Category: News Feeds

The
legal
profession
is
at
a
crossroads,
shaped
by
rapid
technological
advancements
that
are
fundamentally
transforming
how
law
is
practiced
and
taught.
As
we
stand
on
the
brink
of
a
new
era
defined
by
artificial
intelligence
(AI)
and
data-driven
decision-making,
the
question
arises:
How
should
legal
education
adapt
to
prepare
the
next
generation
of
lawyers
for
the
challenges
ahead?

To
explore
this
pressing
issue,
I
had
the
pleasure
of
speaking
with
Harry
Borovick,
general
counsel
at
Luminance,
an
AI
company
specializing
in
legal
technology.
Harry,
who
also
lectures
on
legal
education
and
technology,
offers
a
unique
perspective
on
how
the
intersection
of
AI
and
law
is
reshaping
the
landscape.
Here
are
three
unconventional,
actionable
insights
from
our
conversation
that
highlight
the
need
for
a
radical
rethinking
of
legal
education.

1.

Integrate
AI
Education
Into
Every
Aspect
Of
Legal
Training

Traditional
legal
education
has
remained
largely
unchanged
for
decades,
focusing
heavily
on
theoretical
knowledge
and
case
law
analysis.
However,
Harry
argues
that
law
schools
must
evolve
beyond
these
traditional
confines
and
integrate
AI
education
into
every
aspect
of
their
training.
Rather
than
treating
AI
as
a
separate
elective
or
niche
topic,
it
should
be
woven
into
the
fabric
of
all
legal
subjects.

Imagine
a
contracts
class
where
students
not
only
learn
to
draft
agreements
but
also
use
AI
tools
to
analyze
contract
language
for
risks
and
opportunities.
Or
a
course
in
property
law
that
includes
modules
on
using
AI
to
predict
property
disputes
based
on
historical
data
trends.
By
embedding
AI
into
the
core
curriculum,
law
schools
can
ensure
that
students
are
not
only
aware
of
these
tools
but
also
adept
at
using
them
to
enhance
their
legal
practice.

Actionable
Insight:
Law
schools
should
collaborate
with
AI
companies
and
legal
tech
firms
to
create
integrated
modules
that
teach
students
how
to
use
AI
in
real-world
legal
scenarios.
This
could
involve
partnerships
where
students
get
hands-on
experience
with
AI
tools
in
internships
or
practicum
courses,
ensuring
that
they
graduate
with
practical,
market-ready
skills.

2.

Adopt
A
‘Technology-Agnostic’
Approach
To
AI
Training

One
of
the
common
pitfalls
in
legal
education
is
a
tendency
to
focus
on
specific
tools
or
platforms.
While
familiarity
with
certain
technologies
can
be
useful,
Harry
emphasizes
the
importance
of
a
“technology-agnostic”
approach
to
AI
training.
This
means
teaching
the
underlying
principles
and
methodologies
of
AI
and
machine
learning,
rather
than
just
how
to
use
a
particular
software.

Why
does
this
matter?
Because
technology
evolves
at
a
breakneck
pace.
The
AI
tools
that
are
cutting-edge
today
may
be
obsolete
tomorrow.
By
focusing
on
the
principles
behind
AI
—
such
as
data
analysis,
natural
language
processing,
and
ethical
considerations
—
law
students
will
be
equipped
to
adapt
to
new
tools
and
platforms
as
they
emerge.

Actionable
Insight:
Law
schools
should
develop
foundational
courses
in
AI
that
focus
on
the
core
concepts
and
skills,
such
as
data
literacy
and
ethical
AI
use.
These
courses
should
be
mandatory
for
all
law
students,
regardless
of
their
intended
specialization,
ensuring
a
baseline
competency
in
AI
that
can
be
built
upon
with
specific
tools
as
needed.

3.

Redefine
Success
In
Legal
Education
To
Include
Technological
Proficiency

Traditionally,
success
in
legal
education
has
been
defined
by
grades,
moot
court
achievements,
and
securing
prestigious
clerkships
or
firm
placements.
However,
in
the
age
of
AI,
Harry
suggests
that
we
need
to
redefine
what
success
looks
like.
Law
schools
should
expand
their
metrics
for
success
to
include
technological
proficiency
and
the
ability
to
leverage
AI
in
legal
practice.

This
shift
requires
a
cultural
change
within
the
legal
academy.
It
means
valuing
a
student’s
ability
to
use
AI
for
contract
review
or
litigation
forecasting
as
much
as
their
skill
in
writing
a
compelling
brief.
It
also
involves
reassessing
how
we
prepare
students
for
the
job
market,
emphasizing
skills
that
will
make
them
valuable
in
a
rapidly
changing
legal
landscape.

Actionable
Insight:
Law
schools
can
start
by
incorporating
AI
and
tech
proficiency
into
their
grading
and
assessment
systems.
For
example,
students
could
be
graded
on
their
ability
to
use
AI
tools
to
solve
hypothetical
legal
problems,
or
their
proficiency
in
developing
AI-driven
legal
strategies.
Career
services
can
also
shift
their
focus,
offering
workshops
and
resources
on
legal
tech
skills
and
connecting
students
with
internships
at
tech-forward
legal
departments.

Looking
Ahead:
Preparing
For
The
Future
Of
Legal
Practice

The
age
of
AI
is
here,
and
the
legal
profession
must
adapt.
As
Harry
Borovick
eloquently
argues,
legal
education
must
evolve
to
prepare
students
not
just
for
the
world
as
it
is,
but
for
the
world
as
it
is
rapidly
becoming.
By
integrating
AI
education
into
every
aspect
of
legal
training,
adopting
a
technology-agnostic
approach,
and
redefining
success
to
include
technological
proficiency,
law
schools
can
ensure
that
their
graduates
are
ready
to
thrive
in
the
future
of
law.

For
current
legal
professionals
and
educators,
the
challenge
is
clear:
embrace
this
evolution
or
risk
being
left
behind.
The
legal
field
is
not
immune
to
the
transformative
forces
of
technology,
and
those
who
are
prepared
will
find
themselves
at
the
forefront
of
a
new
era
in
law.

So,
whether
you
are
a
seasoned
attorney,
a
law
professor,
or
a
law
student,
take
a
moment
to
consider
how
you
can
engage
with
AI
and
technology.
It’s
not
just
about
keeping
up
—
it’s
about
leading
the
way.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.

Halloween
is
finally
here,
and
members
of
the
legal
community
—
especially
law
students
—
will
likely
be
having
fun
tonight
after
celebrating
all
Halloweekend
long.
As
usual,
we
want
to
see
your
creativity
in
action.

For
the
fifteenth
year
in
a
row,
we
here
at
Above
the
Law
are
soliciting
legally
themed
costumes
for
our
annual
Halloween
contest.
We’re
continually
impressed
with
how
creative
lawyers
and
law
students
can
be
when
they
take
their
noses
out
of
their
books.

Here
are
some
of
the
winning
looks
from
the
past
few
years
of
the
contest:
the Donald
J.
Trump
College
of
Law (2016), Brett
Kavanaugh’s
calendar
and
his
beer (2018), Ruth
Baby
Ginsburg (2020),
and Warhol’s
Soup
Law (2023).

Please email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
your
pictures
and
then
we’ll
vote
on
the
winner
of
our
annual
competition.
Please
send
us
your
submissions
as
soon
as
you
can.
We’re
all
looking
forward
to
judging
you!

---

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.

After
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration’s
recent
decision
to
delay
the
approval
of
MDMA-assisted
therapy
for
post-traumatic
stress
disorder,
the
path
forward
has
become
less
straightforward
for
the
field
of
psychedelic
medicines.
But
this
isn’t
the
end
of
the
road,
according
to
a
panel
of
experts
last
week
at
the

HLTH
2024
conference
in
Las
Vegas.

The
new
drug
application
was
submitted
by
Lykos
Therapeutics
and
would
have
been
the
first
new
treatment
option
for
PTSD
in
over
two
decades,

according
to
the
company.
The
drug
would
have
been
provided
with
talk
therapy.
The
FDA
requested
in
August
that
the
company
conduct
an
additional
Phase
3
trial
to
evaluate
the
safety
of
the
treatment.
The
agency’s
choice
came

after
an
independent
advisory
committee
cited
several
concerns,
including
badly
designed
studies
and
allegations
of
sexual
misconduct
during
a
mid-stage
clinical
trial,
according
to
NBC
News.

When
Shereef
Elnahal,
under
secretary
for
health
in
the
U.S.
Department
of
Veterans
Affairs,
heard
the
news,
he
did
not
“feel
awesome,”
he
said
at
HLTH.
That
is
because
veterans
have
been
telling
him
since
“day
one”
of
his
job
that
this
line
of
therapy
could
be
“game-changing.”
However,
he
said
that
the
research
the
VA
is
doing
could
actually
answer
some
of
the
questions
that
the
FDA
advisory
committee
raised.
For
example,
the
organization
is
funding
a
study
at
the
VA
Rhode
Island
healthcare
system
that
is
looking
at
veterans
with
comorbid
alcohol
use
disorder
and
veterans
with
PTSD.

“Both
conditions
at
the
same
time,
a
randomized
digital
placebo
arm
and
a
therapeutic
arm,”
he
said
on
the
panel.
“The
therapeutic
arm
looks
very
similar
to
the
Lyko
study,
but
the
placebo
arm
has
low-dose
MDMA
as
the
placebo
to
address
what
the
FDA
[advisory
committee]
had
identified
as
a
functional,
unblinding
problem,
meaning
people
who
were
in
the
placebo
arm
kind
of
knew
that
they
were
because
they
didn’t
feel
the
very
obvious
effects
of
the
drug.
So
we’re
already
starting
to
plug
some
of
the
gaps
that
the
FDA
identified
to
make
the
science
better
and
try
to
accelerate
as
much
as
possible
more
veterans
getting
this
new
line
of
therapy.”

There
are
also
some
efforts
by
states
to
move
along
psychedelic-assisted
therapy.
For
example,
the
Arizona
State
Legislature
appropriated
$5
million
for
psilocybin
(or
mushrooms)
research
dedicated
to
PTSD
among
veterans,
noted
Kyrsten
Sinema,
U.S.
Senator
in
Arizona.

That
said,
it’s
still
important
to
get
FDA
approval,
she
added.

“Only
through
FDA
approval
can
we
ultimately
make
these
medicines
widely
available
around
the
country
in
a
safe
manner,
not
just
for
veterans
and
for
folks
who
are
suffering
from
PTSD,
but
for
individuals
who
are
victims
of
sexual
assault,
individuals
who’ve
had
traumatic
childhoods,”
Sinema
argued.

Sinema
also
noted
that
while
other
treatments
for
PTSD
exist,
they
aren’t
very
effective.
For
example,
in
exposure
therapy
(in
which
people
are
gradually
exposed
to
situations
they
fear),
people
have
to
relive
their
trauma
over
and
over.
This
leads
to
high
dropout
rates.
With
psychedelics,
patients
are
processing
their
trauma,
versus
“re-injuring
the
self
and
the
psyche
over
and
over.”

When
asked
what
Congress
is
doing
in
regard
to
psychedelic-assisted
therapy,
Congressman
Morgan
Luttrell
responded
that
this
is
a
“crawl,
walk,
run
scenario.”
He
noted
that
he’s
taken
these
medications
himself
and
is
a
big
advocate
for
them.

“We
don’t
want
to
overwhelm
the
system
because
even
though
these
medications
have
been
around
for
centuries,
it’s
a
very
new
concept,
especially
to
the
congressional
members
who
represent
their
base.
…
I
have
to
have
these
conversations
with
members
to
not
only
show
them
the
science
and
the
data
that
is
collected
but
share
my
personal
experience
and
why
it’s
so
important
that
we
move
forward,”
he
said.
“We’ve
put
legislation
in
place
and
dollars
in
place
for
the
VA
and
for
the
[Department
of
Defense].
But
again,
I
think
if
we
push
too
hard,
too
fast,
it
will
break,
and
we
do
not
want
to
do
this.
We’re
talking
about
lives
here.”

If
FDA
approval
of
MDMA-assisted
therapy
for
PTSD
happens,
there
is
still
the
question
of
how
the
healthcare
industry
will
pay
for
it,
noted
Ruth
Reader,
health
and
technology
reporter
at
Politico
and
moderator
of
the
panel.
Due
to
issues
with
sexual
misconduct,
it’s
possible
two
therapists
might
be
needed
for
treatment,
which
would
be
expensive.

Sinema
responded
that
there
are
more
trial
applications
going
into
the
FDA
for
group
settings,
which
would
make
treatment
cheaper.

“There’s
a
nonprofit
organization
in
Arizona,
Scottsdale
Research
Institute,
that
is
preparing
to
do
a
trial
for
MDMA
in
a
group
setting,
also
looking
at
psilocybin
in
a
group
setting,
that
allows
you
to
have
two
therapists,
but
also
allows
you
to
have
multiple
people
experiencing
their
own
therapeutic
experience
in
a
shared
setting.
…
I
think
there
is
a
world
in
which
this
can
become
available
and
affordable,”
she
said.
“A
big
issue,
of
course,
after
FDA
approval
for
all
the
classes
of
psychedelics
is
how
do
we
start
to
gain
insurance
coverage
so
that
people
can
get
access
to
this?”

Luttrell
also
noted
that
psychedelic-assisted
therapy
is
intended
for
a
“select
group
of
individuals,”
not
a
broader
market.

Photo:
HLTH

*
Elon
Musk
ordered
to
appear
in
court
today
to
discuss
his
$1
million
election
lottery.
[Reuters]

*
Above
the
Law
alum
Elie
Mystal
describes
the
parliamentary
shenanigans
that
Mike
Johnson
could
unleash
to
elect
Donald
Trump
if
the
voters
don’t.
[The
Nation]

*
Kirkland
lawyer
sanctioned
over
courtroom
behavior.
[Law.com]

*
Sixth
Circuit
considers
throttling
the
internet.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Biglaw
involvement
in
upcoming
(or
already
here)
election
litigation.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Ethics
complaint
against
judge
for
string
of
events.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Jaywalking
legal
in
New
York
and
literally
no
one’s
behavior
will
change.
[CBS
News]

Being
Wrong
By
Orders
Of
Magnitude
Not
Enough
To
Silence
Law
Professor:

Listen
to
his
most
recent
hot
take
on
expertise.

So
Long,
Farewell:

WilmerHale
shuts
down
its
Beijing
office.

Gibson
Dunn
Just
Gained
A
Major
Player:

Welcome
to
the
fold,
Barry!

So,
Who
Actually
Likes
Their
Job?:

Working
a
legal
gig
can
be
rough
on
the
mind.

Penn
Isn’t
The
Only
Ivy
Sharing
The
Burden!:

Amy
Wax
invited
to
speak
at
Yale
Law.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

What
Yale
Law
School
grad
and
former
government
official
warned
on
his
YouTube
channel
of
the
“dirty
Trump
trick”
Trump’ll
try
on
Election
Day?
He
predicted
Trump
will
“exploit
something
elections
experts
call
the
Red
Mirage
to
prematurely
declare
victory
before
all
the
votes
are
counted,”
to
try
to
cast
doubt
on
the
results
of
the
election.
He
clarified
the
Red
Mirage
is
when
Republicans
“appear
to
take
an
early
lead”
due
to
the
timing
of
when
different
jurisdictions
count
and
report
the
votes,
and
which
gets
“smaller
throughout
the
night,”
known
as
the
Blue
Shift.

Hint:
This
person
attended
Yale
Law
at
the
same
time
as
other
notable
political
figures
including
Bill
Clinton,
Hillary
Rodham, Clarence
Thomas, and Richard
Blumenthal.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Earlier
this
month,
the
IRS
released

Notice
2024-71
which
provided
a
safe
harbor
to
claim
an
income
tax
deduction
for
the
purchase
of
condoms.
Similarly,
the
IRS
also
issued

Notice
2024-75
which
stated
that
over-the-counter
oral
contraceptives
can
be
provided
by
a
high-deductible
health
plan
without
the
payment
of
a
deductible.
But
these
contraceptives
are
not
deductible
as
a
medical
expense.

The
treasury
regulations
state
that
in
order
to
claim
an
income-tax
deduction
for
medical
expenses,
the
payment
must
be
made
primarily
for
the
prevention
or
alleviation
of
a
physical
or
mental
defect
or
illness.
But
they
are
not
allowed
for
expenses
that
are
merely
beneficial
to
an
individual’s
general
health,
such
as
monthly
gym
membership
fees.

Before
the
release
of
this
notice,
the
IRS
interpretation
of
this
rule
as
applied
to
condoms
was
likely
to
the
taxpayer’s
displeasure.
It
is
known
that
proper
condom
use
minimizes
the
chances
of
transmitting
sexually
transmitted
diseases
(STDs).
But
most
people
purchase
condoms
primarily
for
contraceptive
purposes.
Pregnancy
—
even
the
unwanted
kind
—
is
not
considered
a
medical
illness.

The
notice
does
not
make
a
distinction
for
gender.
In
other
words,
a
woman
can
purchase
condoms
designed
for
men
or
female
condoms
and
still
claim
the
deduction.

This
safe
harbor
notice
provides
favorable
guidance
for
the
taxpayer
by
presuming
that
all
condom
purchases
are
made
for
the
prevention
of
disease,
thus
qualifying
it
for
an
income-tax
deduction.

The
medical
deduction
can
be
claimed
in
a
number
of
ways.
The
first
way
is
to
claim
the
purchase
as
an
itemized
deduction.
In
order
to
do
so,
the
total
medical
expenses
for
the
taxpayer,
his
or
her
spouse,
and
dependents
must
exceed
7.5%
of
the
taxpayer’s
adjusted
gross
income.
Also,
the
total
itemized
expenses
must
exceed
the
standard
deduction
which
is
$14,600
in
2024.
These
spending
requirements
coupled
to
the
relatively
low
cost
of
condoms
can
make
it
difficult
for
some
taxpayers
to
claim
the
deduction.

The
other
way
to
deduct
the
cost
of
condom
purchases
is
through
a
Health
Savings
Account
(HSA),
a
health
Flexible
Spending
Arrangement
(FSA)
plan,
or
a
Health
Reimbursement
Arrangement
(HRA).
While
the
details
vary,
these
plans
generally
allow
pre-tax
money
to
be
used
for
medical
expenses.
FSAs
and
HRAs
are
generally
provided
by
the
taxpayer’s
employer.
HSAs
can
be
set
up
by
the
taxpayers
individually
although
they
must
have
a

high-deductible
health
plan
to
qualify.

What
prompted
the
IRS
to
issue
these
prophylactic
announcements
is
unknown.
Reported
cases
of
STDs
have
been

flat
in
recent
years
(although
syphilis
cases
have
increased).
Also,
teen
pregnancies
reached

historic
lows
in
2022.
Perhaps
this
will
encourage
younger
people
to
start
tax-advantaged
HSAs
or
participate
in
their
employers’
FSA
and
HRA
plans.
The
tax
savings
can
be
used
to
go
on
a
date
at
a
nicer
restaurant
or
buy
more
condoms.

---

Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at




[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.

The
late
Supreme
Court
Justice
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
was

not
a
fan
of
Donald
Trump.
Like,

famously,
the

pair
did
not
get
along.
And
well
before
she
died,
Trump
was

already
salivating
at
the
prospect
of
filling
her
Supreme
Court
seat,
reserving
it
for
the,

ahem,
notoriously

anti-choice
pick
of

Amy
Coney
Barrett.
It
was
a

cruel
irony
that
RBG
died
months
before
Trump
was
ejected
from
the
White
House,
and
Republicans

rushed
through
Barrett’s

nomination.
All
of
which
would
ultimately
culminate
in
the
Supreme
Court’s

overturning
the
right
to
reproductive
freedom,
ushering
in
a
new
American
era
of

increased
infant
deaths
and
a
spike
in

maternal
mortality
rates.

So
it’s
pretty
weird
that
a
conservative
political
action
committee
named
after
the
Notorious
RBG
would
support
Trump,
and
even
more
bizarrely
claims
that
RBG
and
Trump
were
of
“one
mind”
on
abortion
rights.

What
in
the
shit
did
I
just
watch?
Are
they
really
doing
this
just
for
clout?
There
seems
no
other
colorable
justification.
But
who,
exactly,
is
fooled
by
this?

The
PAC’s

website
goes
even
further:

“Why
did
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
agree
with
Donald
Trump’s
position
on
abortion?
Because
RBG
believed
that
the
federal
government
shouldn’t
dictate
our
abortion
laws.
Donald
Trump
also
does
not
support
a
federal
ban
on
abortion.
On
this
issue,
great
minds
think
alike.”

Madiba
Dennie
at
Balls
and
Strikes

details
the
thin
veneer
of
a
justification
given
by
the
PAC:

On
its
website,
the
RBG
PAC
justifies
its
claims
about
Trump
and
RBG’s
common
ground
with
screenshots
of
two
headlines—a
2020
New
York
Times
piece
titled
“Why
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
Wasn’t
Fond
of
Roe
v.
Wade”
and
a
2013
NBC
article
titled
“Liberal
Justice
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
says
Roe
v.
Wade
Went
Too
Far.”
But
these
headlines
are
conveniently
divorced
from
all
relevant
context.
Ginsburg
recognized
that
the
Constitution
protects
the
right
to
abortion.
Her
“disagreement”
was
not
about
substance,
but
about
strategy:
Roe,
Ginsburg
said
in
1984,
“presented
an
incomplete
justification
for
its
action”
because
its
reasoning
centered
the
physician
rather
than
the
patient,
thus
failing
to
fully
recognize
that
“a
woman’s
autonomous
charge
of
her
full
life’s
course”
hangs
in
the
balance.

For
Ginsburg,
abortion
was
a
matter
of
equal
protection
and
freedom
from
sex-based
discrimination.
By
relying
instead
on
privacy,
she
believed,
Roe’s
protections
were
weaker
than
they
should
have
been.

The
PAC
also
conveniently
misconstrues
Trump’s
position
on
reproductive
freedom.
While
he’s
said
the
words
that
he
doesn’t
support
a
“federal
abortion
ban,”
his
campaign
has
used

other
words
that
amount
to
the
same
thing.
And
it
ignores
the
Project
2025
plan
to
use
the

Comstock
Act
of
1973
to
severely
limit
access
to
abortion
care
in
this
country.

And

RBG’s
granddaughter,
Clara
Spera,
is
pretty
pissed
about
it,
saying,
“The
RBG
PAC
has
no
connection
to
the
Ginsburg
family
and
is
an
affront
to
my
late
grandmother’s
legacy.”
Continuing,
“The
use
of
her
name
and
image
to
support
Donald
Trump’s
re-election
campaign,
and
specifically
to
suggest
that
she
would
approve
of
his
position
on
abortion,
is
nothing
short
of
appalling.”
Spera
noted
her
grandmother
“was
a
champion
for
the
equality
of
women
and
specifically
tied
the
right
to
abortion
to
women’s
freedom
and
ability
to
participate
in
society,”
and
contrasted
RBG’s
position
on
reproductive
freedom
with
the
former
president’s,
“Donald
Trump
gloats
about
his
part
in
overturning

Roe.
He
is
a
direct
threat
to
reproductive
liberty
and
equality.”

And
that’s
not
the
only
person
deeply
disturbed
over
the
PAC’s
cynical
cooption
of
RBG,
as

reported
by
Jezebel:

Reproductive
Freedom
for
All
(formerly
NARAL),
called
RBG
PAC
“a
calculated,
shameless,
last-minute
attempt
to
lie
to
voters
about
Trump’s
stance
on
abortion—one
of
the
most
salient
issues
of
this
election.”
The
organization’s
president,
Mini
Timmaraju,
said
RBG
PAC
is
“incredibly
insulting
and
underscores
how
concerned
the
GOP
is
about
their
record
on
abortion.
And
they
should
be.”

The
RBG
PAC
was

created
two
weeks
ago
—
filing
its
FEC
paperwork
at
the
deadline
for
this
election
cycle.
The
group
has
almost
$20
million
in
secret
donor
funds
to
spend
before
election
day,
so
be
prepared
to
be
blitzed
by
this
shady
as
shit
message.
But
know
that
in
every
way
that
counts
it’s
an
absolute
lie.

---

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].

A
week
ago,
Trump

explained
to
podcaster
Joe
Rogan
that
the
2020
election
was
stolen
because
courts
improperly
expanded
access
to
the
ballot.

“They
were
supposed
to
get
legislative
approval
to
do
the
things
they
did,
and
they
didn’t
get
it
in
many
cases,
They
didn’t
get
it,”
the
former
president
rambled.
“Like
for
extensions
of
the
voting,
for
voting
earlier.
All
these.
different
things,
By
law,
they
had
to
get
legislative
approvals.
You
don’t
have
to
go
any
further
than
that.”

Naturally,
Trump
didn’t
invoke
the
words
“independent
state
legislature
theory”
—
too
many
syllables,
and
he
likely
doesn’t
even
understand
what
it
is.
But
his
point
was
pretty
much
the
definition
of
the
ISL,
which
has
taken
hold
in
the
GOP
since
their
fraud
claims
fizzled
out.
They
insist
that
court
orders
and
actions
taken
by
election
officials
to
expand
access
to
the
ballot
violate
the
Constitution’s
Elections
Clause,
which
provides
that
“The
Times,
Places
and
Manner
of
holding
Elections
for
Senators
and
Representatives,
shall
be
prescribed
in
each
State
by
the
Legislature
thereof;
but
the
Congress
may
at
any
time
by
Law
make
or
alter
such
Regulations,
except
as
to
the
Places
of
chusing
Senators.”

ISL
has
its
roots
in

Bush
v.
Gore,
in
which
the
Rehnquist
Court
opined
that
each
state
legislature’s
authority
was
“plenary,”
and
it
could
even
cancel
elections
and
simply
award
electoral
votes
as
it
saw
fit.
A
few
Republican
politicians,
such
as
Maryland’s
Rep.
Andy
Harris,
are
now
openly
advocating
for
state
legislatures
to
do
just
that
this
cycle.
But
most
have
retreated
to

mumbling
like
House
Majority
Leader
Steve
Scalise
that
“There
were
a
few
states
that
did
not
follow
their
state
laws.
That’s
really
the
dispute
that
you’ve
seen
continue
on.”

And
yet
the
RNC
has
zero
problem
running
to
the
courts
to
get
them
to
change
the
rules
set
out
by
the
legislature
when
it’s
their
voters
(maybe!)
getting
the
short
end
of
the
stick.

The
issue
arose
in
Bucks
County,
where
there
were
long
lines
on
the
last
day
to
register
and
vote
absentee.

The
state
does
not
permit
in-person
early
voting,
but
it
does

allow
voters
to
fill
out
an
absentee
ballot
in
person
and
return
it
immediately.
That
process
requires
several
minutes
of
interface
with
election
clerks
for
every
ballot,
though,
and
takes
substantially
longer
than
simply
walking
in
and
voting
on
a
machine.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
logjam
was
virtually
guaranteed
by
Republican
state
legislators,
who
refuse
to
make
it
easier
to
cast
a
ballot
in
the
Commonwealth;
and
by
Republicans,
who
fearmonger
about
drop
boxes
so
aggressively
that
their
own
voters
are
terrified
to
use
them.

By

statute,
the
last
day
to
request
an
absentee
ballot
is
seven
days
before
the
election,
i.e.
Tuesday
October
29.
According
to
the


Philadelphia
Inquirer,
election
officials
in
Bucks
County
told
voters
who
were
in
line
by
2:30
on
Tuesday
that
they
could
fill
out
the
forms
and
cast
their
absentee
ballots
that
day.
Everyone
who
was
in
line
by
5
could
request
a
ballot
and
either
receive
it
by
mail
or
pick
it
up
later
in
the
week.
But
that
didn’t
stop
Republicans
from
claiming
that
the
long
lines
were
evidence
of
an
effort
to
suppress
the
votes
of
Trump
supporters.

Here’s
RNC
Chair
Michael
Whatley,
along
with
Val
Biancaniello,
a
PA
GOP
official
in
Delaware
County
who

got
herself
arrested
for
harassing
voters
in
line
to
cast
absentee
ballots
on
Monday.

https://x.com/ChairmanWhatley/status/1851393618365362352

In
2020,
President
Biden
took
63
percent
of
the
vote
in
Delaware
County,
and
52
percent
in
Bucks
County.
Nevertheless,
Whatley

tweeted
that
Biancaniello’s
arrest
“follows
reports
from
across
the
commonwealth
that
voters
are
being
turned
away
in
conservative
areas.”

The
RNC
and
the
Trump
campaign
characterized
attempts
to
manage
the
line
of
voters
as
“voter
suppression,”
and
they
filed

suit
in
the
Bucks
County
Court
of
Common
Pleas
alleging
that
officials
had
violated
the
law
by
not
allowing
everyone
in
line
by
5
to
cast
their
vote
on
site
that
day.
The

statute,
and
indeed
the
complaint
itself,
are
a
little
unclear
as
to
whether
voters
have
the
right
to
vote
absentee
in
person,
or
simply
to
request
the
ballot
by
the
deadline.
But
the
petitioners
got
their
wish,
with
Judge
Jeffrey
Trauger
granting
a

preliminary
injunction
ordering
election
officials
to
continue
to
process
and
accept
absentee
ballot
requests
through
November
1.

Because
sending
out
absentee
ballots
requests
to
all
voters,
accepting
ballots
in
the
park,
ballot
drop
boxes,
and
court-mandated
voting
modifications
during
a
pandemic
are
illegal.
But
having
a
court
order
two
more
days
of
early
voting
is
totally
kosher.
And
Trump
will
explain
that
fine
distinction
to
Joe
Rogan
when
he
runs
again
in
2028.

---

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

These
concerns
were
expressed
during
his
burial
on
Wednesday
at
his
homestead
in
Dibilashaba,
Gwanda
South,
where
he
was
laid
to
rest
near
his
ancestors.

The
28-year-old
chief,
whose
real
name
was
Oaheng
Nare,
passed
away
at
a
Harare
health
facility
after
being
admitted
with
severe
stomach
pain
and
vomiting.

A
few
weeks
before
his
mysterious
death,
armed
robbers
raided
his
rural
home
and
stole
his
official
Isuzu
vehicle.

His
funeral
drew
attendance
from
prominent
figures,
including
the
President
of
the
Chiefs’
Council,
Chief
Mtshane
Khumalo,
several
chiefs
from
the
Matabeleland
region,
Members
of
Parliament,
and
local
government
representatives.

During
the
service,
a
visibly
distressed
family
member
spoke
about
their
spiritual
beliefs,
expressing
hope
that
the
late
Chief
Marupi
had
the
opportunity
to
“submit
his
spirit
unto
the
Lord”.

He
warned
that
anyone
responsible
for
Marupi’s
death
would
suffer
consequences,
saying,
“No
matter
how
big
your
hand,
you
have
started
to
do
to
yourself
what
you
have
done
to
us.”

Chief
Hwadalala
of
Gwanda,
echoing
the
family’s
suspicions,
suggested
that
if
foul
play
was
involved,
Marupi
would
“speak
for
himself”
and
reveal
the
truth.
“I
suspect
foul
play
too,”
he
added,
joining
the
calls
for
a
thorough
investigation.

Chief
Sitauze,
a
close
friend,
described
Chief
Marupi’s
death
as
deeply
shocking
and
hard
to
believe.

Reflecting
on
their
friendship,
he
said,
“We
knew
each
other
well;
he
was
a
jovial
person,
always
full
of
jokes.”
He
recalled
the
excitement
Chief
Marupi
felt
upon
receiving
his
official
vehicle,
and
shared
his
dismay
upon
learning
the
car
was
later
stolen,
remarking
that
it
was
an
affront
to
the
honour
of
the
chieftainship.

Chief
Sitauze
called
for
support
for
young
chiefs,
who
often
bear
overwhelming
responsibilities
without
sufficient
guidance.

“Being
appointed
at
a
young
age,
Chief
Marupi
needed
community
support
and
wisdom,”
he
said.

Village
Head
Mahla
added,
“The
mountain
has
fallen;
we
are
left
without
a
place
to
hide.”
He
called
for
divine
comfort
for
the
Dibilashaba
village,
which
he
said
had
begun
to
see
hope
with
Chief
Marupi’s
leadership.

Chief
Marupi
is
survived
by
a
wife
and
a
son.