Category: News Feeds

As an associate at most larger law firms, interactions with the firm’s accounting department are often sporadic at best. Most of the time, you never hear from accounting at all. At some point, when you have been fortunate enough to originate a client or two, you will likely be introduced to someone in accounting, who will likely reach out to make sure that outstanding invoices are in the process of being collected, if at all. Making partner doesn’t change things much — your interactions with accounting typically revolve around billing and collections issues. (While collecting money can be a bear, at least you can also take succor in the fact that you are a partner at a large enough firm to have its own internal accounting staff.)

What about personal taxes for Biglaw lawyers? As a salaried associate or counsel, they are actually quite easy to handle using tax software or a volume preparer — unless you have a spouse with their own business, or have inherited a vast real estate empire that generates income for you on the side. Even as a partner, most of the difficult personal tax issues — such as paying state taxes in each state the firm operates in — are handled by the firm, leaving your personal return relatively simple to handle with minimal outside help. In fact, at least for litigators, you are more likely to have to spend more time dealing with litigation audit requests from accountants for your clients than you need to spend on your personal taxes. Again, assuming your main income is from your Biglaw draw and distributions, without involvement of income-bearing investments of consequence and the accompanying additional tax complexity.

Things change immediately, however, once you decide to leave the big firm cocoon (or if you never entered one, right when you start practicing) to open your own firm. As a service business owner (albeit one that is a bit disadvantaged under current tax law relative to other businesses), one of the first things you need to do is find a good accountant. This can’t be overstated — and is as integral to running a successful law practice as picking the right banking relationship or malpractice insurance provider.

In fact, it is well worth the investment in time to actually interview accountants before selecting one. You can start with practices that come recommended by others and have some familiarity with the types of issues firms like the one you are starting typically encounter. Probably best to talk to at least two so you have some means of comparing options. For firms with established accountants, it is important to continually evaluate your relationship with your firm’s accountant, to make sure you are getting the expertise and service your firm needs to flourish.

Considering how important it can be to have good accounting help, it is also worthwhile to consider what you can do as a client to help your accountant provide optimal service. That starts with recognizing how busy accountants can get, especially during tax season. Which means helping them out by organizing the firm’s finances, collecting 1099s from clients, and assembling whatever other information the accountants will need for the firm’s upcoming return. In addition, an awareness of the accountants’ workload during tax season suggests you should leave the planning and strategy discussions for less busy times. Ideally after filing season has completed, when your discussion can take into account the return that was just filed as well as your performance to date in the current tax year.

As important as a relationship with a solid accountant can be for a firm, it is also important for lawyers to learn from how accountants service their clients. In fact, anytime you, as a lawyer, interact with other service providers, you are provided with an opportunity to learn something. Sometimes, we can emulate what we learn, such as how good accountants really take the time to try to understand a client’s businesses as much as possible. So that advice can be tailored to the particular needs of the client — something any good lawyer should strive to do for all clients. And at other times, a lawyer may be presented with an example of what not to do from a fellow service provider, such as if an accountant is not forceful enough about getting critical documents or information from a client, resulting in errors on a return, for example. Here too, a lawyer can learn how important it is to be persistent about making sure that clients are giving the full picture, so that any advice can be accurate and responsive to the client’s actual needs.

Ultimately, developing a relationship with a good accountant is a must for any firm, as it is with any business. Our practice has benefited from the good advice we have gotten from accountants we have worked with, on issues such as how best to structure licensing deals to whether or not it is worth it to pursue tax refunds from overseas withholdings of monies due our clients by foreign defendants. Just as each and every practice is different, so too will a firm’s needs from its accountants be different. So take the time to find a good one, or periodically consider whether your current accountant is the best match for your firm. For as long as the answer is yes, appreciating the accountants will always be good form.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

The main guideline is for people to stay at home if they want to, but if there are reasons they have to come in, they can. There is no news of firms shutting down yet, but it would be absolutely disproportionate to what is going on. If you go around in Milan today, it is not a dead city. Of course people are scared, but I think they’re more scared because of the press coverage.

— a partner at BonelliErede, an Italian Biglaw firm, commenting on what precautions members of the legal profession have been taking due to the sudden coronavirus outbreak in Milan. A partner at Bird & Bird, a U.K. firm with offices in Rome and Milan, said that meetings at the Milan office are “highly discouraged” and “travels from and to our office in Milan are restricted.” The Hogan Lovells office in Milan is still open, but “people have the option to work remotely” during the health scare.

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Conservatives must be happy that the little fragments of judicial independence Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has seem to be withering away.

The right wing has long had a hard-on for Chevron deference — the foundation of administrative law established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. which grants deference to government agencies’ statutory interpretations. Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy has long been opposed to Chevron, and Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote of the case, saying, “Chevron seems no less than a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” And the Heritage Foundation — an organization so racist they actually named themselves after white history — said Chevron “raises major constitutional concerns, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, and has little basis in American legal history.” But despite this, Thomas has been in favor of the case that makes the administrative state go.

In the 2005 case National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority in defense of Chevron. Brand X established that under Chevron statutory interpretations by administrative agencies outweigh the precedents of appeals courts unless the court found the statute was “unambiguous.” But now Thomas thinks his Brand X logic was all wrong.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied cert in Baldwin v. United States, which, you know, is something that happens all the time and is generally unremarkable. Thomas flipped the script in Baldwin — which relies on Chevron/Brand X — writing a dissent to the denial of cert, because he wants to tear it all down.

And, because of course, Thomas cites himself for the proposition that he should be able to overturn his own decision:

“Although I authored Brand X, ‘it is never too late to ‘surrende[r] former views to a better considered position,’” Thomas wrote in his Monday dissent, quoting himself from a 2018 opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.

That’s one helluva stare decisis snake eating itself.

So if we are left to parse Thomas’s new judicial “philosophy,” it’s that we should trust his original understanding of people who died 200 years ago despite the fact he can’t even trust his own original understanding of something HE WROTE 15 years go. Delightful.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. 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).

Prince’s estate administration just got a lot more crazy. The icon died intestate in 2016. His estate is still not settled. His heirs are his next-of-kin, his six siblings (including one, Alfred Jackson, who died last summer). Since Prince’s death there has been much litigation as to control and management of the estate, which is estimated to be worth between $100 million and $300 million, in addition to valuable royalty rights.

Jackson’s death has had a significant effect on the Prince estate administration. Prior to his passing, Jackson had signed most of his interest in Prince’s estate to Primary Wave. Primary Wave is a talent management, entertainment and digital management company. Primary Wave also invests in music publishing. Recently, Primary Wave made news by acquiring 70 percent of music group Air Supply’s royalty income stream.

As a result of Primary Wave’s acquisition from Jackson, it wants to be considered an heir of the Prince estate. This could affect the management of the estate. Some of Prince’s other heirs are objecting.  Jackson died soon after signing over his interest to Primary Wave. Some suggest that he has mental issues. Tyka Nelson, a sister of Prince, also made a deal with Primary Wave.

It gets even more complicated. Jackson left a last will and testament wherein he left the reminder of his share in Prince’s estate to Raffles Van Exel, a Dutch entertainment consultant. Jackson’s family is contesting the last will and testament. Van Exel is famously known for being friends with Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson.

Administering an estate of Prince’s size and complexity is expensive. Court documents reveal that Comerica, the bank administering the estate, has received $1.5 million in fees. Attorneys have also presented bills or asserted liens in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The family is waiting for the estate to be finalized so that they may receive their monies. In selling his interest in Prince’s estate, Jackson wanted to raise cash so that he could enjoy the money sooner. Unfortunately he passed away shortly after making the deal.

Sometimes estates are complicated by the death of beneficiaries during the administration period. If an heir or a beneficiary dies during the estate administration, her respective estate will receive the first estate’s share. Therefore, if an heir leaves her own last will and testament, the beneficiaries under her last will will inherit from the first estate. If an heir dies without a last will, her heirs will divide her share in accordance with the laws of intestacy. Last wills generally have survivorship clauses so that in order to receive a bequest from an estate, one has to survive the decedent by a set number of days. This helps to effectuate a testatrix’s intent, by ensuring that the assets will go to her beneficiaries as opposed to her beneficiary’s beneficiaries.

Prince’s estate has had its share of complexities from valuation issues, to identifying heirs, to costs. The most recent issues pertaining to Alfred Jackson can be directly linked to the tremendous costs and times associated with the estate administration. The beneficiaries of an estate, no matter how large it is, are often faced with money and time challenges as they attempt to navigate the various issues arising from the decedent’s death. For certain, had Prince executed a last will and testament, many of these issues could have been mitigated.

---

Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com. 

As a public relations stunt, it’s hard to do much better than “Originalism.”

With the courts taking on increasingly volatile political decisions, it’s comforting to think that there’s an unshakeable, predictable philosophy motivating jurists. That conservatives evaluate legal questions through the immutable lens of the public understanding of the Constitution at the time of ratification reassures the public that whatever anyone thinks of conservative opinions, at least they’re based in principles and not shifting erratically based on the whims of the contemporary political aims of the GOP.

It has always been a lie of course, but it’s a pretty successful one.

The conservatives on the Court have all but given up the facade of Originalism, granting cert in a gay rights case signaling an intent to protect Catholic Social Services who got cut off by the Philadelphia adoption program for refusing to place children with same-sex couples. The basis for the looming decision, previewed over the last several years by Supreme Court Oracle Justice Alito, is that religious freedom requires government respect the religious freedom to violate discrimination laws. The only problem with this plan is that the conservatives have already ruled that the “Originalist” read of religious freedom is the exact opposite. Apparently there are more different “Originals” in the First Amendment than there are in Ray’s Pizza establishments.

For a step-by-step rundown of how this came to pass, check out this from Mike Sacks, but the nutshell version is that Justice Scalia handed down the Original^TM meaning of religious freedom back in the 90s at a time when society dared to think it meant respecting even those crazy religions that hadn’t accepted Christ as their personal savior. Scalia schooled us all on what the Founders were really thinking and explained in Smith that the First Amendment didn’t give individuals the right to say that laws violated their religious beliefs.

But today, religious freedom is en vogue among the MAGA set. Taking a page from the old segregationist schools who tried to keep out black students based on perverted religious arguments, companies like Hobby Lobby have wrapped themselves in religious liberty to keep from providing comprehensive health plans to employees. With religious liberty becoming discrimination’s most fashionable excuse, the Supreme Court finds itself at a crossroads staring back at Justice Scalia’s opinion in Smith and poised to dutifully explain that everyone should disregard the “Original” understanding of the Framers in that case and respect the “Original” understanding of the Framers they’re laying out now. By next year, everyone in FedSoc will happily tell you that this is what religious liberty always meant and that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Obviously, this isn’t the first time the defenders of “WWTFD” (What Would The Framers Do) have had to cynically run from the clutch of slaveholders they hold up as demigods. Whenever gun regulations show up, they hilariously define the “original” meaning of the Second Amendment based on post-Civil War scraps because everyone saw George Washington march an army out to quash the Whiskey Rebellion providing pretty compelling evidence that the Founders did not think “bunch of drunks stockpiling individual firearms” had anything at all to do with the Second Amendment. In a comical effort to make this all make sense, scholars pitched the idea of “Originalism at the Right Time” which is akin to saying “I’m a virgin except for all the sex stuff.”

Still, even with the core philosophy in tatters, what more liberal legal scholars don’t understand is just how powerful “Originalism” is as a tagline. There’s no comparable judicial philosophy that can convince the uninformed that liberal jurists aren’t just making stuff up as they go along. The most popular alternative forwarded in liberal circles is “fair minded constitutionalist” which just underscores the idea that liberal jurists make case-by-case decisions based on fairness which is admirable but not great branding for a philosophy. At that point, just go back to the “Living Constitution” formulation. Find something that is intellectually consistent and provides a measure of historical stability. Like “A Reconstructionist” who views everything through the lens of a robust reading of the Fourteenth Amendment or something like that.

Anything that can stand up to the cult of Originalism. Because if anyone doubts how powerful that fake narrative is, take heed of just how many FedSoc talking heads are going to find a way to explain how this new, more Originaler opinion was the true Originalism all along.

---

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.

Over the past several years, you may have come across articles discussing possible changes to 47 U.S. Code § 230. For anyone who is not aware, Section 230(c)(1) guarantees that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Basically, Section 230 allows companies on the internet “to moderate content without becoming liable for it,” however, Section 230(c)(2) also requires that content hosts exercise “good faith” moderation practices to restrict access of “obscene,” or “excessively violent” material.

For years now, there has been a narrative regarding Section 230 liability protections, from both the political right and left, that characterizes the statute as “a gift” to giant internet-based companies. After last week, however, that narrative was affirmatively shattered.

As Mike Masnick at Techdirt makes clear, the giants of the internet industry, like Facebook, have recognized that not only can they survive without Section 230 liability protections, but that removing them would help eliminate competitors. Why? Well, without Section 230 liability protections websites are not going to host much user content given that it would open them up to lawsuits. I probably don’t need to tell anyone reading this, but litigation can be ruinously expensive, and as we have seen on an almost a weekly basis at this point, lawsuits can be weaponized by those in power in order to silence critical speech.

This is why protections like Section 230 that shield companies or individuals from ruinous, frivolous lawsuits become necessary. For a company as gigantic as Facebook, however, which has an army of attorneys on staff, the threat of lawsuits is far less of a concern. This is why supporting the repeal of Section 230 has become what Masnick calls a “strategic choice” for Facebook to harm and stifle its smaller competition.

Equally alarming to the news that Facebook is openly engaged in an effort to repeal Section 230, last week on February 19, the United States Department of Justice held a workshop called Section 230 — Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Accountability? For an in-depth breakdown on the entire workshop, Techdirt has a fantastically detailed three-part series you can find here. For general purposes, however, it need only be said here that the workshop made clear this current administration is firmly committed to repealing Section 230 protections.

Accordingly, with both big tech and the DOJ on board, and throw in bipartisan support gaining in Congress for good measure, it is officially time for those who value Section 230 protections to panic.

To understand what is at stake, consider that David Post, an expert in intellectual property law, considers Section 230 to have “been responsible for the creation of more value” than any other sentence in the U.S. Code. Per Post: “It is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without it. Virtually every successful online venture that emerged after 1996 — including all the usual suspects, viz. Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, Craigslist, YouTube, Instagram, eBay, Amazon — relies in large part (or entirely) on content provided by their users, who number in the hundreds of millions, or billions … . I fail to see how any of these companies, or the thousands more like them, would exist without Section 230. The potential liability that would arise from allowing users to freely exchange information with one another, at this scale, would have been astronomical, and it is impossible for me to imagine, say, an investor providing funds for any of these ventures in a world without Section 230. [And it is not a coincidence, in my view, that these companies are all U.S.-based, no 230-like immunity being provided in most other legal systems around the world.]”

My former law professor and friend, Derek Bambauer, who teaches Internet law and intellectual property at the University of Arizona agrees with me that it’s time to panic, and in an email described our current situation this way: “The great genius of the Internet is that it empowers everyone connected to it to become an author, a composer, an artist — and to find an audience for their craft. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote more than twenty years ago, any Internet user ‘can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’ The explosion of user-generated content that we love — from memes to fan fiction to cat videos — depends largely on the protections that Section 230 offers. Without it, platforms bear the risk that content they carry will create ruinous liability. Internet firms, like all companies, are risk-averse. Diminishing Section 230’s protections will decrease outlets for expression and will undercut our ability to benefit from the vast human creativity that, right now, is only an iPhone camera and a few clicks away.”

Repeal would also return us to the great common law dilemma that led to Section 230. In the 1990s, two cases had established the precedent that if content providers imposed virtually any form of control over user content, they could be held liable. In other words, the choice for content providers prior to Section 230 was extreme censorship or none. This is a vastly different internet than what most of us are used to, and if you value it, recent events demonstrate you’re going to have to fight for it.

---

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

He has dismally failed to compensate aggrieved families of the State-instigated murders in line with the recommendations of an international investigation committee that he commissioned himself. Mnangagwa has lied to the international community that he has compensated the victims of the murders when in fact orphans and families of the State-sanctioned murders are wallowing in abject poverty as evidenced by the video accompanying this statement. The orphans of the six victims of the August 1, 2018 murders are failing to go to school and are scrounging for food while the murderers are still to be prosecuted, in spite of Mnangagwa lying to the world that he has complied with the recommendations of the Mothlante Commission.

The Commission found the police and the army liable for the murders, which makes Mnangagwa personally culpable because he is the commander-in-chief of the military, whose rogue elements needlessly snuffed out the lives of the six innocent Zimbabweans.

The United Nations Security Council has let Zimbabwe down by failing to drag Mr. Mnangagwa before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. While Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the ICC, there is a precedent of the world body not folding its hands when non-State parties have grossly abused human rights. The UN Security Council intervened in Sudan in 2005 and in Libya in 2011 when the respective countries’ leaders were fingered in crimes against humanity. Notwithstanding the excesses of the P5 members of the UNSC in Libya in 2011, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) remains a noble principle that should send a clear and unequivocal message to killer governments such as the Mnangagwa regime. Africa has also let Zimbabweans down as she has adequate provisions under Article 4 (h) of the constitutive Act of the African Union that allows the regional body to intervene in member States in respect of “grave circumstances.”

And the murderous predisposition of the ED regime constitutes a grave circumstance.

Zimbabweans are not safe from their own government. State security agents have twice killed people under the murderous regime of Mr. Mnangagwa while machete-wielding vigilante groups have wreaked havoc in the countryside, with no action whatsoever being taken against them. A slow genocide is also taking place in the country’s health institutions as the regime has completely abdicated its responsibility in respect of providing prudent health services to the citizenry.

Zimbabwe is ripe for intervention and Mr. Mnangagwa is a prime candidate for the ICC. No government elected by the people can kill the very people who voted for it unless such a government has no mandate from the people.

Zimbabweans will soon be taking it upon themselves to engage in a robust but legitimate call for the true people’s government they voted for in 2018.

#ThePeoplesGovernment

Luke Tamborinyoka
Deputy National Spokesperson.

Post published in: Featured

We all have insecurities. We all have feelings of inadequacy. We all have those feelings that drive us to act to assert that we are better. I am awesome, screamed the dust speck.

The problem is when those insecurities have impacts. If you’re taking your insecurities out on others, I have concerns about your soul.

In eighth grade, children attempt to elevate themselves at the expense of others. We are cool. You are not. We are popular. You are not. The goal is to elevate one’s self at the expense of another. That’s the innocence of the insecurity of a child. It’s also the plot to Lord of the Flies.

In law school, it’s narcissistic or, worse, bullying.

In law school, that same behavior is excruciating. People boasting of their grades. People assuring themselves that they are better than the rest of the lot. People suggesting that other colleagues are less than they are. It’s maddening, and it takes an emotional toll on people who are merely trying to learn.

Along with the pettiness comes the gossip. The pettiness comes in terms of social standing, much like junior high. Who do we invite to parties? Who do we slight? Who do we scapegoat for all of our insecurities? Who to start rumors about to feel better about ourselves? Who do we ridicule for errors?  And which colleagues do we pardon for errors because they are friends and think we are smart?

People will boast because they want to stand out. They will recount the fact they have 20 job offers, apparently unconscious of the fact that you have none. And in that process, they will make you feel less than what you are, all the while desperately seeking to feel more than what they are.

How do you avoid becoming like this? How do you avoid feeling shredded by this kind of behavior? It’s difficult, but worth the effort.

1. Be kind. Be compassionate. Realize that if someone is attacking you, absent you causing the issue, the problem is most likely an insecurity. Being kind demonstrates two things. First, you aren’t affected by the mean-spiritedness. Second, you’ll feel better as you reach out to diffuse the issue.
2. Don’t take the bait.  People sometimes like drama. They like to hold power over someone by bullying, belittling, or otherwise diminishing those they see as different. It’s difficult to ignore it (and you shouldn’t if it rises to the level of abuse), but otherwise it is good to take their power away from them.
3. Keep your eye on the prize. Why are you in law school anyway? If you’re there for external validation from other law students, you are there for the wrong reasons. Hopefully, you are there to learn and progress. If that’s the goal, the opinions of colleagues mean fairly little.
4. Surround yourself with less toxic people. The key to law school is to find a group of people who support you. People who want you to win. People who will celebrate your victories and mourn your losses with you. Those are the friends you will make for a lifetime.
5. Monitor your own behavior. It is easy to fall into the same trap as the others. To deride those with different goals. But that is the path to greater insecurity. Instead, remember the language of Henry V: The gentlest gamester is the soonest winner.

Oh, and by the way. Is this column about being a law student, or is it about being a law professor? So difficult to tell.

---

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.

It’s well-known that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t exactly a fan of Donald Trump. During his 2016 campaign, she referred to Trump as a “faker,” and described her fears for the U.S. and the high court, saying, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

In a recent dissent noted for its “caustic tone,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed Justice Ginsburg’s earlier critiques, telling the legal world how she really felt about the fact that her Supreme Court colleagues are “partly to blame for the breakdown in the appellate process” (i.e., they seem to be bending over backwards to support the federal government’s need for “emergency” relief). As it turns out, that dissent had a perhaps unexpected reader: Donald Trump himself. Not literally, of course — after all, Trump was recently trolled because he “can’t read” — but he apparently took the time to listen to a sound bite from Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News.

Trump then took it upon himself to parrot Ingraham’s critique on his Twitter megaphone, demanding that both justices recuse themselves from “his” cases:

Here’s the clip that Trump is referencing in his tweet:

Sorry, Mr. President, but as noted by the New York Times, that’s not how this works — that’s not how any of this works.

Maybe this is Trump’s way of killing off the powerful women, since he already predicted that both Ginsburg and Sotomayor would die during his presidency, but it’s highly unlikely that either of the high court’s most liberal justices will be recusing themselves from Trump-related cases any time soon.

Trump Demands Two Liberal Justices Recuse Themselves From His Cases [New York Times]

---

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 Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.