Category: News Feeds

Every
so
often,
new
lawyers
ask
me
for
advice
on
how
they
can
best
succeed
in
the
legal
profession.
I
usually
give
young
lawyers
a
few
strategies,
including
how
they
should
work
at
a
stable
law
firm,
develop
a
specialty,
and
build
connections
that
can
help
them
originate
business.
When
it
comes
to
learning
how
to
be
more
successful
in
a
courtroom,
I
usually
suggest
that
new
lawyers
listen
to
oral
arguments,
especially
if
they
also
have
a
case
to
be
heard
that
day,
so
they
can
see
how
other
practitioners
advocate
on
behalf
of
their
clients.

When
I
was
an
intern
for
a
judge
during
a
summer
in
law
school,
I
had
a
front-row
seat
to
some
extremely
interesting
legal
matters. I
saw
good
advocates,
bad
advocates,
and
everything
in
between
who
all
argued
a
multitude
of
different
matters.
One
day,
I
noticed
a
young
lawyer
in
the
crowd
in
a
nearly
empty
courtroom.
I
overheard
the
lawyer
saying
that
he
had
a
similar
case
to
the
one
being
tried
and
that
he
wanted
to
observe
how
other
lawyers
approach
various
legal
issues
related
to
the
matter.

Initially,
I
wondered
how
this
lawyer
had
so
much
time
to
attend
court
for
observational
purposes
as
well
as
handle
all
of
his
client
files. However,
on
second
thought,
I
reasoned
that
attending
court
like
this
lawyer
did
was
a
great
use
of
his
time. Law
school
and
the
bar
exam
do
not
teach
lawyers
many
practical
skills,
but
attending
court
can
help
young
lawyers
learn
how
the
legal
process
works.

Shortly
after
taking
the
bar
exam,
I
had
a
few
months
before
I
started
my
associate
attorney
gig
at
a
Biglaw
firm.
Since
I
was
not
doing
much,
I
figured
I
would
go
to
court
a
few
days
a
month
and
just
observe
the
courtroom
happenings.
In
some
situations,
it
was
difficult
to
understand
the
proceedings
as
I
did
not
have
the
papers
or
context
related
to
the
issues
that
were
being
litigated.
However,
I
observed
various
advocacy
skills
I
also
employed
when
I
entered
practice.

After
I
started
practicing
law,
attending
court
simply
to
observe
proceedings
for
educational
purposes
became
much
more
difficult.
However,
whenever
I
had
a
court
appearance,
I
would
usually
arrive
in
court
early
and
observe
the
matters
that
were
on
the
court’s
docket
before
my
own.
In
this
way,
I
was
able
to
continue
observing
advocacy
tactics
and
learn
about
different
areas
of
the
law
without
making
a
dedicated
trip
to
court.

Another
reason
why
it
is
beneficial
to
appear
in
court
early
to
observe
proceedings
is
that
it
can
give
practitioners
significant
insight
into
the
judge
before
whom
they
will
be
appearing. If
a
lawyer
is
able
to
see
how
judges
treat
lawyers,
they
can
adopt
their
own
methods
to
best
appeal
to
the
specific
judge
before
whom
they
will
be
arguing.
I
know
some
lawyers
who
appear
exactly
when
they
are
scheduled
to
argue
a
matter,
and
I
always
think
that
such
lawyers
would
have
been
better
served
if
they
arrived
a
little
early
to
observe
the
court
and
the
judge
who
would
be
deciding
a
given
matter.

In
any
case,
observing
court
proceedings
is
a
great
way
to
acquire
practical
knowledge
of
the
law. Even
if
attorneys
do
not
have
the
time
to
make
dedicated
trips
to
court
to
observe
hearings,
they
can
still
come
to
court
early
on
their
appearance
and
witness
other
practitioners
in
action.

---

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



jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Folks
who
were
paying
attention
didn’t
really
need
Project
2025
to
know
the
direction
Trump
and
the
far
right
were
planning
to
take
the
country
in.
Back
in
2022,
it
was
obvious
theocracy
was
approaching.
And
whether
it
was
labeled

Integralism
or

White
Christian
Nationalism,
it
was
pretty
clear
that
conservative
Christianity
would
be
taking
a
hold
in
the
White
House
under
a
Trump
presidency.
The
only
real
question
was
how
strong
the
hold
would
be.
Considering
Trump
just
casually
mentioned
a
Christian
task
force
housed
in
the
White
House,
it’s
gonna
be
pretty
strong.

Trump
at
the
National
Prayer
Breakfast
announces
that
he’s
signing
an
order
directing
AG
Pam
Bondi
to
head
a
task
force
“to
eradicate
anti-Christian
bias”

pic.twitter.com/pa8yoGrsnT

—
Aaron
Rupar
(@atrupar)

February
6,
2025

Anti-Christian
bias
in
the
FBI?
Maybe
Trump
is
partial
to
some
information
in
a
secret
dossier
that
the
public
isn’t
privy
to,
but

the
FBI
has
skewed
Christian
for
a

very
long
time.
There
might
be
some
debate
over
if
the
right
“types”
of
Christian
are
filling
the
ranks,
be
they

Mormon
or

Catholic,
but
unless
there’s
some
secret
Zoroastrian
front
calling
all
of
the
shots,
whatever
anti-Christian
sentiment
happening
in
the
government
is
likely
coming
from
other
Christians
squabbling
over
doctrinal
differences.

What
does
the
anti-Christian
violence
and
vandalism
he’s
talking
about
even
look
like?
Did
it
look
like
Dylann
Roof
shooting
up
a
Black
church
and
putting
out
his
White
pride
manifesto
before
the
cops
took
him
to
get
Burger
King?
Or
a

Black
church
in
Texas
getting
slurs
spray
painted
and
summarily
burned
down?
Or
are
those
examples
too
“DEI”
for
God
to
come
into
the
picture?
This
isn’t
to
say
that
there
aren’t
legitimate
state
v.
faith
conflicts
where
Christians
are
often
on
the
losing
side,
but
forgive
me
for
assuming
that
Quakers
being
drafted
despite
their
pacifism
or
Jehovah’s
Witnesses
being
forced
to
say
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
aren’t
at
the
forefront
of
the
discrimination
the
task
force
will
be
chasing
down.
Let’s
not
forget,
this
is
Trump
we’re
dealing
with.
It
is
much
more
likely
that
the
“real”
anti-Christian
violence
the
Faith
Office
chases
down
will
consist
of
people
being
“too
afraid”
to
say
“Merry
Christmas”
instead
of
“Happy
Holidays”
or
having
to

go
through
all
of
the
trouble
of
getting
to
the
Supreme
Court
before
you
can
discriminate
against
gay
people.

Funnily
enough,
there
should
be
a
very
familiar
example
of
anti-Christian
bias
involving
Trump.
I
know
that
these
last
few
weeks
have
felt
like
the
last
few
months,
but
do
you
remember
shortly
after
he
was
sworn
in
as
Trump
Coin
Manipulator
in
Chief
and
sat
for
a
sermon
at
Washington
National
Cathedral?
You
know,
the
one
where
the
pastor
asked
him
—
one
of
the
most
powerful
men
in
the
world
—
to
take
to
heart
Jesus’s
message
and
show
mercy
to
the
vulnerable?
He
wasn’t
too
happy
about
that:

The
“so
–
called
Bishop”
has
a
name.
She
is
Mariann
Budde.

She
had
the
audacity,
in
a
House
of
God,
to
implore
Trump
to
have
mercy
on
LGBTQ
youths.
She
further
asked
him
to
understand
that
all
immigrants
are
not
criminals.

Sounds
like
something
a
man
named
Jesus
might
do.

pic.twitter.com/37gkhMzfmc

—
Sis
(@ResisterSis20)

January
22,
2025

While
the
United
States
has
no
state
language
or
religion,
you
don’t
have
to
live
here
long
to
know
that
they
are
English
and
Christianity,
respectively.
With
that
in
mind,
there
needs
to
be
a
bright
line
to
make
sure
that
“anti-Christian”
doesn’t
slip
into
anti-everyone
else.
What
is
the
anti-Christian
“violence”
and
“vandalism”
we
need
protection
from?
Is
it
anti-Christian
for

a
swearing
President
to
opt
out
of
putting
their
hand
over
the
Bible?
Upside
down
Bible
photo-ops?
What
are
the
consequences
for
such
transgressions?
Will
hosting
book
readings
by
drag
queens
be
deemed
“anti-Christian”
because
they
don’t
honor
God?
Who
will
be
the
arbiter
of
what
does
and
doesn’t
sufficiently
honor
God?
Paula
White?
Will
Klan
rallies
be
protected
by
the
First
Amendment
while

protesting
a
Klan
rally
would
get
the
Faith
Office
sent
after
you
because,
at
the
heart
of
it,
the
Klan
is
and
has
always
been
a
Christian
group?
We
used
to
have
a
strong
First
Amendment
that
would
nip
questions
like
this
in
the
bud
and
protect
members
of
a
religious
minority
from
the
tyranny
of
whatever
faithful
were
in
power.
Now,
all
we
seem
to
have
are
thoughts
and
prayers.

Earlier:

Whatever
Happened
To
Separation
Of
Church
And
State?

Yuge
Fan
Of
Adultery
And
Greed
Praises
Christian
Nationalism

---

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
cannot
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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

One
of
the
things
I’m
thinking
about,
we’re
turning
down
some
really
great
people.
People
who
I
would
have
admitted
last
year
are
getting
wait-listed
and
denied
this
year.
There
will
be
some
very
high
quality
candidates
who
aren’t
getting
into
any
law
school
this
year…but
the
caliber
of
law
students
in
this
incoming
class
is
going
to
be
very
high
and
really,
really
strong
at
all
schools
across
the
board.

—

 Sarah



Zearfoss,
senior
assistant
dean
of
University
of
Michigan
Law
School,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com,
on
the
national
increase
in
law
school
applications.
She
went
on
to
say
that
with
less
than
a
month
left
in
the
application
cycle,
there
was
a
30%
increase
in
applicants
to
Michigan
Law.
When
asked
why
she
thought
applications
had
surged,
she
said,
“It’s
a
bit
of
a
mystery.
My
guess
is
it’s
a
little
bit
of
everything.
There
could
be
a
tiny
effect
from
changes
to
the
[LSAT],
more
of
an
effect
from
the
economy,
and
some
effects
from
the
election.”

---

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.

Most
Americans
are
naive
about
just
how
precarious
the
rule
of
law
is
in
this
country.
And
the
Trump
II
reign
is
really
testing
that.

Already

around
the
country
courts
are
pushing
back
against

the
unconstitutional power
grabs
Donald
Trump
has
made
in
his
less-than-a-month
back
in
office.
But
what
happens
if
the
executive
just…
ignores
the
courts?
Courts
don’t
have
the
muscle
to
force
the
issue,
as
President
Andrew
Jackson
famously
quipped,
“John
Marshall
has
made
his
decision;
now
let
him
enforce
it.”
If
Trump
takes
a
similar
path,
it’s
a
real
worrying
prospect.

On

CNN’s
OutFront,
NYU
Law
professor
Ryan
Goodman
highlights
this
real
danger.
Fellow
panelist
Jamal
Simmons,
Kamala
Harris’s
former
communications
director,
asked
Goodman,
“What
happens
if
Donald
Trump
decides
he
doesn’t
want
to
abide
by
the
traditional
ruling?
What’s
the
recourse?”

Goodman
was
blunt
in
his
response,
“Nothing.

That
is
the
doomsday
scenario
that
a
lot
of
lawyers
are
worried
about.”
Adding,
“If
the
president
tells
the
DOJ
not
to
comply
with
a
court
order,
we’re
in
a
real
jam.”

Of
course,
thus
far
it
hasn’t
happened,
and
with
a
stacked
Supreme
Court,
some
of
these
cases
might
fall
Trump’s
way.
But
if
they
don’t?
Yikes.
As
Goodman
continued,
“What
happens
come
the
day
that
they
do
lose
at
the
Supreme
Court?
Because
I
think
some
of
these
cases
are
just
losers.
And
if
they
really
want
to
push
it,
we’re
in
a
real
constitutional
crisis.”

Take
a
look
at
the
troubling
exchange
below.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

This
is
the
story
we
hoped
wouldn’t
happen,
but
let’s
be
honest
—
of
course
it
did.
It
was
always
going
to
happen.

Between
the
administration
publicly
threatening

criminal
action
against
private
sector
companies
over
diversity
initiatives
and

law
firms
rushing
to
curry
favor
with
the
White
House,
it
was
only
a
matter
of
time
before
a
Biglaw
firm
tried
to
memory-hole
prior
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
efforts.

As
we’ve
monitored
Biglaw
websites
over
the
couple
weeks
since
Trump
returned
to
power,
we
took
heart
every
time
we
noticed
that
a
major
firm
still
hadn’t
tried
to
subtly
purge
its
public-facing
site
of
any
mention
of
diversity.
Unfortunately,
though
perhaps
inevitably,
the
legal
community
is
no
longer
pitching
a
perfect
game.

Let’s
play
a
game
of
Photo
Hunt!
Here’s
a
screenshot
of
the

K&L
Gates
website
today:

Can
you
spot
the
difference
from
this
image
captured
on
January
30
from
the
Wayback
Machine:

Yes,
the
“The”
is
missing!
But
probably
more
importantly
the
“Our
Commitment
to
Diversity”
link
at
the
top
of
the
whole
page.

While
this
was
the
only
major
change
to
the
homepage,
the
deletions
and
heavy
edits
didn’t
stop
there.
Over
on
the
“About”
page,
the
December
19,
2024,
version
of
the
website
looked
like
this:

This
morning’s
version
of
the
About
page
looks
like
this:

And
the
changes
aren’t
limited
to
word
choices.
The
entire
“Diversity
and
Inclusion”-turned-“Opportunity
and
Inclusion”
page
has
changed.
The
old
website
included
visual
representations
backing
up
the
firm’s
commitment.
For
example:

The
accomplishments
of
these
attorneys
are
now
deleted.
The
page
still
offers
general
statements
about
inclusion,
but
any
specific
claims
about
individual
achievements
are
gone,
hiding
from
public
view
any
way
to
measure
the
firm’s
success
in
this
area.
The
page
also
linked
to
“a
robust
educational
toolkit”
developed
by
the
firm
and
a
block
set
off
in
all
caps
recognizing
that
“WE
PLEDGE
TO
FOLLOW
THE
MANSFIELD
RULE.”

And
for
what?
If
firms
think
scrubbing
diversity
efforts
will
shield
them,
they
should
ask
Target
how
that
worked
out.
The

retail
giant
backtracked
on
its
public
DEI
commitments
—
only
to

get
sued
by
Trump’s
fellow
travelers
anyway.
These
people
won’t
be
satisfied
until
the
entire
workforce
looks
like
a
1950s
country
club.
It
undermines
firm
culture
for
nothing.

Even
the
Diversity
and
Inclusion
Committee
has
been
scrubbed.
Now
rebranded
as
the
Opportunity
and
Inclusion
Committee
and
its
mission
statement
reads…
a
little
differently.

By
way
of
comparison,
this
is
the
old
description:

These
global
committees
oversee
robust
budgets
and
our
employee
resource
groups
(ERGs),
which
include
groups
for
women
lawyers;
LGBT
employees
and
allies;
lawyers
of
color;
working
parents;
veterans;
and
lawyers
with
disabilities.
These
groups
spearhead
programs
ranging
from
women’s
business
mentorship
training
in
Portland
and
promoting
mental
health
awareness
in
London
and
Melbourne,
to
assisting
transgender
individuals
with
name
changes
in
Melbourne,
Pittsburgh
and
Sydney.

And
this
is
the
new
description:

These
global
committees
oversee
robust
budgets
and
our
taskforces,
which
include
groups
that
explore
ways
to
best
support
and
utilize
the
unique
and
various
perspectives
of
the
professionals
within
our
community
that
contribute
to
the
overall
success
of
the
firm
and
our
clients. 

Erasing
“women
lawyers;
LGBT
employees
and
allies;
lawyers
of
color;
working
parents;
veterans;
and
lawyers
with
disabilities”
seems
significant.
In
a
different
submenu,
the
site
continues
to
identify
a
“Women
in
the
Profession
Committee,
Opportunity
&
Inclusion
Committee,
LGBTQ+
Subcommittee,
Disability
Inclusion
Taskforce,
and
Veterans
Taskforce”
but
at
the
top
level,
these
specific
issues
are
scrubbed
into
vague
generalities.

As
an
aside,
there’s
a
sad
comedy
watching
conservatives
on
social
media
angrily
pushback
against
the
idea
that
“DEI”
ever
meant
working
parents,
or
veterans,
or
folks
with
disabilities.
The
whole
term
was
a
mostly
corporate
buzz
effort
to
lump
numerous
inclusion
efforts
under
the
same
administrative
roof,
but
conservatives
are
adamant
that
this
can’t
be
true.
Because
regardless
of
every
DEI
mission
statement
ever
written,
they
just
wanted
it
to
be
a
socially
acceptable
way
to
use
racial
slurs.

As
the
new
website
says,
“We
will
continue
to
listen,
learn,
and
work
together
to
build
a
culture
where
everyone
is
welcome,
included,
and
has
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
their
skills.”
I’d
be
interested
to
hear
what
they’re
hearing
and
learning
after
these
edits.
Frankly,
I’d
be
interested
to
hear
what
the
Committee
had
to
say
about
these
changes
in
the
first
place
—
or
if
they
were
even
consulted.

We
contacted
the
firm
for
comment
and
haven’t
heard
back.
That
said,
this
is
one
of
those
stories
where
the
firm
can’t
really
explain
away
the
impact
of
the
documents
on
their
face
and
the
impression
it
gives
to
an
outside
reader
—
and
even
more
so
to
an
inside
reader
working
as
an
attorney
or
staff
member.
That’s
why
nothing
is
“cosmetic”
when
talking
about
this
work.
It’s
all
a
series
of
signals
up
and
down
the
firm
hierarchy
and
out
toward
clients.

Giving
the
firm
the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
leadership
likely
expects
the
committee
and
the
firm
as
a
whole
to
maintain
business
as
usual.
They
probably
would
argue
that
these
are
purely
“cosmetic”
changes
and
they
remain
committed
to
these
causes
even
if
they’ve
pushed
that
commitment
to
harder-to-find
corners
of
the
site.

But
when
we’re
talking
about
inclusion,
shunting
people
and
their
accomplishments
off
to
the
side

is
the
problem.
The
whole
point
is
to
build
a
workplace
where
traditionally
marginalized
or
otherwise
overlooked
people
feel
like
they’re
part
of
the
team.
When
an
employer
signals
that
they’re
afraid
to
publicly
acknowledge
women
and
minorities
and
LGBT
folks
and
every
other
employee
covered
by
the
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
umbrella,
that’s
ballgame.
The
trust
is
fractured,
and
the
message
is
clear:
diversity
is
fine,
just
as
long
as
no
one
can
see
it.

---

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.

Donald
Trump
spent
the
four
years
between
his
two
presidencies
filing
garbage
lawsuits.
Hillary
Clinton!
The
Pulitzer
Committee!
Twitter!
No
one
was
immune.

Now
back
in
the
White
House,
President
Trump
is
continuing
the
habit.
Yesterday,
the
Department
of
Justice

sued
the
state
of
Illinois,
Governor
JB
Pritzker,
the
City
of
Chicago,
and
Cook
County
in
a
misbegotten
attempt
to
bully
them
into
becoming
federal
immigration
agents.

The
theory
of
the
case
appears
to
be
that,
because
the
Supremacy
Clause
bars
states
from
creating
their
own
immigration
laws,
it
must

a
fortiari
require
them
to
enforce
federal
immigration
laws.
And
thus
state
and
local
ordinances
that
bar
local
law
enforcement
officers
from
cooperating
with
federal
immigration
officials
are
not
only
bad
public
policy,
but
illegal
and
even
potentially
criminal.

The
government
complains
that
the
state’s

Way
Forward
Act
and

TRUST
Act,
Chicago’s

Welcoming
City
Act,
and
a
similar
Cook
County

municipal
ordinance
“are
designed
to
and
in
fact
interfere
with
and
discriminate
against
the
Federal
Government’s
enforcement
of
federal
immigration
law
in
violation
of
the
Supremacy
Clause
of
the
United
States
Constitution.”

In
reality,
the
laws
bar
local
officials
from
holding
immigrants
on
civil
detainer
warrants
and
from
expending
state
and
municipal
resources
to
detain
immigrants
at
the
request
of
the
feds
absent
a
criminal
warrant.
The
state
laws
are
very
carefully
crafted
to
comply
with

federal
laws,
and
are

not
a
blanket
ban
on
communicating
with
federal
immigration
authorities
—
that’s
why
the
complaint
was
forced
to
say
that
“upon
information
and
belief”
local
cops
are
“confused”
by
the
ordinances
and
“chilled”
from
engaging
in
permitted
communications
with
their
federal
counterparts.
What
they

are
is
a
refusal
to
allow
state
officials
to
be
coopted
into
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law,
as
the
Supreme
Court
has
said
very
clearly
they’re
entitled
to
do.

Just
take
it
from
that
liberal
squish
Justice
Antonin
Scalia,
who
said
in
1997’s


Printz
v.
United
States,
that
the
anti-commandeering
doctrine
barred
the
federal
government
from
forcing
state
law
enforcement
officials
to
run
background
checks
on
gun
purchasers
as
required
by
the
Brady
Bill.

The
Federal
Government
may
neither
issue
directives
requiring
the
States
to
address
particular
problems,
nor
command
the
States’
officers…
to
administer
or
enforce
a
federal
regulatory
program.
It
matters
not
whether
policymaking
is
involved,
and
no
case-by-case
weighing
of
the
burdens
or
benefits
is
necessary;
such
commands
are
fundamentally
incompatible
with
our
constitutional
system
of
dual
sovereignty.

And
so
the
lawsuit
bizarrely
recasts
the
refusal
to
carry
out
federal
policy
with
obstructing
it,
accusing
the
state
of
“obstructing
the
Federal
Government’s
ability
to
enforce
laws
that
Congress
has
enacted
or
to
take
actions
entrusted
to
it
by
the
Constitution.”

It
then
invents
a
new
protected
class
and
accuses
the
state
of
…
discriminating
against
the
feds?

WTF???

So
weird
that
our
new
AG
felt
the
need
to

threaten
“any
attorney
who
because
of
their
personal
political
views
or
judgments
declines
to
sign
a
brief
or
appear
in
court,
refuses
to
advance
good-faith
arguments
on
behalf
of
the
Administration”
with
termination
—
how
else
are
you
going
to
get
line
attorneys
to
sign
off
on
this
shit?

The
DOJ

tried
to
designate
this
case
as
related
to
a
First
Amendment

challenge
to
Trump’s
immigration
executive
order
filed
by
a
coalition
of
nonprofits,
which
would
have
put
them
in
front
of
Judge
John
Kness,
a
Trump
appointee.
But
no
dice
—
the
case
is
in
front
of
Judge
Lindsay
Jenkins,
a
Biden
appointee.
An
initial
status
hearing
is
scheduled
for
April
15.

---

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