Category: News Feeds

After
a
jury
found
A$AP
Rocky
not
guilty
of
a
2021
shooting,
the
artist
and
his
even-more-famous
partner
Rihanna
reportedly
took
the
opportunity
to
thank
Rocky’s
lawyer
in
the
sweetest
way
possible.

In

an
interview
with
Extra,
the
victorious
defense
attorney
shared,
“Rihanna
and
Rocky
said
to
me
in
the
courtroom
yesterday,
they
grabbed
me
and
they
said,
‘Listen,
our
next
baby
is
A$AP
Joe.’”
That
probably
isn’t
replacing
any
of
the
billable
hours,
but
it
beats
a
fruit
basket!

The
future
A$AP’s
namesake
is

Joe
Tacopina,
(whose
website,
we
note,
now
sports

a
new
font!),
whose
relationship
with
the
family
seems
to
have
leveled
up
after
formerly
babysitting
the
couple’s
first
child
while
Rihanna
performed
at
the
Super
Bowl,
becoming
the
first
lawyer
to
take
on
babysitting
duty
since
Lionel
Hutz
(a.k.a.
Miguel
Sanchez,
a.k.a.
Dr.
Nguyen
Van
Thoc)
watched
the
Simpson
kids
for
32
hours.

It’s
a
much
nicer
gesture
than
Tacopina
might
be
used
to.

The
last
big
defendant
that
Tacopina
successfully
represented
(or
perhaps
babysat)
ran
to
his
personal
social
media
platform
and

Truth
Socialed
a
slobbering
diatribe
against
the
lawyer
for
managing
to
keep
Trump
from
owing
even
MORE
money
for
defaming
E.
Jean
Carroll
by
calling
her
a
liar
over
the
—

as
the
judge
put
it
—
colloquial-but-not-strictly-legal-definition
rape.
And
yet
this
is
what
Tacopina
got
by
way
of
thanks:

This
disgusting
Slob,
a
Democrat
Political
Operative,
is
the
same
guy
who
funded
a
woman
who
I
knew
absolutely
nothing
about,
sued
me
for
Rape,
for
which
I
was
found
NOT
GUILTY.
She
didn’t
remember
the
year,
decade,
or
much
else!
In
Interviews
she
said
some
amazingly
“inconsistent”
things.
Disgraceful
Trial—Very
unfair.
I
was
asked
by
my
lawyer
not
to
attend—“It
was
beneath
me,
and
they
have
no
case.”
That
was
not
good
advice.

Here
on
planet
Earth,
Tacopina’s
decision
to
keep
the
incoherent
and
off-putting
Trump
out
of
the
courtroom
was
likely
instrumental
to
convincing
the
jury
that
Trump’s
actions
were
more
legally
characterized
as
sexual
assault
than
rape.
By
contrast,

Trump
did
get
to
speak
at
his
subsequent
criminal
trial
and
only
succeeded
in
getting
convicted
34
times.
Probably
should’ve
kept
listening
to
Joe.

Another
fun
tidbit:
Tacopina’s
Extra
interview
was
conducted
by
Billy
Bush,
who
famously
found
himself
on
the
receiving
end
of
Trump’s
“grab
’em
by
the
pussy”
remarks
later

referenced
in
the
Carroll
case.

Because
time
isn’t
so
much
a
flat
circle,
but
a
Möbius
strip
of
jackassery
perpetually
orbiting
Trump.

A$AP
Rocky’s
Attorney
Says
Rapper
&
Rihanna
Promised
to
Name
Next
Kid
Joe
(Exclusive)
[Extra]

Earlier:

Trump
Flames
His
Lawyer
Joe
Tacopina
On
Truth
Social

Trump
Gets
Carroll
Judge
To
Brand
Him
A
Digital
Rapist.
Again.

Donald
Trump’s
Lawyer
Needs
A
Graphic
Designer
Who
Isn’t
Copying
And
Pasting
Quinn
Emanuel’s
Logo

---

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.

There’s
been
some
friendly
fire
in
the
new
Administration’s
rush
to
scrub
anything
that
doesn’t
glorify
wealthy
white
males
from
publicly
funded
classroom
curricula.
An
article
on

Pen.org
reported
on
the
Department
of
Defense
recently
compiling
a
list
of
books
that
are
too
“woke”
for
military
families.
There
are
some
expected
names
—
can’t
have
the
children
realize
that
our
American
life
has
a
lot
of
parallels
with
Brave
New
World
if
they
aren’t
allowed
to
read
it.
But
there
are
a
couple
of
titles
that
are
head-tilters.
One
book
titled

“Freckleface
Strawberry”
(affiliate
link),
a
self-worth
story
tailored
to
ginger
children,
was
deemed
offending.
As
was
another
book,
JD
Vance’s

“Hillbilly
Elegy”
(affiliate
link).

JD
Vance’s
book
has
been
banned
from
DOD
schools.
I’m
interested
to
see
how
this
story
plays
out.

#BannedBooks

#FreedomToRead

https://t.co/9BkwjwWDPD

—
Dr.
Brian
H.
Williams
(@BHWilliamsMD)

February
19,
2025

I’ve
no
clue
why
this
book
was
banned.
Unless
being
poor,
white,
and
Appalachian
is
the
new
Black
(it
isn’t),
my
assumption
would
be
that
it
got
nicked
from
the
permitted-to-read
list
because
it
used
the
words
“family,”
“crisis,”
and
“elegy”
in
the
title.
Seems
a
little
heavy
handed
and
obvious
to
posit
that
a
book
banning
would
have
anti-intellectual
undertones,
but
I’m
guessing
that
the
word
“elegy”
alone
is
enough
of
a
two-dollar
word
to
get
our
censoring
overlords
to
squint
at
a
title.
Vance’s
book
isn’t
the
only
book
lawyers
with
children
may
recognize
on
the
nix
list:

“No
Truth
Without
Ruth”
by
Kathleen
Krull
(affiliate
link)
also
got
tripped
up
in
the
censorship.
I’m
usually
not
quiet
about
how
cringey
and
out
of
cultural
touch
it
was
to
moniker
the
late
jurist
after
a
rapper
who
—
despite
his
way
with
words
—

had
no
chance
in
hell
of
ever
clerking
for
her,
but
having
a
children’s
picture
book
about
your
life
classified
as
too
much
for
even
military
brats

is
pretty
Notorious.

For
now,
it
seems
like
the
only
things
penned
by
JD
Vance
military
families
will
be
able
to
read
is
him
regurgitating
Fox
talking
points
about
how
the
Judiciary
should
eat
crow
whenever
the
Executive
does
something
unconstitutional.
God
help
us
all.

Julianne
Moore’s
‘Freckleface
Strawberry’
And
JD
Vance’s
‘Hillbilly
Elegy’
Among
Cooks
Caught
In
Defense
Department
Review
[Pen.org]

---

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.

We
are
pleased
to
share
the
results
of
our
2024
In-House
Counsel
Compensation
Survey,
presented
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at
iManage.

With
information
from
more
than
1,100
attorneys
representing
organizations
of
all
sizes
and
more
than
a
dozen
industries,
this
report
provides
comprehensive
data
about
compensation
practices
at
legal
departments
across
the
country.

Compare
pay
by
geographic
region
or
industry,
by
practice
area,
or
type
of
organization.
Benchmark
total
compensation
by
size
of
department
or
level
of
experience.
See
which
in
house
attorneys
earn
the
highest
base
salaries
or
take
home
the
most
substantial
bonuses. 

For
insights
into
these
areas
and
more,
fill
out
the
form
to
access
the
free
report!

Laura
is
a
sophisticated
and
well-regarded
lawyer
practicing
in
Chicago’s
North
Shore.
With
over
a
decade
of
experience
in
employment
law,
she
primarily
advises
small
business
owners.
When
we
met
to
discuss
her
practice,
I
quickly
uncovered
that
she
was
suffering
from
a
serious
affliction:
“Analysis
Paralysis.”
She
also
exhibited
symptoms
of
“Perfectionism”
and
“Risk
Aversion.”

While
I’m
obviously
joking
about
the
medical
diagnosis,
the
issue
is
no
joke
at
all.
Lawyers
worldwide
struggle
daily
with
countless
decisions
that
drain
their
valuable
time
and
emotional
energy.
As
it
turns
out,
making
rational,
intelligent,
and
timely
decisions
isn’t
necessarily
a
lawyer’s
strong
suit.

So,
let’s
explore
what
life
might
look
like
if
you
had
a
simple
and
effective
process
to
make
decisions
quickly
and
with
confidence.
Here
are
five
steps
I’ve
developed
that
will
help
you
move
the
needle
when
it
seems
stuck.

Step
1:
Evaluate
The
Gaps
Between
Where
You
Are
And
Where
You
Want
To
Be

While
I
know
it’s
hard
to
read
the
label
from
inside
the
bottle,
being
self-reflective
is
crucial.
Take
the
time
to
analyze
what’s
holding
you
back
from
growth
and
efficiency.
Track
your
day
in
15-minute
increments
to
pinpoint
where
your
time
is
being
wasted
or
where
you’re
bogged
down
by
low-level
tasks.
For
example:

• What
  tasks
  should
  I
  be
  delegating,
  and
  to
  whom?
• What
  legal
  tech
  could
  improve
  my
  practice
  management?
• Who
  should
  I
  hire
  to
  free
  myself
  from
  administrative
  work?
• What
  marketing
  efforts
  should
  I
  prioritize?

You’ll
be
surprised
at
how
much
time
you’re
losing
just
by
doing
this
one
exercise.
Identifying
gaps
is
the
key
to
advancing
through
the
next
steps.

Step
2:
Do
Your
Research
And
Leverage
Trusted
Sources

Sure,
Googling
might
be
one
way
to
go,
but
I
highly
recommend
tapping
into
your
network
to
cut
through
the
noise
of
random
vendors.
And
be
cautious
of
unsolicited
offers
via
email
or
phone
(stranger
danger).

For
instance,
I
often
turn
to
my
local
Deerfield
Dads
Facebook
group
when
looking
for
proven
service
providers
to
fix
things
around
my
house.
Similarly,
in
professional
settings,
I
ask
my
network,
“Who
knows
a
great
outsourced
VA
company?”
or
“Who
can
recommend
a
phenomenal
employment
defense
attorney
in
Iowa?”
Finding
trusted
solutions
through
referrals
speeds
up
decision-making
and
reduces
risk.
This
approach
also
applies
to
hiring
—
you’re
far
more
likely
to
find
a
reliable
associate
through
a
referral
than
by
sifting
through
random
online
applications.

Step
3:
Prepare
Key
Questions
To
Weigh
Pros
And
Cons

I
know
this
seems
obvious,
but
you’d
be
surprised
how
few
people
properly
prepare
for
meetings.
Whether
you’re
interviewing
for
a
job,
hiring
an
employee,
or
evaluating
new
legal
technology,
having
your
questions
ready
in
advance
ensures
you
gather
the
right
information.
Some
examples
include:

• 
  For
  a
  job
  interview:
  “Can
  you
  walk
  me
  through
  the
  compensation
  structure
  and
  path
  to
  equity?”
• 
  Hiring
  a
  paralegal:
  “Tell
  me
  about
  the
  best
  work
  environment
  you’ve
  experienced.”
• 
  Evaluating
  legal
  tech:
  “What
  does
  onboarding
  and
  training
  look
  like
  for
  my
  team?”
• 
  Hiring
  a
  coach:
  “What’s
  your
  methodology,
  and
  how
  does
  it
  drive
  results?”

The
goal
here
is
to
gather
enough
information
to
make
a
confident
decision
or
walk
away.
The
more
prepared
you
are,
the
easier
it
becomes
to
say
“yes”
or
“no”
without
hesitation.

Step
4:
Trust
Your
Gut
—
It’s
Usually
Right

Let’s
recap:
You’ve
been
referred
to
a
potential
hire,
vendor,
or
solution
by
a
trusted
source.
You’ve
asked
insightful
questions
to
evaluate
its
value.
Now,
what
does
your
gut
tell
you?

Our
brains
and
instincts
work
together
to
protect
us
from
bad
decisions,
saving
us
time,
money,
and
frustration.
If
something
feels
like
the
right
move
for
your
business,
take
action.
If
not,
use
what
you’ve
learned
to
compare
it
against
other
options.
Avoid
indecision
—
eliminate
the
“maybes”
and
“I’ll
think
about
its.”
Stick
to
just
two
words:

yes
or

no.

And
now,
one
final
step
to
seal
the
deal.

Step
5:
Validate
Before
Finalizing
Your
Decision

This
is
the
step
most
people
skip,
but
it’s
critical.
Before
moving
forward,
take
the
extra
step
to
validate
your
decision
by
asking
for
references.
A
simple
question
like,

“Do
you
have
a
client
in
a
similar
practice
area
I
could
speak
with?”
can
make
all
the
difference.

Yes,
this
takes
extra
effort,
but
it’s
worth
it.
I
recently
did
this
when
searching
for
a
YouTube
expert
to
optimize
my
channel.
I
spoke
with
my
friend
Gregg,
who
shared
the
impressive
results
he
achieved.
Seeing
those
numbers
made
my
decision
easy.

The
Power
Of
This
5-Step
Process

Let’s
break
it
down:

1. Find
   a
   trusted
   recommendation.
2. Ask
   the
   right
   questions
   to
   evaluate
   its
   value.
3. Use
   your
   gut
   to
   determine
   if
   it’s
   a
   good
   fit.
4. Validate
   your
   decision
   through
   references.

The
more
pending
decisions
you
have
weighing
on
you,
the
more
stress
and
anxiety
you’ll
experience.
Worse,
you
won’t
be
making
progress
in
growing
your
practice.
By
implementing
a
structured
approach,
you’ll
make
decisions
faster,
with
more
confidence,
and
free
up
energy
to
focus
on
what
truly
matters
in
your
business
and
life.

So,
what
are
you
waiting
for?
It’s
time
to
kill
the
perfectionist
attorney
within
and
start
making
quick
decisions
with
ease. 

---

Steve
Fretzin
is
a
bestselling
author,
host
of
the
BE
THAT
LAWYER
Podcast,
and
business
development
coach
exclusively
for
attorneys.
Steve
has
committed
his
career
to
helping
lawyers
learn
key
growth
skills
not
currently
taught
in
law
school.
His
clients
soon
become
top
rainmakers
and
credit
Steve’s
program
and
coaching
for
their
success.
He
can
be
reached
directly
by
email
at [email protected].
Or
you
can
easily
find
him
on
his
website
at www.fretzin.com or
LinkedIn
at https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevefretzin/.

Back
in
2023,
when
Judge
Paul
Watford
of
the
Ninth
Circuit
announced
that
he
would
be resigning
from
the
bench to
return
to
private
practice,
the
legal
world
wondered
where
he
would
land.
As
it
turns
out,
Watford
chose
to
join
Wilson
Sonsini
as
a
litigation
partner,
where
he’d
focus
on
appellate
and
complex
commercial
disputes.
Now,
just
two
years
later,
the
former
appellate
judge
is
on
the
move
again,
and
this
time,
he’s
headed
to
an
even
more
prestigious
firm.

Earlier
this
week,
Watford
joined
King
&
Spalding
—
a
firm
that
brought
in
$2,137,941,000
gross
revenue
in
2023,
putting
it
at
No.
17
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100
—
where
he’ll
work
as
a
business
litigation
partner.

The
Recorder
has
additional
details
on
Watford’s
move:

Watford,
who
described
himself
as
a
litigation
generalist,
said
he
hoped
to
have
a
mix
of
75%
trial
court
work
and
25%
appellate
work.
He
said
his
practice
is
national
in
scope
and
that
“several”
of
his
clients—operating
in
the
technology
and
life
sciences
spaces—are
moving
with
him
to
the
new
firm,
Watford
said.

He
said
the
firm’s
collaborative
spirit
and
culture—which
he
discovered
through
previously
meeting
dozens
of
partners—drew
him
to
King
&
Spalding.
Its
L.A.
office
includes
about
75
lawyers.

When
he
left
the
federal
bench
in
2023,
he
said
he
interviewed
with
King
&
Spalding
and
“came
close”
to
joining
it
before
deciding
to
join
Wilson
Sonsini.

“I
love
the
people,
I
loved
what
they
were
saying
about
the
firm
culture,
about
the
opportunities
to
grow
the
litigation
practice
here
in
Los
Angeles
and
California
in
general,”
Watford
said.
“Everything
about
it
seemed
like
a
perfect
fit
for
what
I
want
to
do.”

Damien
Marshall,
co-leader
of
the
firm’s
business
litigation
practice
group,
said
the
former
judge’s
presence
at
King
&
Spalding
“brings
a
new
dimension
to
the
counsel
we
provide
to
our
clients.”

“I’m
hopeful
that
I
can
contribute
to
the
growth
of
the
practice
here,”
Watford
said
of
his
move
to
the
Top
20
Am
Law
firm.

Congratulations
to
Judge
Paul
Watford
on
landing
at
a
new
law
firm
that
he
loves,
and
congratulations
to
King
&
Spalding
on
adding
a
former
federal
appellate
judge
to
its
roster.
Best
of
luck!

Ex-9th
Circuit
Judge
Paul
Watford
Moves
From
Wilson
Sonsini
to
King
&
Spalding
In
L.A.
[The
Recorder]

Earlier:

From
The
Bench
To
Biglaw:
Judge
Paul
Watford
Lands
At
Top
50
Am
Law
Firm

---

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.

Updated
02/19/2025
at
5:46
pm
ET
to
include
SDA
response.

WASHINGTON
—
As
a
result
of

a
lawsuit
by
Viasat,
the
Department
of
the
Air
Force
has
agreed
to
revoke
a
Space
Development
Agency
award
to
Tyvak
Nano-Satellite
Systems
worth
$254
million
for
10
experimental
fire-control
satellites,
and
reopen
bidding.

Documents
filed
on
Feb.
14
in
the
US
Court
of
Federal
Claims
by
the
Air
Force,

first
reported
by
Aviation
Week,
further
state
that
SDA’s
companion
contract
to
York
Space
Systems
—
worth
$170
million
for
10
Tranche
2
Transport
Layer
(T2TL)
Gamma
variant
prototype
space
vehicles
—
will
not
be
affected.

The
court
filings
do
not
provide
a
proposed
schedule
for
the
new
bid
process,
but
do
reveal
that
it
will
be
managed
by
officials
who
were
not
involved
in
overseeing
the
original
contract
awards.

“The
intent
is
that
release
of
the
currently
contemplated
new
solicitation
would
be
soon.
Specific
terms
about
a
new
solicitation
would
be
provided
in
the
new
solicitation
when
released,”
a
Space
Development
Agency
spokesperson
told
Breaking
Defense
today.

“At
this
time,
the
currently
contemplated
new
solicitation
would
not
exclude
any
eligible
company
from
competing,”
the
spokesperson
added.

As

first
reported
by
Breaking
Defense,
the
Viasat
bid
protest
filed
in
September
was
the
trigger
for
the
Air
Force’s
Jan.
16
decision
to
place
SDA
Director
Derek
Tournear
on
administrative
leave.

The
Feb.
14
court
documents
state
that
an
internal
Air
Force
evaluation
determined
that
an
unnamed
“SDA
employee,”
in
advance
of
the
Gamma
contract
award,
revealed
to
Tyvak
that
its
bid
price
“was
the
second
highest
and
would
not
be
selected
for
award.”
This
action
was
determined
by
the
senior
Air
Force
official
in
charge
of
the
review,
Maj.
Gen.
Alice
Trevino,
to
be
a
violation
of
the
Procurement
Integrity
Act
that
regulates
government
contracting
practices.

The
documents
note
that
the
rebidding
process
was
deemed
necessary
by
SDA
because
the
requirement
for
the
10
Gamma
vehicles
awarded
to
Tyvak,
now
a
subsidiary
of
Lockheed
Martin,
remains
crucial
to
the
success
of
its

Proliferated
Warfighter
Space
Architecture
of
low
Earth
orbit
satellites
—
but
with
the
caveat
that
a
substantial
delay
in
the
process
and/or
increased
costs
could
cause
a
reevaluation
of
that
requirement
and
the
need
for
a
new
competition.

While
SDA has
explained
that
the
Gamma
satellites
will
not
be
part
of
the
operational
Transport
Layer
of
data
relay
satellites,
the
agency
has
said
that
they
instead
are
part
of
its
efforts
to
develop
fire
control
capabilities
for
missile
defense
and
the
experimental

FOO
Fighter
program.
Further,
such
fire
control
capabilities
could
be
a
key
part
of

SDA’s
contribution
to
the
Trump
administration’s
newly
planned
Iron
Dome
for
America
missile
defense
shield.

Attorneys
for
Tyvak
and
York
have
accepted
the
Air
Force’s
plan,
the
Air
Force
court
filings
state.
However,
the
documents
add
that
Viasat
had
not
responded
to
the
proposal
as
of
the
time
of
their
filing.

“Viasat
does
not
comment
on
ongoing
filings
and
litigation
as
a
matter
of
policy,”
a
spokesperson
for
the
company
told
Breaking
Defense
today.

“York
is
a
strong
supporter
of
transparency
and
the
integrity
of
the
USG’s
selection
process.
We
are
glad
the
investigation
made
public
some
of
its
findings
that
clearly
show
York
was
not
involved
in
any
wrongdoing,
and
support
the
integrity
of
our
award
on
merits,”
a
spokesperson
for
the
company
said
today.

Lockheed
Martin
did
not
respond
by
press
time
to
a
request
for
comment.

*
Ninth
Circuit
affirms
striking
down
Trump’s
birthright
citizenship
order.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
Supreme
Court
hearing
reverse
discrimination
case
on
behalf
of
mediocre
applicants
everywhere.
[Reuters]

*
DOGE
to
lead
purge
of
federal
regulations,
which
is
to
say
DOGE
to
lead
overwhelming
morass
of
costly
lawsuits
under
the
APA.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Ed
Martin’s
tenure
as
US
Attorney
continues
to
dazzle
in
its
wingnuttery.
[Esquire]

*
Smile,
you’re
on
Candid
Camer–
wait
did
he
just
say,
“I
killed
her.
Ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
jury,
convict
my
ass.
I
did
it”?
[Law360]

*
Targeting
independent
agencies,
the
White
House
asks
“Would
anyone
say
these
are
organs
of
Congress?”
But
would
anyone
say
these
are
organs
of
the
executive
either?
[National
Law
Journal]

*
“Some
conservatives
back
‘common-good
constitutionalism’”
is
a
weird
way
to
begin
a
conversation
about
Adrian
Vermeule’s
theories.
[ABA
Journal]

Brian
Freedman
Volunteers
His
Thoughts
On
Ryan
Reynolds
Joke:
Not
only
did
no
one
ask,
a
judge
told
him
to
stop
talking!
There
Goes
The
SEC’s
Westlaw
Access!:
Sorry
it
makes
your
job
harder,
but
they
haven’t
been
“Trump
friendly”.
Will
Work
For
Employment:
Rough
job
market
for
lawyers
in
DC.
In
Other
Employment
News,
Bonuses!:
Knobbe
Martens
shares
the
wealth!
American
Association
of
Law
Schools
Stands
Up
For
The
Rule
of
Law:
What
will
the
government
backlash
be?

Not
too
long
ago,
stating
that
America
was
a
rule
of
law
country
would
have
been
as
obvious
as
saying
that
Phil
Collins
didn’t
have
to
go
that
hard
on
the
Tarzan
soundtrack
—
some
things
are
just
obviously
true.

Things
are
different
now.
Before
you
get
nervous,
I
want
you
to
remain
calm;

You’ll
Be
In
My
Heart
is
still
a
top-tier
power
ballad.
Now
that
that’s
out
of
the
way,
things
aren’t
looking
too
good
for
the
rule
of
law.
Recently,
the
official
White
House
page
posted
what
has
to
be
the
most
un-American
thing
ever
posted
on
the
page,
a
crowned
sitting
president:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGRDGQWxlhX

This
iconography
comes
when
the
Executive
is
flirting
with
power
grabs
aimed
squarely
at
rule
of
law
norms
like
judicial
review.
The
American
Bar
Association
recently
penned
an
open
letter
condemning
the
Executive’s
preemptive
disregard
for
the
judiciary,
asking
lawyers
to
defend
the
rule
of
law
and
all
they
got
was

completely
cutoff
from
executive
agencies.

They
aren’t
the
only
ones
making
these
statements.
The
Association
of
American
Law
Schools
recently
joined
the
chorus.
Here’s
an
excerpt
of
their

statement:

We
are
very
concerned
by
recent
statements
by
elected
officials
and
administration
representatives
that
put
into
question
courts’
authority
to
review
the
legality
of
executive
action.
…
Defiance
of
court
orders
by
our
government
is
incompatible
with
our
constitutional
democracy.
Congress
and
the
courts
must
take
all
appropriate
actions
to
uphold
the
rule
of
law
and
protect
the
authority
of
the
judicial
branch
and
the
Constitution.
The
Association
therefore
joins
the
American
Bar
Association
in
its
statement
condemning
“remarks
questioning
legitimacy
of
courts
and
judicial
review”
and
in
calling
“for
every
lawyer
and
legal
organization
to
speak
with
one
voice
and
to
condemn
the
efforts
of
any
administration
that
suggests
its
actions
are
beyond
the
reach
of
judicial
review.”

Will
this
cause
the
FTC
or
some
other
letter
organization
to
respond
with
a
letter
banning
employees
from
associating
with
the
AALS
like
they
did
with
the
ABA?
Probably,
but
that
won’t
stop
institutions
from
advocating
for
the
rule
of
law
rather
than
the
rule
of
one.
Generations
of
Americans
fought
too
hard
for
democracy
for
it
to
be
undone
by
some
reality
TV
show
star
or
billionaire
that
can’t
handle
softball
interview
questions
from
Don
Lemon.

STATEMENT
OF
THE
ASSOCIATION
OF
AMERICAN
LAW
SCHOOLS
ON
EXECUTIVE
BRANCH
COMPLIANCE
WITH
COURT
ORDERS
[Association
of
American
Law
Schools]

Earlier:

FTC
Cuts
Ties
With
American
Bar
Association

Thousands
Of
Lawyers
Sign
Open
Letter
To
Defend
The
Rule
Of
Law
From
Executive
Attack

---

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

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

The
Department
of
Justice
recently
indicated
they
would
ask
the
Supreme
Court
to
overturn
what
1935
precedent?

Hint:
The
case
established
the
ability
of
Congress
to
limit
a
president’s
authority
to
remove
a
commissioner
of
an
independent
agency
to
instances
of
“inefficiency,
neglect
of
duty,
or
malfeasance
in
office.” 

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.