyber
activity
from
the
People’s
Republic
of
China
(PRC).
“I
want
to
raise
my
grave
concerns
that
the
aggressive
threats
to
cut
US
government
probationary
employees
will
have
a
devastating
impact
on
[US]
cybersecurity
and
our
national
security,”
Rob
Joyce,
former
director
of
cybersecurity
at
the
NSA
and
ex-chief
of
the
agency’s
elite
Tailored
Access
Operations
unit,
told
the
House
Select
Committee
on
the
Chinese
Communist
Party.
“At
my
former
agency,
remarkable
technical
talent
was
recruited
into
developmental
programs
that
provided
intensive,
unique
training
and
hands-on
experience
to
cultivate
vital
skills,”
Joyce
said.
“Eliminating
probationary
employees
will
destroy
a
pipeline
of
top
talent
essential
for
hunting
and
eradicating
PRC
threats.”
In
line
with
efforts
by
the
Department
of
Government
Efficiency
(DOGE),
overseen
by
billionaire
Elon
Musk,
the
Trump
administration
previously
ordered
a
vast
swath
of
probationary
employees
across
several
federal
government
agencies
be
let
go,
before
apparently
pulling
back
on
that
directive
Monday
after
a
federal
judge
froze
the
original
order.
While
the
National
Security
Agency
and
its
military
counterpart,
US
Cyber
Command,
did
not
immediately
respond
to
Breaking
Defense’s
request
for
comment
on
the
status
of
probationary
employees
at
their
respective
organizations,
the
firings
already
hit
another
cybersecurity
entity,
the
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency
under
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security,
where
130
employees
were
let
go,
according
to
CBS
News.
The
White
House
National
Security
Council
also
did
not
immediately
respond
to
a
request
for
comment
for
this
report.
At
today’s
hearing,
Rep.
Shontel
Brown,
D-Ohio,
echoed
Joyce’s
animosity
toward
the
mass
firings,
saying
that
“the
recent
efforts
by
the
Trump
administration
and
DOGE
to
reduce
the
number
of
government
employees
actively
working
on
our
cyber
security
defenses
are
not
just
misguided,
they
are
dangerous.”
Also
testifying
was
Laura
Galante,
the
former
director
of
the
Cyber
Threat
Intelligence
Integration
Center
in
the
Office
of
the
Director
of
National
Intelligence.
She
specifically
emphasized
the
vitality
of
CISA’s
work
in
protecting
the
US
cyber
missions.
“The
work
that
CISA
does
and
the
[cybersecurity]
advisories
that
go
out
with
numerous
agency
seals
on
them
as
a
voice
from
the
US
government
about
what
needs
to
be
protected,
have
a
powerful
message
to
our
allies
and
to
other
entities
looking
for
advice
on
what
they
need
to
patch
and
do
in
their
systems.
It’s
a
critical
function,
and
it’s
something
that
CISA
has
made
real
strides
in
over
the
last
several
years,”
she
said.
“This
will
be
a
significant
blow
to
the
people
who
have
come
in
over
the
last
several
years
or
who
have
waited
on
clearances
sometimes
upwards
of
a
year
or
more
to
come
in
for
technically
important
roles
where
training
is
limited
on
the
outside
and
they’re
doing
core
work
to
secure
US
networks,”
she
added.
Apart
from
the
immediate
national
security
concerns
the
firings
pose,
Joyce
said
they
will
have
lasting
effects
on
the
national
security
community’s
ability
to
recruit
talent.
“Even
if
the
positions
are
not
eliminated,
the
pervasive
uncertainty
and
doubt
in
the
current
environment
is
forcing
them
to
seek
secure
opportunities
for
families
outside
national
security
—
we
need
this
talent
to
win
in
competition
and
conflict,”
he
said.
Today’s
hearing
coincided
with
an
announcement
by
the
Justice
Department
that
the
US
government
had
charged
12
Chinese
“contract
hackers”
with
allegedly
working
at
the
behest
of
the
Chinese
government
to
break
into
several
international
targets
including
“foreign
ministries
of
multiple
governments
in
Asia,
and
U.S.
federal
and
state
government
agencies,
including
the
US
Department
of
Treasury
[…]
in
late
2024.”
(The
Chinese
government
has
consistently
denied
that
it
conducts
hacking
operations.)
Political
affiliations
can
complicate
hearing
messages
about
decorum
and
establishing
what
the
proper
consequences
to
violating
norms
are.
Al
Green
managed
to
smuggle
a
spine
in
to
Trump’s
address
to
Congress,
and
Republicans
promptly
got
him
up
out
of
there.
Democrats
did
nothing
when
Marjorie
Taylor
Greene
and
Lauren
Boebert
heckled
Biden
during
one
of
his
States
of
the
Union
—
because
again,
spineless
—
but
it
goes
to
show
how
important
it
can
be
to
try
and
nip
outbursts
in
the
bud
before
they
flower
into
a
media
cycle
talking
point.
At
least
in
theory.
Texas’s
Chief
Justice
tried
to
do
just
that.
Bloomberg
Law
has
coverage:
The
State
Bar
of
Texas
is
taking
Texas
Supreme
Court
Chief
Justice
Jimmy
Blacklock’s
(R)
public
scolding
stoically.Blacklock
warned
the
State
Bar
to
“remain
completely
politically
neutral”
at
his
first
state
of
the
judiciary
address
on
Feb.
26.
“The
Supreme
Court
will
accept
nothing
less
from
the
State
Bar,
and
we
expect
the
Bar
to
live
up
to
that
high
standard,”
he
said,
offering
little
in
the
way
of
specific
concerns.
Abstractly,
this
all
reads
above
board.
However,
the
vagueness
of
the
warning
makes
you
wonder
what
Justice
Blacklock
had
in
mind
as
examples
of
the
Bar
having
a
political
bent.
The
Bar’s
involvement
in
trying
to
discipline
Ken
Paxton,
Brent
Webster,
and
Sidney
Powell
come
to
mind,
but
it
is
hard
to
believe
that
trying
to
prevent
an
election
from
being
stolen
is
purely
a
Democrat
concern.
If
it
is,
Mike
Pence
may
need
to
change
his
political
affiliations.
Thankfully,
it
looks
like
the
Bar
took
the
light
reprimand
on
the
chin.
Bar
president
Steve
Benesh
of
Bracewell
LLP
said
in
a
statement
after
Blacklock’s
speech,
“We
agree
with
the
Chief
Justice
that
the
State
Bar
of
Texas
should
remain
politically
neutral,
and
that
is
what
we
work
to
do
every
day.”
Time
will
tell
whether
Benesh’s
response
amounts
to
calling
Blacklock’s
bluff
or
promising
to
fall
in
line.
If
it’s
the
former,
we
may
soon
see
what
consequences
Justice
Blacklock
has
up
his
sleeve.
If
it’s
the
latter,
get
ready
for
Trump’s
third
term.
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
is
learning
to
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.
Many
partners
at
law
firms
do
everything
they
can
to
increase
the
number
of
hours
billed
by
associates
since
this
has
a
substantial
impact
on
the
financial
health
of
a
firm. Unless
law
firms
have
explicit
incentive
systems
in
place,
partners
do
not
have
many
tools
at
their
disposal
that
they
can
use
to
convince
associates
to
bill
more
hours. At
some
of
the
shops
at
which
I
worked
before
opening
my
own
practice,
partners
explicitly
guilted
associates
into
billing
more
hours. Although
partners
may
believe
guilting
is
a
solid
tactic,
such
behavior
might
have
a
negative
impact
on
attorney
morale
and
may
not
result
in
associates
billing
more
time.
I
once
worked
at
a
law
firm
at
which
the
managing
partner
summoned
each
lawyer
who
billed
less
than
170
hours
the
preceding
month
into
his
office
for
a
talk. Sometimes,
the
managing
partner
asked
the
associate
if
the
firm
could
do
anything
to
help
them
increase
billing,
such
as
giving
the
associate
additional
work. This
was
generally
constructive
since
inefficiencies
at
a
law
firm
can
sometimes
result
in
low
billable
output,
and
it
is
helpful
when
management
attempts
to
make
associates
as
efficient
as
possible.
However,
at
other
times,
the
managing
partner
outright
guilted
associates
to
bill
more
time. Sometimes
the
managing
partner
would
tell
associates
that
they
billed
the
least
amount
of
hours
of
any
lawyer
at
the
firm
that
month
or
that
they
were
on
the
bottom
of
the
list
when
it
comes
to
billable
output. At
other
times,
the
partner
said
that
a
given
associate
at
the
firm
billed
250
hours
or
sometimes
even
more
the
preceding
month,
implying
that
if
the
other
attorney
could
bill
so
much
time,
the
offending
associate
had
no
excuse
not
to.
I
generally
did
not
react
well
to
such
tactics.
Other
associates
at
the
firm
had
similarly
negative
experiences. It
does
not
feel
good
to
be
told
that
you
are
at
the
bottom
of
the
list
when
it
comes
to
performance,
and
the
instinct
is
not
necessarily
to
increase
billing,
but
to
look
for
the
exits
at
that
law
firm
when
faced
with
such
a
conversation.
People
generally
do
not
want
to
work
at
a
shop
that
disrespects
them,
and
sometimes,
associates
might
feel
low
if
they
are
being
compared
to
other
attorneys
at
a
shop.
In
other
instances,
it
was
frustrating
when
partners
highlighted
the
billable
hours
of
associates
who
billed
an
insane
number
of
hours
a
month. Sometimes,
those
associates
billed
so
much
time
because
they
were
assigned
easier
matters
in
which
it
is
simple
to
bill
a
ton
of
hours
on
rote
tasks.
In
other
instances,
it
seemed
impossible
for
such
associates
to
bill
that
many
hours
if
they
were
completely
ethical
in
how
they
recorded
time,
and
it
is
insulting
and
demoralizing
when
partners
imply
that
associates
should
use
questionable
techniques
to
bill
a
larger
amount
of
hours
to
clients.
If
partners
really
want
to
incentivize
associates
to
bill
more
hours,
they
should
give
associates
financial
incentives
to
bill
more
time. At
one
firm
at
which
I
worked,
the
shop
had
a
bonus
system
that
rewarded
higher
amounts
of
billable
hours.
For
every
50
hours
beyond
2,000
hours
that
an
associate
billed
in
a
given
calendar
year,
the
associate
received
an
extra
bonus.
I
remember
one
year,
I
worked
hard
knowing
that
this
bonus
system
was
in
place,
and
I
received
a
large
bonus
since
I
was
able
to
bill
in
excess
of
2,200
hours
that
year. Everyone
wins
when
law
firms
institute
such
bonus
systems
since
law
firms
generally
receive
more
revenue
from
such
programs,
and
associates
reap
rewards
if
they
exceed
billable
expectations.
Of
course,
not
all
law
firms
have
the
resources
to
institute
productivity
bonuses,
and
other
law
firms
might
not
be
able
to
rely
on
routine
payment
of
invoices
to
make
such
programs
workable. However,
partners
should
recognize
that
guilting
lawyers
to
bill
more
hours
often
does
not
work
and
this
can
even
lead
to
more
inefficiencies
at
law
firms.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
[email protected].
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
We’re
in
a
dark
space,
and
we
have
to
stop
pretending
like
we’re
not
in
that
space.
—
Judge
Richard
Boulware (D.
Nev.),
in
comments
given
while
serving
as
a
panelist
during
an
American
Bar
Association
meeting
on
white
collar
crime
in
Miami,
Florida,
where
he
said
that
threats
against
the
judiciary
had
gone
up
“exponentially.”
Safety
concerns
for
judges
continue
to
mount,
and
when
the
White
House
gives
incredibly
unhinged
responses
to
these
grave
threats,
it’s
even
more
alarming.
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.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“Senate
Judiciary
Democrats
seek
probe
of
D.C.
U.S.
attorney
Ed
Martin;
Sen.
Dick
Durbin
alleges
the
Trump
loyalist
abused
power;
Martin
says
Durbin
‘weaponized’
D.C.’s
legal
disciplinary
system
against
Trump’s
lawyers”: Spencer
S.
Hsu
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.
“Judge
reduces
Adnan
Syed’s
sentence,
allowing
him
to
stay
out
of
prison;
The
judge
wrote
that
the
subject
of
the
‘Serial’
podcast
was
‘not
a
danger
to
the
public
and
that
the
interests
of
justice
will
be
better
served
by
a
reduced
sentence’”: Omari
Daniels
and
Dan
Morse
of
The
Washington
Post
have this
report.
“Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett
ignites
anger
on
the
right
after
ruling
against
Trump;
Conservative
allies
of
President
Donald
Trump
called
Supreme
Court
Justice
Amy
Coney
Barrett
‘evil,’
a
‘closet
Democrat’
and
a
‘DEI
hire’”: Ann
E.
Marimow
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.
“Kim
Davis
loses.
Again.
Unanimously.
(But,
this
still
might
not
be
the
end.)
The
Sixth
Circuit
rejected
the
appeal
of
the
former
Kentucky
county
clerk
who
was
sued
after
she
refused
to
issue
marriage
licenses
to
same-sex
couples.” Chris
Geidner
has this
post at
his
Substack
site.
“Impeachment
Threats
to
Judges
Don’t
Meet
Historical
Standard”: Paul
Grimm
has this
essay online
at
Bloomberg
Law.
“Whistleblower
Chief
Trump
Fired
Ends
Fight
After
Court
Loss”: Zoe
Tillman
and
Erik
Larson
of
Bloomberg
News
have this
report.
In
this
episode,
I
chat with
special
guest
Alreen
Haeggquist,
an
attorney
and
author
of
“Fired
Up!
Fueling
Triumph
from
Trauma.”
Discover
Alreen’s
inspiring
journey
of
turning
personal
trauma
into
a
powerful
legal
career
advocating
for
abuse
survivors.
It’s
a
heartfelt
discussion
on
resilience,
the
therapeutic
power
of
speaking
out,
and
finding
balance
in
emotionally
charged
legal
work.
Perfect
for
aspiring
lawyers
seeking
purpose
and
passion
in
their
careers.
Highlights
The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.
Happy
listening!
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].
Every
day
under
the
DOGE
regime
is
more
surreal
and
terrifying
than
the
last.
Here’s
an
excerpt
from
a
lawsuit
filed
yesterday
by
Ward
Brehm,
the
President
and
CEO
of
the
United
States
African
Development
Foundation:
Defendants
have
made
clear
their
intentions:
ignore
statutory
requirements,
pretend
that
leadership
of
the
agency
does
not
exist,
and
shutter
USADF.
That
is
precisely
what
they
did
to
USADF’s
sister
agency,
the
InterAmerican
Foundation
(IAF).
Using
the
same
bullying
tactics,
they
attempted
to
get
access
to
IAF’s
grants
and
contracts.
When
that
failed,
they
purported
to
fire
IAF’s
President
and
then
announced
by
fiat
that
Marocco
had
been
appointed
sole
board
member
(despite
the
IAF
board
also
not
having
been
fired).
In
a
closed-door
board
meeting
last
Friday,
February
28—which
consisted
of
just
Marocco
in
the
IAF
lobby—Marocco
appointed
himself
acting
President
of
IAF.
That
night,
at
Marocco’s
direction,
Treasury
cancelled
all
but
a
handful
of
IAF’s
contracts.
And
two
days
ago,
purporting
to
act
as
both
President
and
sole
board
member,
Marocco
directed
DOGE
to
cancel
all
but
a
few
of
IAF’s
grants,
shut
employees
out
of
the
IT
systems,
laid
off
almost
the
entire
IAF
staff,
and
shut
down
IAF’s
website.
Not
to
put
too
fine
a
point
on
it,
but
this
shit
is
crazy,
and
some
of
the
best
coverage
has
been
by
journalist
Garrett
Graff,
who
has
been
writing
it
up
the
way
we’d
report
it
if
it
happened
in
Not
America.
Trump
is
currently
breaking
the
government
through
parallel
campaigns
to
seize
control
of
federal
spending
and
convert
the
executive
branch
into
a
pure
spoils
system.
To
accomplish
the
latter,
he
has
to
gut
civil
service
protections
for
bureaucrats
and
destroy
congressional
protections
for
leaders
of
independent
agencies.
What’s
happening
at
USADF
and
IAF
involves
both.
The
Inter-American
Foundation
and
the
US
African
Development
Foundation
are
independent
agencies
established
by
Congress
to
promote
development
in
Central
and
South
America
and
Africa.
Under
22
USC
§
290,
the
board
of
USADF
and
its
director
shall
be
“appointed
by
the
President,
by
and
with
the
advice
and
consent
of
the
Senate.”
Brehm,
a
Republican
businessman
from
Minnesota,
has
served
as
director,
a
voluntary,
uncompensated
position,
since
his
appointment
by
President
George
W.
Bush
in
2004.
In
a
February
19
executive
order,
President
Trump
purported
to
shut
down
multiple
federal
agencies,
including
USADF
and
the
IAF
as
part
of
his
plan
“to
dramatically
reduce
the
size
of
the
Federal
Government,
while
increasing
its
accountability
to
the
American
people.”
His
edict
directed
that
“the
non-statutory
components
and
functions
of
the
following
governmental
entities
shall
be
eliminated
to
the
maximum
extent
consistent
with
applicable
law,
and
such
entities
shall
reduce
the
performance
of
their
statutory
functions
and
associated
personnel
to
the
minimum
presence
and
function
required
by
law.”
The
“maximum
extent
with
applicable
law”
would
appear
to
be
circumscribed
by
Congress,
which
specified
in
the
Further
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act
of
2024
that
the
$45
million
allocated
to
the
USADF
(and
the
$62
million
for
IAF)
“may
not
be
used
to
implement
a
reorganization,
redesign,
or
other
plan
described
in
subsection
(b)
by
the
Department
of
State,
the
United
States
Agency
for
International
Development,
or
any
other
Federal
department,
agency,
or
organization
funded
by
this
Act
without
prior
consultation
by
the
head
of
such
department,
agency,
or
organization
with
the
appropriate
congressional
committees.”
But
Trump
and
Elon
Musk
have
never
been
concerned
with
such
niceties.
According
to
Brehm’s
complaint,
they
sent
the
DOGE
bros
into
IAF,
declared
themselves
the
new
masters,
and
shut
the
place
down
in
short
order.
Perhaps
aware
that
they
might
face
some
resistance
at
USADF,
the
DOGE
team’s
initial
approach
promised
that
the
tech
teens
would
simply
be
offering
their
“software
expertise
to
modernize
architecture,
system
design,
and
improve
government
efficiency.”
But
after
the
memorandum
of
understanding
was
signed,
the
DOGE
team
announced
that
their
real
purpose
was
to
shut
the
agency
down
pursuant
to
Trump’s
executive
order.
The
scrappy
little
agency
put
up
a
hell
of
a
fight.
Channeling
their
inner
Cypress
Hill,
the
board
utterly
refused
to
surrender
their
statutory
authority,
even
as
State
Department
goon
Pete
Marocco
declared
himself
the
only
board
member
and
its
director.
And
on
March
5,
when
Marocco
showed
up
with
his
merry
band
of
incels,
they
were
denied
admission.
Yesterday,
Marocco
and
the
DOGE
team
forced
their
way
in
with
the
help
of
federal
marshals.
The
scene
reported
by
the
Washington
Post
appears
to
have
ended
in
a
silent
draw.
According
to
agency
officials,
few
USADF
personnel
were
inside
the
office
—
many
chose
to
telework
after
Wednesday’s
standoff
—
when
they
were
notified
by
fellow
staffers
who
were
having
lunch
nearby
that
DOGE
officials
and
later
Marocco
and
U.S.
marshals
were
arriving
on
the
premises.The
staffers
inside
the
office
exited
the
building
via
a
stairwell
—
bypassing
the
elevators
because
of
an
ongoing
power
outage
—
leaving
behind
their
personal
belongings
to
avoid
confrontation
with
DOGE
employees
and
U.S.
marshals,
USADF
officials
said.As
agency
personnel
waited
outside
and
huddled
together
at
a
nearby
business,
some
received
calls
from Nate
Cavanaugh,
the
28-year-old
tech
entrepreneur
working
with
the
U.S.
DOGE
Service,
who
was
on-site
and
had
claimed
for
a
second
day
to
be
a
USADF
employee
and
requested
employees
to
return
and
grant
him
access
to
the
computer
systems.But
no
USADF
officials
returned
to
the
office,
a
senior
USADF
official
said.
That
official
also
stated
that
the
agency
was
aware
that
Marocco
“came
down
to
dismantle
the
entire
agency
and
fire
all
staff”
by
accessing
USADF
systems,
canceling
grants
and
contracts,
and
installing
a
“reduction
in
force”
order.Hours
passed
as
DOGE
employees
remained
inside
the
USADF
headquarters
before
agency
employees
were
instructed
by
leadership
to
return
home.
It’s
unclear
if
the
DOGE
dipshits
ever
got
into
USADF’s
computers,
or
if
they
contented
themselves
with
smashing
a
couple
of
laptops
and
taking
a
whiz
on
the
conference
room
table
before
skulking
off
to
cancel
grandma’s
social
security
checks.
At
2:30,
Brehm
sought
emergency
relief
from
the
federal
court
in
DC.
And
by
7pm,
Judge
Richard
Leon
had
issued
an
administrative
stay
and
scheduled
a
hearing
for
2
p.m.
Monday.
It
is
further
ORDERED
that
during
the
pendency
of
the
stay,
defendants
are
prohibited
from
taking
the
following
actions:
(1)
“[Ward
Brehm]
may
not
be
removed
from
his
office
as
President
of
USADF,
or
in
any
way
be
treated
as
having
been
removed,
denied
or
obstructed
in
accessing
any
of
the
benefits
or
resources
of
his
office,
or
otherwise
be
obstructed
from
his
ability
to
carry
out
his
duties,
absent
a
decision
by
the
lawfully-constituted
Board
of
USADF
to
remove
him
from
that
office,”
and
(2)
“the
[d]efendants
may
not
appoint
Pete
Marocco
or
any
other
person
as
an
acting
member
of
the
Board
of
USADF,
may
not
appoint
Pete
Marocco
or
any
other
person
as
President
of
USADF
in
place
of
[p]laintiff,
or
otherwise
recognize
any
other
person
as
a
member
of
the
Board
of
USADF
absent
Senate
confirmation
or
as
President
of
USADF
absent
appointment
by
a
lawfully-constituted
Board.”
Can’t
wait
for
DOJ’s
response
on
Sunday
explaining
how
Seila
Law
means
that
Trump
can
magically
substitute
some
sociopathic
functionary
to
oversee
every
independent
agency.
We
ain’t
goin’
out
like
that.
We
ain’t
goin’
out
LIKE
THAT.
Brehm
v.
Marocco
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
DOGE
staffers
bring
U.S.
marshals
to
small
federal
agency
that
denied
them
access
[WaPo]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.
Earlier
this
week,
Interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Ed
Martin,
once
again,
used
his
office
to
advance
the
political
positions
of
the
Trump
administration
instead
of
uphold
law
and
order.
Martin
sent
out
another
threatening
letter.
This
one
(eventually)
went
to
the
Dean
of
Georgetown
University
Law
Center,
William
Treanor,
demanding
the
elite
law
school
stop
all
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
efforts
or
else
his
office
will
no
longer
consider
candidates
associated
with
Georgetown
Law
(assuming
they’re
back
in
the
hiring
business).
Using
the
federal
government’s
hiring
power
to
punish
alumni
(with
no
power
over
law
school
policies
or
procedure)
for
the
sins
of
their
alma
maters
is
an
established
play
by
the
right.
And
with
donations
from
said
alumni
an
integral
part
of
high
ed
funding,
it
has
the
potential
to
be
a
powerful
tool
to
force
institutions
to
do
the
bidding
of
conservatives.
And
as
a
common
response
to
Trump
administration
threats
has
been
to
obey
in
advance,
Martin
had
good
reason
to
believe
Treanor
would
fold.
My
friends,
he
did
nothing
of
the
sort.
You
should
absolutely
read
the
letter
from
Treanor,
available
below,
in
its
entirety,
as
it
deserves
all
the
snaps.
But
the
letter
is
constructed
in
a
way
to
be
unique
Kryptonite
to
conservatives,
by
leaning
into
the
religious
institution’s
First
Amendment
protections.
Your
letter
informs
me
that
your
office
will
deny
our
students
and
graduates
government
employment
opportunities
until
you,
as
Interim
United
States
Attorney
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
approve
of
our
curriculum.
Given
the
First
Amendment’s
protection
of
a
university’s
freedom
to
determine
its
own
curriculum
and
how
to
deliver
it,
the
constitutional
violation
behind
this
threat
is
clear,
as
is
the
attack
on
the
University’s
mission
as
a
Jesuit
and
Catholic
institution.
Treanor
goes
hard
for
all
the
things
that
make
Jesuit
Catholicism
good.
Jesuits’
beliefs
include
global
justice,
peace,
and
dialogue
and
the
order
has
a
storied
tradition
of
educational
excellence.
Georgetown
has
a
prominent
role
in
that
tradition,
and
Treanor
will
not
be
selling
that
out
over
some
bullying.
As
a
Catholic
and
Jesuit
institution,
Georgetown
University
was
founded
on
the
principle
that
serious
and
sustained
discourse
among
people
of
different
faiths,
cultures,
and
beliefs
promotes
intellectual,
ethical,
and
spiritual
understanding.
For
us
at
Georgetown,
this
principle
is
a
moral
and
educational
imperative.
It
is
a
principle
that
defines
our
mission
as
a
Catholic
and
Jesuit
institution.
But
for
my
money,
the
closing
shot
Treanor
lobs
over
the
bow
is
the
piece
de
resistance
for
its
sheer
self-assurance:
Georgetown
Law
faculty
have
educated
world
leaders,
members
of
Congress,
and
Justice
Department
officials,
from
diverse
backgrounds
and
perspectives.
We
pride
ourselves
on
providing
an
excellent
graduate
and
professional
education,
built
upon
the
Catholic
and
Jesuit
tradition.
Georgetown-educated
attorneys
have,
for
decades,
served
this
country
capably
and
selflessly
in
offices
such
as
yours,
and
we
have
confidence
that
tradition
will
continue.
We
look
forward
to
your
confirming
that
any
Georgetown-affiliated
candidates
for
employment
with
your
office
will
receive
full
and
fair
consideration.
Seriously,
so
many
institutions
are
just
trying
to
survive
this
iteration
of
the
Trump
administration,
and
saying
and
doing
whatever
they
have
to
in
order
to
get
by.
But
Treanor
knows
that
surviving
by
betraying
the
principles
you
hold
near
and
dear
is
no
victory.
There’s
not
a
ton
of
good
news
out
there,
but
Georgetown
Law’s
willingness
to
step
into
the
fray
is
a
great
moment.
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].
To
understand
the
challenges
legal
teams
face,
our
friends
at
LegalOn
surveyed
286
GCs,
in-house
counsels,
contract
managers,
and
legal
operations
professionals
to
understand
the
challenges
legal
teams
face.
The
results?
Legal
teams
spent
an
average
of
188
working
days
on
contract
review
last
year.
In
2025,
they’re
taking
a
different
path—AI
adoption
is
up
75%
in
just
one
year.
Download
the
2025
State
of
Contracting
report
for
the
full
findings,
including:
The
question
isn’t
whether
to
embrace
AI
for
contract
review—it’s
how
to
do
it
effectively.
Get
your
copy
to
see
how
legal
teams
like
yours
are
making
the
shift.
Notifications