Category: News Feeds

Matt
Gaetz
is
a
disgrace
for
a
whole
lot
of
reasons,
many
of
which
were
laid
out
in
a

House
ethics
report
released
this
morning.
But
aside
from
paying
for
sex
from
a
girl
too
young
to
consent
and
his
rampant
drug
use
at
a
time
when
he
was

feigning
outrage
at
Hunter
Biden’s
addiction,
Gaetz
should
be
disqualified
from
office
for
being
comically bad
at
law.

To
wit,
this
morning
he
filed
a

motion
for
injunctive
relief
at
the
federal
court
in
DC,
demanding
that
it
stop
the
Ethics
Committee
from
releasing
its
findings.

His
legal
theories
are
…
creative.
He
claims
that
it
violates
due
process
and
the
Constitution
to
mention
his
failure
to
disclose
a
trip
to
the
Bahamas
with
a
donor
and
several
nice
ladies
from
the
Seeking
Arrangement
website.
It’s
defamatory
to
say
he
paid
for
sex,
when
all
he
did
was
give
those
girls
money
out
of
the
generousity
of
his
heart.
Also
it
violates
the
Privacy
Act
(which
doesn’t
apply
to
Congress)
to
disclose
his
personal
texts.

The
filing
was
also
procedurally
defective
—

if
you
can
even
believe
it.
To
wit,
Gaetz
failed
to
include
the
name
and
address
of
each
party,
or
summonses
for
each
government
defendant,
the
US
Attorney
for
DC,
and
the
Attorney
General.
He
also
filed
his
application
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
along
with
the
complaint,
in
violation
of
the
local
rules.

All
those
things
could
be
fixed,
and
eventually
they
were.
But
before
Gaetz
even
filed
his
dumb
complaint,
every
reporter
in
DC

had
an
embargoed
copy
of
the
report
and
was

quoting
liberally
from
it.
And
while
Gaetz’s
counsel
were
still
struggling
to
locate
their
own
genitals
by
consulting
Google
Maps
and
the
court
clerk,
the
Committee
published
its
findings.

Indeed
CNN

reported
six
days
ago
that
at
least
one
Republican
had
broken
ranks
and
voted
with
the
Democrats
to
release
the
document.
And
yet
Gaetz
failed
to
do
anything
about
it
until
the
cat
was
all
the
way
out
of
the
bag
and
coughing
up
“vitamins”
all
over
the
District.

Not
that
filing
in
timely
fashion
would
have
helped.
Persuading
a
federal
judge
that
the
Speech
or
Debate
Clause
is
more
of
a
suggestion
really
was
always
going
to
be

a
lift.
But
docketing
this
turkey
when
the
report
was
already
in
the
wild
was
the
legal
equivalent
of
asking
a
prostitute
to
comp
you
a
free
one
for
“customer
appreciation
week.”
And
so,
of
course,
that’s
exactly
what
he
did.

An
hour
later,
Judge
Amit
Mehta
put
out
a
brief
order
instructing
Gaetz
to
show
cause
by
5pm
today
“why
this
matter
should
not
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction,
insofar
as
this
case
appears
to
be
moot
in
light
of
the
House
Ethics
Committee’s
public
disclosure
of
the
report
whose
release
Plaintiff
seeks
to
enjoin.”

Gaetz
is
currently
busy
livetweeting
his
own
ethics
report
and
insisting
that
he
paid
ladies

after
sex,
not for
it,
which
is
totally
different,
okay?

Tweet
through
it,
Florida
Man.
You’re
doing
great!

And
lo,
even
as
we
went
to
press,
a
Christmas
Miracle
did

appear.
Seeing
that
he
would
not
be
able
to
get
relief
at
this
late
hour,
the
former
congressman
has
pulled
out
of
this
case.

HO.
HO.
HO.

Gaetz
v.
House
of
Representatives
Committee
on
Ethics
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Matt
Gaetz
is
a
disgrace
for
a
whole
lot
of
reasons,
many
of
which
were
laid
out
in
a

House
ethics
report
released
this
morning.
But
aside
from
paying
for
sex
from
a
girl
too
young
to
consent
and
his
rampant
drug
use
at
a
time
when
he
was

feigning
outrage
at
Hunter
Biden’s
addiction,
Gaetz
should
be
disqualified
from
office
for
being
comically bad
at
law.

To
wit,
this
morning
he
filed
a

motion
for
injunctive
relief
at
the
federal
court
in
DC,
demanding
that
it
stop
the
Ethics
Committee
from
releasing
its
findings.

His
legal
theories
are
…
creative.
He
claims
that
it
violates
due
process
and
the
Constitution
to
mention
his
failure
to
disclose
a
trip
to
the
Bahamas
with
a
donor
and
several
nice
ladies
from
the
Seeking
Arrangement
website.
It’s
defamatory
to
say
he
paid
for
sex,
when
all
he
did
was
give
those
girls
money
out
of
the
generousity
of
his
heart.
Also
it
violates
the
Privacy
Act
(which
doesn’t
apply
to
Congress)
to
disclose
his
personal
texts.

The
filing
was
also
procedurally
defective
—

if
you
can
even
believe
it.
To
wit,
Gaetz
failed
to
include
the
name
and
address
of
each
party,
or
summonses
for
each
government
defendant,
the
US
Attorney
for
DC,
and
the
Attorney
General.
He
also
filed
his
application
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
along
with
the
complaint,
in
violation
of
the
local
rules.

All
those
things
could
be
fixed,
and
eventually
they
were.
But
before
Gaetz
even
filed
his
dumb
complaint,
every
reporter
in
DC

had
an
embargoed
copy
of
the
report
and
was

quoting
liberally
from
it.
And
while
Gaetz’s
counsel
were
still
struggling
to
locate
their
own
genitals
by
consulting
Google
Maps
and
the
court
clerk,
the
Committee
published
its
findings.

Indeed
CNN

reported
six
days
ago
that
at
least
one
Republican
had
broken
ranks
and
voted
with
the
Democrats
to
release
the
document.
And
yet
Gaetz
failed
to
do
anything
about
it
until
the
cat
was
all
the
way
out
of
the
bag
and
coughing
up
“vitamins”
all
over
the
District.

Not
that
filing
in
timely
fashion
would
have
helped.
Persuading
a
federal
judge
that
the
Speech
or
Debate
Clause
is
more
of
a
suggestion
really
was
always
going
to
be

a
lift.
But
docketing
this
turkey
when
the
report
was
already
in
the
wild
was
the
legal
equivalent
of
asking
a
prostitute
to
comp
you
a
free
one
for
“customer
appreciation
week.”
And
so,
of
course,
that’s
exactly
what
he
did.

An
hour
later,
Judge
Amit
Mehta
put
out
a
brief
order
instructing
Gaetz
to
show
cause
by
5pm
today
“why
this
matter
should
not
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction,
insofar
as
this
case
appears
to
be
moot
in
light
of
the
House
Ethics
Committee’s
public
disclosure
of
the
report
whose
release
Plaintiff
seeks
to
enjoin.”

Gaetz
is
currently
busy
livetweeting
his
own
ethics
report
and
insisting
that
he
paid
ladies

after
sex,
not for
it,
which
is
totally
different,
okay?

Tweet
through
it,
Florida
Man.
You’re
doing
great!

And
lo,
even
as
we
went
to
press,
a
Christmas
Miracle
did

appear.
Seeing
that
he
would
not
be
able
to
get
relief
at
this
late
hour,
the
former
congressman
has
pulled
out
of
this
case.

HO.
HO.
HO.

Gaetz
v.
House
of
Representatives
Committee
on
Ethics
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Matt
Gaetz
is
a
disgrace
for
a
whole
lot
of
reasons,
many
of
which
were
laid
out
in
a

House
ethics
report
released
this
morning.
But
aside
from
paying
for
sex
from
a
girl
too
young
to
consent
and
his
rampant
drug
use
at
a
time
when
he
was

feigning
outrage
at
Hunter
Biden’s
addiction,
Gaetz
should
be
disqualified
from
office
for
being
comically bad
at
law.

To
wit,
this
morning
he
filed
a

motion
for
injunctive
relief
at
the
federal
court
in
DC,
demanding
that
it
stop
the
Ethics
Committee
from
releasing
its
findings.

His
legal
theories
are
…
creative.
He
claims
that
it
violates
due
process
and
the
Constitution
to
mention
his
failure
to
disclose
a
trip
to
the
Bahamas
with
a
donor
and
several
nice
ladies
from
the
Seeking
Arrangement
website.
It’s
defamatory
to
say
he
paid
for
sex,
when
all
he
did
was
give
those
girls
money
out
of
the
generousity
of
his
heart.
Also
it
violates
the
Privacy
Act
(which
doesn’t
apply
to
Congress)
to
disclose
his
personal
texts.

The
filing
was
also
procedurally
defective
—

if
you
can
even
believe
it.
To
wit,
Gaetz
failed
to
include
the
name
and
address
of
each
party,
or
summonses
for
each
government
defendant,
the
US
Attorney
for
DC,
and
the
Attorney
General.
He
also
filed
his
application
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
along
with
the
complaint,
in
violation
of
the
local
rules.

All
those
things
could
be
fixed,
and
eventually
they
were.
But
before
Gaetz
even
filed
his
dumb
complaint,
every
reporter
in
DC

had
an
embargoed
copy
of
the
report
and
was

quoting
liberally
from
it.
And
while
Gaetz’s
counsel
were
still
struggling
to
locate
their
own
genitals
by
consulting
Google
Maps
and
the
court
clerk,
the
Committee
published
its
findings.

Indeed
CNN

reported
six
days
ago
that
at
least
one
Republican
had
broken
ranks
and
voted
with
the
Democrats
to
release
the
document.
And
yet
Gaetz
failed
to
do
anything
about
it
until
the
cat
was
all
the
way
out
of
the
bag
and
coughing
up
“vitamins”
all
over
the
District.

Not
that
filing
in
timely
fashion
would
have
helped.
Persuading
a
federal
judge
that
the
Speech
or
Debate
Clause
is
more
of
a
suggestion
really
was
always
going
to
be

a
lift.
But
docketing
this
turkey
when
the
report
was
already
in
the
wild
was
the
legal
equivalent
of
asking
a
prostitute
to
comp
you
a
free
one
for
“customer
appreciation
week.”
And
so,
of
course,
that’s
exactly
what
he
did.

An
hour
later,
Judge
Amit
Mehta
put
out
a
brief
order
instructing
Gaetz
to
show
cause
by
5pm
today
“why
this
matter
should
not
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction,
insofar
as
this
case
appears
to
be
moot
in
light
of
the
House
Ethics
Committee’s
public
disclosure
of
the
report
whose
release
Plaintiff
seeks
to
enjoin.”

Gaetz
is
currently
busy
livetweeting
his
own
ethics
report
and
insisting
that
he
paid
ladies

after
sex,
not for
it,
which
is
totally
different,
okay?

Tweet
through
it,
Florida
Man.
You’re
doing
great!

And
lo,
even
as
we
went
to
press,
a
Christmas
Miracle
did

appear.
Seeing
that
he
would
not
be
able
to
get
relief
at
this
late
hour,
the
former
congressman
has
pulled
out
of
this
case.

HO.
HO.
HO.

Gaetz
v.
House
of
Representatives
Committee
on
Ethics
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

Justice
Antonin
Scalia
died
as
he
lived…
taking
a
luxury
vacation
amongst
wealthy
fans.

At
least
that’s
one
of
the
key
findings
from

a
new
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
report,
detailing
decades
of
Supreme
Court
justices
living
high
on
the
hog
over
the
course
of
some
900
pages
and
putting
a
lot
of
the
responsibility
for
the
Court’s
loose
relationship
with
ethical
obligations
on
Ole
Nino
himself.

Scalia’s
last
trip
was,
apparently,
not
out
of
the
ordinary
for
the
justice.
Kicking
back
in
a
luxury
ranch
owned
by
a
wealthy
businessman
to
hang
out
with
more
rich
people
—
“a
group
of
friends
sympathetic
to
the
justice’s
views,”
as
his
host
put
it.

Justice
Scalia
regularly
accepted
luxury
travel
and
lodging
from
wealthy
benefactors
and
failed
to
report
the
gifts
on
his
financial
disclosures,
in
contravention
of
federal
law.
From
his
confirmation
in
1986
until
his
death
in
2016,
Justice
Scalia
took
at
least
258
subsidized
trips,
more
than
any
other
justice.
Despite
all
of
these
trips
being
funded
by
private
donors,
many
were
only
partially
disclosed,
while
several
dozen
others
appear
to
have
never
been
disclosed.
For
instance,
Justice
Scalia
would
often
disclose
trips
to
give
speeches,
but
fail
to
disclose
hunting
trips.
Justice
Scalia
tragically
passed
away
during
one
of
these
undisclosed
hunting
trips.

All
for
a
hunting
excursion
run
by
the
Order
of
St.
Hubertus,
a
hunting
club
of
Eyes
Wide
Shut
extras
knighted
by
the
King
of
Spain
—
though
it
seems
Scalia
at
least
had
the
good
constitutional
sense
not
to
be
knighted
himself,

unlike
some
justices
we
could
mention.

As
an
aside,
several
FedSoc
keyboard
warriors
tried
to
downplay
Alito’s
decision
to
get
knighted
—
despite
Article
I,
Section
9
of
the
Constitution
—
by
arguing
that
Alito’s
specific
knighthood
is
“just
an
honorary
title.”

That’s
what
knighthoods
are!
He’s
not
marching
against
the
Starks
under
his
personal
sigil
(upside-down
flag,
naturally).
The
Brits
don’t
actually
expect
Elton
John
to
lead
an
expeditionary
force
against
the
French
crown.
Knighthoods
haven’t
been
more
than
an
honorary
title
for
centuries.

In
the
Senate
report
—
which
dropped
over
the
weekend
before
Christmas
in
a
timing
decision
that
could
not
better
encapsulate
Dick
Durbin’s
tenure
in
charge
of
that
body
—
the
Judiciary
Committee
concluded
that
the
Supreme
Court
needs
an
enforceable
ethics
code

which
the
Court
would
refuse
to
acknowledge
and
the
incoming
Congress
lacks
any
interest
in
pursuing.
And
while
the
Republican
appointees
star
in
the
most
egregious
examples,
the
report
doesn’t
ignore
the
publishing
and
teaching
issues
that
justices
across
the
spectrum
have
had.

This
instant
investigation
grew
out
of

ProPublica’s
rockstar
work
identifying
half
a
million
in
gifts
that
Clarence
Thomas
took
from
billionaire
Harlan
Crow
and

Sam
Alito’s
private
jet
trip
as
a
guest
of
a
man
with
business
before
the
Court.
Alito
attempted
to

preemptively
downplay
this
report
and

claim
he
barely
knew
his
benefactor
—
a
claim
that
ran
smack
dab
into

Above
the
Law’s
own
reporting
from
2009.
As
the
Senate
dug
deeper,
they
found
Thomas

took
even
more
undisclosed
vacations
and
had
an

RV
purchased
with
help
(in
whole
or
in
part)
from
a
health
care
executive.

But
for
all
the
work
Thomas
and
Alito
have
done
to
abuse
the
public
trust
and
spit
on
the
institution,
they
still
have
to
take
a
back
seat
to
the
OG.
Thomas
may
have
collected
more
in
gifts
and

have
a
wife
taking
money
under
the
table
and
Alito
might
be
streets
ahead
of
anything
Scalia
did
when
he’s
engaging
in
coup
curious
vexillology,
but
Scalia
deserves
top
honors
for
developing
the
strategy
to
brazenly
invoking
the
“personal
hospitality”
exception
—
designed
to
prevent
judges
from
having
to
disclose
flopping
on
their
college
roommate’s
couch
—
as
a
catch-all
for
“hundreds
of
subsidized
trips,
including
several
dozen
hunting
and
fishing
trips
with
prominent
Republican
donors
and
politicians”
in
a
bid
to
prevent
the
public
from
learning
what
goes
on
up
there.

FINDING
3:
Justice
Scalia
misused
the
“personal
hospitality”
exemption
to
the
Ethics
in
Government
Act
to
hide
or
obscure
lavish
gifts.
The
Ethics
in
Government
Act
requires
federal
officials,
including
Supreme
Court
justices,
to
file
financial
disclosure
reports.
The
law
includes
certain
exemptions
for
what
must
be
included
in
these
reports,
including
a
limited
exemption
for
personal
hospitality
that
applies
only
to
food,
lodging,
or
entertainment
received
from
an
individual.
Justice
Scalia
regularly
misused
the
personal
hospitality
exemption
to
improperly
characterize
travel-related
gifts
as
reimbursements
and
failed
to
disclose
transportation
and
trips
in
part
or
in
whole.

Aside
from
stretching
the
“personal
hospitality”
exception
beyond
all
reasonable
limits
—
and
certainly
beyond
whatever
“original
public
meaning”
those
words
might
bear
—
the
idea
that
a
justice
is
just
“hangin’
with
the
boys”
when
he
jumps
on
a
private
jet
to
stay
at
a
resort
with
a
billionaire
is
deeply
problematic.
It’s
one
thing,
to
use
the
above
hypothetical,
if
their
college
roommate
turned
out
to
be
a
multimillionaire
running
a
hedge
fund
cross-wise
with
the
SEC,
but
these
benefactors
have
zilch
connection
with
the
justices
beyond
their
jobs.

These
mega
rich
“buddies”
wouldn’t
give
Thomas
or
Alito
the
time
of
day
if
they
were
traffic
court
judges.
They
only
have
these
friends
offering
“personal
hospitality”
by
dint
of
the
office
and
the
prospect
that
the

ideological
justices
might
leave
if
they
aren’t
treated
right.
Which,
when
you
think
about
it,
is
really
sad.
Imagine
taking
the
position,
as
a
matter
of
law,
that
the
wealthy
sycophants
throwing
around
pocket
change
to
curry
favor
are
your
“close
friends.”
Seems
like
a
sort
of
empty
life.

But
it’s
the
sort
of
empty
life
that’s
easier
to
enjoy
from
a
yacht.

Earlier:

Clarence
Thomas
Has
Forgotten
More
Vacations
Than
You’ll
Ever
Know

Sam
Alito
Laments
It’s
Getting
So
You
Can’t
Take
All-Expense
Paid
Luxury
Vacations
Funded
By
Billionaires
Anymore

Sam
Alito
Got
Knighted…
Just
Like
The
Founding
Fathers
EXPLICITLY
MADE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
don’t
anticipate
there
being
a
mad
rush
for
these
special
bonuses.
Those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
we
tend
to
see
when
the
lateral
market
is
super,
super
high
and
firms
are
fighting
tooth
and
nail
against
their
competition
to
keep
good
associates.

—
Darin
Morgan,
an
associate
law
firm
recruiter
at
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa,
in
comments
given
to
the

National
Law
Journal,
on
the
likelihood
that
Biglaw
firms
that
have
yet
to
announce
bonuses
will
match

Milbank’s
special
bonus
scale.
Thus
far,
two
firms
have
neglected
to
match
the
special
bonuses
while
others
have
attached
high
billables
for
special
bonus
eligibility.

---

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
winter
holidays
are
nearly
upon
us,
and
while
news
about

year-end
and

special
bonuses
continues
to
trickle
in,
dozens
upon
dozens
of
firms
have
remained
completely
silent.
Why?
The
market
(i.e.,
all
of
the
firms
that
have
matched
the
generous
Milbank
scale)
has

already
spoken
—
very
loudly,
in
fact.
There
aren’t
any
decisions
left
to
be
made…
except,
of
course,
whether
or
not
your
firm
is
planning
to
somehow
stiff
associates
when
it
comes
to
special
bonuses.

Which
firms
in
the
Am
Law
50
haven’t
uttered
a
word
(that
we
know
of)
to
their
associates
about
bonuses
yet?
Here’s
a
list
of
the
firms
that
have
yet
to
match
(along
with
their
most
recent
gross
revenue,
as
of
2023).
Do
with
it
what
you
will,
and
please
feel
free
to
correct
us
if
we’re
wrong.

2.
Latham:
$5,688,226,000
(bonuses
are
typically
announced
in
January)
3.
DLA
Piper:
$3,829,531,000
4.
Baker
McKenzie:
$3,286,791,000
14.
Greenberg
Traurig:
$2,302,830,000
16.
Goodwin
Procter:
$2,244,196,000
17.
King
&
Spalding:
$2,137,941,000
19.
Cooley:
$2,034,319,000
(bonuses
are
typically
announced
in
February)
25.
Holland
&
Knight:
$1,849,319,000
34.
Reed
Smith:
$1,429,301,000
35.
Wilson
Sonsini:
$1,375,000,000
40.
K&L
Gates:
$1,282,805,000
41.
Squire
Patton:
$1,242,200,000
45.
Foley
&
Lardner:
$1,167,974,000
48.
Wachtell:
$1,131,137,000
(associates
at
this
firm
don’t
typically
share
information
on
their
compensation;
likely
nothing
to
see
here)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

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.

---

---

It
began
with
Ron
DeSantis
swearing
vengeance
on
Disney
for
mildly
chastising
his
anti-gay
people
law.
After
detours
into

Lilibet
of
Sussex
and
the
Rule
Against
Perpetuities,
remedial

civil
procedure
screw-ups,
and

the
United
States
Supreme
Court
sending
a
stray
directly
at
DeSantis,
the
matter
ends
—
much
like
the
DeSantis
presidential
campaign
—
not
with
a
bang
but
with
a
whimper.

Because
Disney
agreed
to
forfeit
its
headline-grabbing
and
hilarious
deal
with
the
Central
Florida
Tourism
Oversight
District
(then
known
as
the
Reedy
Creek
Improvement
District),
granting
Disney
functional
control
over
the
district
until
21
years
after
the
death
of
the
last
surviving
descendent
of
King
Charles,
DeSantis
supporters
are
framing
the
agreement
as
a
victory.

For
example,
one
tipster
wrote
in:

Hey
Jo
,
here’s
a
tip.
Did
you
see
that
Ron
DeSantis
just
cleaned
Disney’s
clock?
Makes
you
look
like
a
gas
bag

Given
his
inability
to
spell
a
three-letter
word,
it
won’t
surprise
you
to
learn
that
he
did
not
actually
read
and
understand

the
settlement
agreement
(helpfully

scanned
by
Politico).
Thankfully,
we’re
always
here
to
help
him
out.

But
first,
some
background.
There
was
a
time,
not
too
long
ago,
where
Ron
DeSantis
believed
he
could
be
president.
It
may
be
hard
to
remember
that
after
he
spent
the
next
several
months
getting
ritualistically
humiliated
by
Donald
Trump,
but
it
was
true!
And
to
bolster
his
profile,
he
embarked
on
a
series
of
policies
to
fight
“wokeness”
including
the
Don’t
Say
Gay
bill,
an
education
provision
banning
schools
from
acknowledging
that
gay
people
exist.
It
has
since
been

largely
overturned
because,
like
all
of
DeSantis’s
attempts
to
govern

from
firing
prosecutors
to

forcing
cruise
lines
to
give
everyone
COVID,
his
policies
seem
destined
to
get
trounced
in
court.

Disney
offered
the
slightest
of
critiques
of
the
Don’t
Say
Gay
bill
and
DeSantis
decided
to
seek
revenge,
targeting
the
Reedy
Creek
Improvement
District.
To
oversimplify
the
purpose
of
the
entity,
Disney
owns
lots
and
lots
of
land
in
central
Florida
and
that
land
needs
government
services
like
water,
and
sewers,
and
firefighters.
Rather
than
force
some
neighboring
town
to
fork
over
property
taxes
to
pay
for
Disney’s
private
empire,
the
company
had
its
own
quasi-governmental
district.
They
paid
for
all
the
services
and
in
return
those
expenditures
were
more
or
less
treated
like
government
expenditures
saving
the
company
tax
dollars.
Everyone
won.

But
it
was
something
that
Disney
had
that
DeSantis
could
mess
up.
He
first
made
a
public
bid
to
eliminate
the
tax
district.
After

learning
that
this
would
saddle
Florida
taxpayers
with
millions
in
debt
—
something
he
probably
should’ve
researched
before
staking
his
reputation
on
it
—
he
came
up
with
the
idea
of
saving
the
district
but
replacing
all
its
board
members
with
cronies
who
would
take
away
or
otherwise
frustrate
key
permits
that
Disney
relied
upon
like
its
water
management
rights.
More
on
that
later.

Since
DeSantis
and
the
new
board
cared
less
about
governing
than
symbolic
posturing,
they
never
bothered
to
pay
attention
as
the
outgoing
board
publicly
noticed
meetings
to
hand
power
over
to
Disney
directly.

As
a
Florida
corporate
law
expert
—
AND
REPUBLICAN
—
noted
at
the
time,
Disney’s
actions
were
airtight
legal
under
existing
law.
The
Republican
legislature
tried
to
change
that
and
that’s
when
everything
descended
into
lawsuits.

Now,
with
Disney
giving
up
on
its
deals
with
the
outgoing
board,
has
DeSantis
really
won?
Consider
the
settlement.

The
first
prong
of
this
settlement
actually
fell
into
place
before
yesterday,
when
DeSantis
appointed
Stephanie
Kopelousos
to
run
the
district,
replacing
Glen
Gilzean,
who
DeSantis
originally
put
in
the
job

before
an
ethics
panel
ruled
that
he
was
serving
illegally.
Kopelousos
is
a
Disney-applauded
hire,
having
spent
her
career
in
the
DeSantis
orbit
shielding
Disney
from
the
governor’s
half-baked
schemes,
including

carving
them
out
of
the
big
“tech
wokeness”
bill
that

the
Supreme
Court
is
about
to
strike
down
anyway.

So
now,
instead
of
being
bossed
around
by
board
members
like

the
guy
who
said
fluoride
makes
kids
gay,
Disney
has
to
deal
with
a
known
government
ally
who
is
almost
certainly
just
warming
her
resume
to
become
a
Disney
or
Universal
lobbyist
down
the
road.

Not
an
auspicious
beginning
for
the
DeSantis
victory
crowd.

Second,
the
deal
doesn’t
just
invalidate
Disney’s
deals
with
the
outgoing
board,
but
also
everything
the
new
board
has
tried
to
do.
Under
the
terms
of
the
agreement,
everything
reverts
to
the
state
of
play
in
2020
under
the
old
Disney
board
and
charges
Kopelousos
to
run
things
from
there.
Theoretically,
the
new
entity
could
still
try
to
mess
with
Disney,
however…

7.
Mitigation
Credits.
As
a
material
inducement
to
Disney
in
entering
into
the
Agreement,
the
District
acknowledges
Disney
is
the
owner
of,
and
the
District
shall
not
prohibit
or
impede,
but
rather
assist
in
the
use
of,
Long-Term
Permit
Mitigation
Credits
or
other
entitlements
created
through:

a)
South
Florida
Water
Management
District
Environmental
Resource
Permits
Nos.
48-00714-S,
48-00714-P,
and/or
and
48-00714-8-22,
as
amended;
b)
Department
of
the
Army
Permit
199101901
(IP-GS)
and/or
SA3-1991-01901
(SP-TSD),
as
amended;
c)
State
of
Florida
Game
and
Fresh
Water
Fish
Commission
Permits
Nos.
OSC-4,
OSC-SSC-1,
and/or
OSC-TSR-1,
as
amended.

As
a
term
of
the
settlement,
the
new
entity
expressly
forfeits
its
right
to
do
the
sort
of
critical
mayhem
they
hoped
to
accomplish
and
indeed
to
“rather
assist”
Disney
in
securing
the
substantive
benefits
Disney
wanted
all
along.

Strike
two.

Finally,
the
agreement
takes
the
unusual
step
of
NOT
ending
all
the
pending
litigation
and
releasing
everyone
from
liability.

8.
Federal
Lawsuit.
Disney
agrees
to
seek,
and
the
District
will
not
oppose,
permission
from
the
court
to
defer
briefing
in
Disney’s
pending
federal
appeal
captioned
as
Walt
Disney
Parks
and
Resorts
U.S.,
Inc.
v.
Governor,
State
of
Florida
et
at,
Case
No.
24-10342
(11th
Cir.)
(“Federal
Lawsuit”),
pending
negotiations
among
other
matters
of
a
new
development
agreement
between
Disney
and
the
District.

The
Eleventh
Circuit
appeal
is
the
strongest
of
the
various
lawsuits.
Trump
judge
Judge
Allen
Winsor,
claimed
that
a
law
only
and
specifically
impacting
Disney-run
Reedy
Creek
could
not
be
considered
targeted
at
Disney
because
the
word
“Disney”
isn’t
in
the
actual
legislation.
There
might
be
an
appellate
panel
willing
to
buy
Winsor
rewriting
civil
procedure
to
benefit
DeSantis,
but
it’s
not
likely.

The
substance
of
the
case
alleges
that
the
new
board
breached
Disney’s
First
Amendment
rights
by
retaliating
against
it
over
the
Don’t
Say
Gay
law.
So
they
maintain
the
lawsuit
predicated
on
the
appearance
of
retaliation
“pending
negotiations
among
other
matters
of
a
new
development
agreement
between
Disney
and
the
District.”

In
other
words,
Disney
gets
a
new,
friendly
negotiating
partner,
all
the
board’s
rules
tossed,
a
commitment
that
the
entity
can’t
mess
with
the
interests
Disney
cared
about,
and
the
parties
agree
that
the
company
can
maintain
its
most
powerful
lawsuit
as
a
cocked
gun
to
the
temple
of
the
new
entity
to
be
invoked
if
the
negotiations
don’t
go
Disney’s
way.

As
clock
cleanings
go,
it’s
more
like
DeSantis
performing
community
service
scrubbing
down
the
Main
Street
USA
clocks
and
then
telling
Bob
Iger,
“Thank
you,
sir,
may
I
have
another?”
Though
he
does
get
to
walk
away
mildly
saving
face
that
he’s
changed
the
name
on
top
of
the
tax
district
letterhead.

And
after
getting
mollywhopped
by
Nikki
Haley
of
all
people,
he’s
going
to
take
any
W
he
can
get.

(Settlement
Agreement
on
the
next
page.)

Earlier: Ron
DeSantis
So
Sure
He’s
Going
To
Win
Disney
Lawsuit
That
He’s
Publicly
Begging
Bob
Iger
To
Drop
It

Supreme
Court
Subtweets
Ron
DeSantis
That
He’s
Totally
Losing
To
Disney

Disney
Litigators
Take
Their
Turn
Beating
The
Hell
Out
Of
Ron
DeSantis
With
New
Federal
Lawsuit

We
Shouldn’t
Have
To
Choose
Between
Disney
Whipping
DeSantis
And
A
Dickensian
Hellscape

Judge
In
Disney’s
Case
Against
Ron
DeSantis
Recuses
Himself
Because
Father’s
Brother’s
Nephew’s
Cousin’s
Former
Roommate
Owns
30
Shares
Of
Disney

Disney’s
Lawyers
Are
Better
Than
Ron
DeSantis’s
Lawyers

Disney
Lawyers
Seem
Honestly
Shocked
That
Ron
DeSantis
Legal
Team
Is
So
Bad
At
This

DeSantis
Crony
Overseeing
Disney
Tax
District
Serving
Illegally
Because
OF
COURSE!

---

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 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.

Slowly
(perhaps
too
slowly,
for
some
associates)
but
surely,
Biglaw
firms
across
the
Am
Law
200
continue
to
match
Milbank’s
generous

year-end and special
bonus
scales
this
holiday
season.
The
latest
firm
to
match
the
prevailing
market
rate
isn’t
going
to
let
Christmas
and
Hanukkah
fly
away
without
a
word
about
bonuses.

Bonuses
are
taking
wing
today
at
Alston
&
Bird,
which
brought
in
$1,150,108,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
46
on
the
Am
Law
100.
Here’s
what
the
bonus
grid
looks
like
at
the
firm:

We
understand
that
the
firm
has
a
2000-hour
threshold
for
base
bonuses,
and
as
noted
in
the
firm’s
memo,
the
partnership
has
concluded
that
associates
who
qualify
for
a
class
year
bonus
will
also
be
awarded
a
special
bonus.

Congratulations
to
everyone
at
Alston
&
Bird!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
see
the
full
memo.)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
compensation
updates,
so
when
your
firm
announces
or
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Bonus/Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
your
help!

---

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
December
16,
Donald
Trump
filed
his

latest
harassing
trollsuit
against
a
media
company
that
said
mean
words
that
hurt
his
feelings.
This
time
the
target
was
Iowa
pollster
J.
Anne
Selzer,
who
projected
that
Vice
President
Harris
would
take
the
state
by
three
points,
a
16-point
whiff.
Trump

sued
her,
along
with
the
Des
Moines
Register
and
its
parent
company
Gannett
Co.,
under
the
state’s
consumer
protection
statute,
his
favorite

“one
weird
trick”
to
get
around
the
First
Amendment.

But
it
turns
out
Trump
was
so
busy
enjoying
all
that
delicious
earned
media
that
he
forgot
to
serve
all
the
defendants
at
once.

Whoopsie
doodle!
And
so
Gannett
used

one
weird
trick
of
its
own
to
get
out
of
the
District
Court
for
Polk
County,
Iowa.
And
this
trick
is
actually
based
on
real
law,
not
just
rebranding
your
SLAPP
suit
as
a
consumer
fraud
action
and
hoping
you
can
force
the
victims
to
spend
a
shitload
of
cash
before
a
judge
tosses
you
out
of
court.

Gannett’s
“trick”
is
the
forum
defendant
rule,
28
U.S.C.
§
1441(b)(2),
which
allows
for
federal
removal
on
the
basis
of
diversity
“if
any
of
the
parties
in
interest
properly
joined
and
served
as
defendants
is
a
citizen
of
the
State
in
which
such
action
is
brought.”
Here,
Trump’s
MAGA
lawyer
filed
the
complaint
on
the
16th,
and
served
Gannett
the
next
day.
But
he
apparently
failed
to
“properly
join
and
serve”

any
of
the
Iowa
parties
(Selzer,
her
company
S&C,
and
the
Register)
at
that
time.
And
that
meant
that
the
Florida
Man
and
Gannett
(a
Delaware
company
doing
business
in
New
York)
were
the
only
players
officially
on
the
field.

As
trademark
lawyer
Mark
Jaffe

observed
on
Bluesky,
this
may
explain
Gannett’s
refusal
to
publicly
commit
to
funding
Selzer’s
legal
defense.

“To
remove
this
to
federal
court,
Gannett
relies
on
a
doctrine
which
requires
that
Selzer
hasn’t
been
served
yet,”
Jaffe
noted.
“Lawyers
usually
accept
service
on
behalf
of
their
client.
If
they
accepted
on
behalf
of
Selzer,
they
couldn’t
invoke
this
rule.”

And
so,
the
Polk
County
clerk
duly
closed
the
case
one
day
after
opening
it.
Trump’s
trollsuit
has
now
been
assigned
to
Judge
Rebecca
Ebinger
of
the
Southern
District
of
Iowa.
Before
Barack
Obama
elevated
Judge
Ebinger
to
the
federal
bench,
she
served
as
a
state
judge
in
Iowa,
so
she’ll
be
well
placed
to
determine
whether
a
newspaper
article
is
“merchandise”
for
the
purpose
of
Iowa’s
consumer
fraud
statute.

Trump
v.
Selzer
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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