Category: News Feeds

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Alina,
dear,
go
back
to
law
school.
Or,
at
least
read
Marbury
v.
Madison.
Also,
stop
talking
because
every
time
you
do,
you
make
a
fool
of
yourself.

—
 Elizabeth
de
la
Vega,
legal
analyst
and
former
federal
prosecutor,

tweeting
in
response
to

Alina
Habba’s

claims
made
during
a
recent

Fox
News
appearance,
where
she
said,
“There’s
a
separation
of
powers
for
a
reason.
The
executive
branch
is
the
ultimate
authority
on
federal
issues.”
She
went
on
to
say
that
“rogue
judges”
are
attempting
to
prevent
President

Donald
Trump’s
teams
from
running
the
federal
government.
Habba
currently
serves
the
Trump
administration
as
counselor
to
the
president.

---

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.

On
February
7,
the
new
Secretary
of
Homeland
Security
Kristi
Noem
sent
a
memo
to
the
Internal
Revenue
Service
asking
for
assistance
with
immigration
enforcement.
It
requested
the
availability
of
qualified
officials
—
including
law
enforcement
—
to
work
with
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
(ICE).

This
is
part
of
President
Donald
Trump’s
campaign
promise
to
deport
a
large
number
of
undocumented
migrants,
particularly
those
who
have
committed
crimes
or
have
a
criminal
background.
ICE’s

X/Twitter
account
has
posted
daily
enforcement
updates
since
Trump
(re)took
office.
As
a
result,
its
follower
count
and
engagement
have
exploded.

The
memo
specifically
mentioned
investigating
the
financial
activities
of
human-trafficking
rings,
businesses
that
employ
undocumented
migrants,
and
seizing
assets
tied
to
immigration-related
offenses.

Historically,
the
IRS
has
not
shared
information
with
ICE,
the
United
States
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services,
or
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
This
is
because
federal
law
states
that
tax
returns
and
return
information
is
confidential
except
in
limited
circumstances.
Also,
the
impression
of
nondisclosure
would
incentivize
undocumented
migrants
to
file
tax
returns
and
pay
taxes.
Indeed,

undocumented
migrants
are
estimated
to
pay
$96.7
billion
in
federal,
state,
and
local
taxes.
Lastly,
sharing
tax
information
would
be
futile
since
there
is
no
established
method
of
identifying
undocumented
migrants
solely
from
tax
information.

Over
2,100
IRS
special
agents
currently
specialize
in
investigating
tax
evasion
and
other
financial
crimes.
They
carry
firearms
and
have
law
enforcement
authority.
Given
their
relatively
small
number,
it
is
unlikely
they
will
be
watching
the
border
with
Border
Patrol
agents.

Despite
the
separation,
the
IRS
and
its
criminal
investigation
division
collaborates
with
other
federal
agencies
to
combat
financial
crime.

Undocumented
migrants,
despite
living
in
the
shadows,
are
required
by
law
to
file
tax
returns
and
pay
taxes
even
if
they
do
not
have
a
work
permit
or
legal
residency
status.
For
tax
purposes,
residency
is
determined
by
either
the
possession
of
a
green
card
or
the
number
of
days
present
in
the
U.S.
based
on
the
complex
“substantial
presence
test.”
If
an
undocumented
migrant
meets
the
residency
requirement,
they
are
taxed
like
a
U.S.
citizen.
If
they
are
considered
nonresidents,
they
are
only
taxed
on
their
U.S.-source
income.

Tax
returns
require
a
social
security
number.
Undocumented
migrants
usually
cannot
get
one
just
by
asking
for
it.
Until
they
qualify
to
get
a
social
security
number,
they
can
apply
to
get
an

Individual
Tax
Identification
Number
(ITIN)
which
can
be
used
to
file
a
tax
return
or
complete
employment
documents.

Tax
compliance
can
be
crucial
if
the
undocumented
migrant
has
been
placed
in
removal
proceedings,
which
is
the
current
term
for
deportation.
If
their
only
hope
for
relief
is
cancellation
of
removal
for
certain
nonpermanent
residents,
their
tax
returns
can
be
used
to
prove
10
years
of
continuous
residence
in
the
U.S.
before
receiving
the
notice
to
appear
in
immigration
court
and
to
show
that
they
are
a
person
of
good
moral
character.
A
conviction
of
tax
evasion
or
filing
false
tax
returns
is
considered
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude
and
can
automatically
bar
cancellation
of
removal
relief.

It
should
be
noted
that
even
if
the
applicant
is
tax
compliant,
they
will
have
to
show
that
their
removal
would
create
an
exceptional
and
extremely
unusual
hardship
to
the
applicant’s
U.S.
citizen
or
permanent
resident
spouse,
parent,
or
children.
Unfortunately,
this
has
been
known
to
be
very
difficult
due
to
the
stringent
standards
set
by

three
Board
of
Immigration
Appeals
decisions.

It
is
unclear
how
the
IRS
will
respond
to
Noem’s
request
for
assistance.
Even
though
tax
return
information
is
generally
confidential,
chances
are
that
the
IRS
and
its
criminal
investigation
division
will
collaborate
to
shut
down
criminal
human-trafficking
rings
and
curb
illegal
immigration.
Undocumented
migrants
should
consult
with
an
immigration
attorney
to
find
ways
to
obtain
legal
status
or
fight
a
removal
proceeding.
In
either
case,
being
tax
compliant
can
help.

---

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.

It
should
be
abundantly
clear
by
now,
but
it
bears
repeating:
Elon
Musk
has
no
respect
for
the
rule
of
law.
His
position
on
everything
depends
solely
on
his
calculation
of
how
much
he
personally
benefits.
Musk’s
unelected
and
unconfirmed
position
at
the
right
hand
of
Donald
Trump
only
pushes
that
maxim
into
starker
relief.

So,
when

a
federal
judge
(or
more

accurately,
judges)

pushes
back
on
the
power
grab
going
on
in
Washington,
D.C.,
of
course
Musk
has
something
to
say
about
it.
And
because
he
(ill-advisedly)
purchased
a
social
media
platform
that’s
steadily
lost
users
and
value
since
his
takeover,
Musk

used
X
to
stir
up
the
far-right
base,
saying,
“Democracy
in
America
is
being
destroyed
by
judicial
coup.”

Which,
obviously,
is
not
at
all
what’s
happening.
As
someone
who
actually
understands
the
American
system
of
government
and
isn’t
trying
to
twist
it
for
their
own
benefit,
Paul
Grimm,
director
of
the
Bolch
Judicial
Institute
at
Duke
Law
School,
notes,
“The
Constitution
imposes
on
judges
the
duty
to
exercise
checks
and
balances
on
legislative
and
executive
action
that
has
been
challenged
as
violating
the
law.
While
individuals
and
organizations
have
a
First
Amendment
right
to
criticize
judicial
decisions,
it
crosses
the
line
to
attempt
to
threaten
and
intimidate
a
judge
in
doing
so,
and
such
conduct
is
indefensible.”

But
that
isn’t
the
only
legal
institution
Musk
has
taken
to
bashing.

Which
law
firms
are
pushing
these
anti-democratic
cases
to
impede
the
will
of
the
people?

https://t.co/hw2kCetGb8

—
Elon
Musk
(@elonmusk)

February
11,
2025

As

pointed
out
by
Reuters:

That
lawsuit
was
brought
in
Boston
by
Democratic
attorneys
general
from
22
U.S.
states
challenging
cuts
adopted
by
the
National
Institutes
of
Health.
Two
other
related
lawsuits
related
to
NIH
funding
have
been
brought
by
groups
represented
by
law
firms
Jenner
&
Block
and
Ropes
&
Gray.

There
are
at
least
eight
large
and
midsized
firms
working
on
cases
to
oppose
the
Trump
administration,
to
say
nothing
of
the
legal
advocacy
groups,
state
attorneys
general,
and
unions
bringing
lawsuits.

This

isn’t
the
first
time
Musk
has
had
something
negative
to
say
about
a
Biglaw
firm.
But
now
Musk
has
tapped
into
the
MAGA
brain
rot
—
so
there
are
some
wild
responses
to
Musk’s
tweet.

Musk
is
whipping
the
MAGA
faithful
into
a
frenzy
because,

unlike
when
a
ruling
comes
out
of
the
Fifth
Circuit,
he
doesn’t
like
the
result.
The
most
consistent
and
disturbing
trend
of
the
Trump
II
reign
is
the
denigration
of
institutions
or
individuals
that
don’t
sycophantically
cower
to
the
right’s
whims.

---

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
United
Healthcare
considered
spending
more
on
a
cancer
patient
and
less
on

lawyers
to
sue
doctors
for
pointing
out
they
didn’t
spend
on
the
cancer
patient
they
wouldn’t
be
getting
so
thoroughly
dragged
online.
While
the
mockery
they’re
getting
is
funny,
this
underscores
the
dangerous
weaponization
of
defamation
(and
also
copyright)
laws,
allowing
deep-pocketed
antagonists
to
squelch
criticism
by
filing
low
merit
suits.
Also,
a
Biglaw
firm
quietly

scrubbed
its
website
of
a
lot
of
its
“diversity”
language
as
the
government
steps
up
threats
against
private
companies.
And
the

ABA
thinks
the
Supreme
Court
needs
ethical
rules.

Neal
Katyal,
one
of
the
most
renowned
appellate
litigators
in
the
country,
is
making
a
major
lateral
move.
The
former
acting
solicitor
general
is
leaving
Hogan
Lovells,
the
firm
he’s
called
home
since
2011,
to

join
Milbank
as
a
partner
in
its
Washington,
D.C.
office,
where
he’ll
lead
its
appellate
practice.

Katyal
is
one
of
the
nation’s
most
successful
Supreme
Court
advocates,
having
argued
more
than
50
cases
before
the
high
court.
The
fact
wasn’t
lost
on
Milbank
chair
Scott
Edelman,
who
acknowledged
Katyal’s
“unparalleled
track
record”
in
a
statement,
saying,
“He
is
widely
regarded
not
only
as
a
preeminent
appellate
lawyer,
but
also
as
a
trusted
advisor
to
some
of
the
largest
businesses
in
the
world.”

Katyal
had
this
to
say
about
his
upcoming
move,
making
sure
to
praise
the
firm
where
he’s
worked
for
more
than
a
decade
since
he
left
public
service:

“I
have
long
admired
Milbank
and
have
been
fortunate
to
work
with
the
firm
on
some
leading
cases
over
the
last
few
years.
At
Milbank,
I
will
be
working
with
an
outstanding
team
of
lawyers
that
includes
a
number
with
whom
I
have
strong
personal
and
professional
relationships.
In
particular,
I
was
attracted
to
Milbank’s
track
record
of
taking
tough
cases
to
trial
when
necessary
to
protect
its
clients’
interests.
It’s
also
a
pleasure
to
return
a
bit
more
of
my
practice
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Second
Circuit,
where
I
began
my
legal
career,
and
for
which
I
have
the
greatest
of
affection.
Speaking
of
affection,
I
cannot
say
enough
good
things
about
Hogan
Lovells,
it
has
been
a
privilege
and
honor
to
work
there
for
the
last
several
years
and
know
I
will
be
working
closely
with
them
in
the
years
to
come
as
they
are
an
excellent
firm
with
outstanding
lawyers
and
people.”

Congratulations
to
Neal
Katyal
on
joining
Biglaw’s
compensation
leader
—
which
may
soon
become
known
as
Biglaw’s
appellate
litigation
leader,
all
thanks
to
his
presence.

Neal
Katyal
Leaves
Hogan
Lovells
for
Milbank
[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.

I
spent
about
half
my
life
in
very
rural
areas
of
America
learning
how
to
hunt
and
fish
and
otherwise
have
a
good
time
in
the
outdoors.
For
the
other
half,
of
course,
I’ve
been
in
cities
of
various
sizes
learnin’
fancy
lawyer
words
and
then
trying
to
make
some
money
with
them.

I
had
some
success
along
each
of
these
paths.
Which
pretty
much
makes
me
too
much
of
a
redneck
to
fit
in
well
in
big
cities
while
simultaneously
making
me
too
much
of
an
over-educated
liberal
to
really
feel
at
home
out
in
the
country.

That
problem
aside,
my
somewhat
unique
cultural
perspective
can
also
be
an
asset.
Like
when
I
notice
weird
things
happening
with
the
autocorrect
features
on
various
applications
on
my

Apple
iPhone.

I
was
texting
my
cousin
this
morning
using

Facebook
Messenger.
I
mentioned
“snaring
rabbits.”
Despite
having
spelled
that
perfectly
the
first
time,
Facebook
Messenger’s
autocorrect
feature
changed
my
carefully
selected
phrase
to
“sharing
rabbits,”
which
totally
makes
more
sense
I
guess,
what
with
Easter
coming
up
and
all.

This
was
not
an
isolated
incident.
I
have
a
friend
who
lives
in
Missouri.
I
text
him
from
time
to
time
to
ask
about
his
level
of
success
in
“gigging”
frogs
(the
best
definition
of
a
“gig”
that
I’ve
found
is
“a

harpoonlike
device,”
so
when
you
are
gigging
frogs,
you
are
spearing
them,
to
make
delicious
frog
legs).
My
iPhone
sure
likes
to
automatically
change
that
to
“gagging”
frogs.

There
is
certainly
a
discussion
to
be
had
about
humane
methods
of
what
is
legally
referred
to
in
many
jurisdictions
as
animal
“take.”
I
just
don’t
know
why
my
iPhone
seems
intent
on
manual
strangulation
as
opposed
to
a
quick
and
neat
spear
thrust.

I
did
not
readily
find
academic
research
about
artificial
intelligence
applications
potentially
being
biased
against
more
rural
terminology
(there
is
a
whole
bunch
of
research
out
there

about
AI
being
racist,
however).
Anecdotally,
I
have
noticed
this
repeatedly,
and
it
kind
of
makes
sense
logically
based
on
how
text-based
AI
features
function.

What
an
autocorrect
feature
(or
a
large
language
model
asked
to
write
something)
is
doing,
after
having
read
through
all
sorts
of
content
similar
to
what
is
currently
being
generated,
is
predicting
what
the
human
writer
is
most
likely
to
want
to
say.
Only

about
20%
of
Americans
live
in
rural
areas.
That
makes
for
a
lot
more
people
texting,
messaging,
and
otherwise
writing
about
things
going
on
in
cities,
suburbs,
and
medium-sized
communities.
AIs
are
training
disproportionately
on
content
created
by
people
living
in
higher-population
areas.

For
the
record,
I
did
ask
the
latest
version
of

ChatGPT,
“Do
you
know
anything
about
gigging
frogs?”
It
totally
nailed
the
correct
answer.
It
also
asked
me
why
I
was
I
interested
in
gigging
frogs,
so
I
explained
that
I
was
trying
to
ascertain
whether
it
was
familiar
with
terms
more
commonly
used
in
rural
America.
It
assured
me
it
was.

While
I
was
at
it,
I
actually
got
kind
of
wrapped
up
in
a
whole
conversation
with
the
thing
about
this
entire
article.
ChatGPT
more
or
less
agreed
with
me
about
how
less-sophisticated
AI
used
in
autocorrect
features
works
and
thus
how
it
often
fails
to
correctly
recognize
niche
terminology
that
may
be
more
prevalent
in
rural
America
as
it
tries
to
serve
the
broadest
group
of
users
possible.
The
whole
thing
was
equal
parts
impressive
and
uncanny.

Maybe
all
we’ve
learned
here
is
that
the
AI
in
use
to
correct
our
grammar
in
iPhones
and
on
Facebook
is
quite
primitive
in
comparison
to
OpenAI’s

perhaps
appropriately
hyped
platform.
But
if
you
ask
me
(or
ChatGPT),
texting
and
messaging
applications
currently
in
use
certainly
seem
to
be
biased
against
language,
like
niche
hunting
and
fishing
terms,
used
primarily
among
smaller
groups
of
people.

There
are
obviously
greater
injustices
in
the
world.
I
can
tell
you,
though,
that
messaging
applications
correcting
my
already
correct
text
messages
about
rural
things
is
an
almost
weekly
annoyance,
and
one
that
makes
me
feel
just
a
little
bit
more
resentful
toward
big
tech
companies
every
time
it
happens.
That
can’t
be
a
good
thing
for
America’s
rural-urban
political
divide.

---

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].