Category: News Feeds

What
is
it
that
they
say
about
criminals
returning
to
the
scene
of
the
crime?

That
would
be
Stewart
Rhodes,
the
white
supremacist
Oath
Keepers
militia
leader
who
led
an
attack
on
the
Capitol
four
years
ago
scarfing
doughnuts
inside
the
Longworth
House
Office
Building.
He’s
the
one
with
the
eye
patch,
since
he

dropped
a
loaded
handgun
while
teaching
a
gun
safety
course
and

shot
out
his
eye
in
1993.
The
other
dude
is
Ivan
Raiklin,
the

self-styled
“Secretary
of
Retribution”
for
Trump,
who
flogged
nonsensical
theories
about
Mike
Pence’s
ability
to
discard
electoral
votes
at
will.

Within
hours
of
taking
the
oath
of
office
Monday,
President
Trump
had
already

pardoned
almost
1,600
participants
in
the
Capitol
Riot,
many
of
whom
assaulted
police
officers.
Among
those
were
members
of
the
white
supremacist
Proud
Boys
gang,
several
of
whom
were
convicted
of
seditious
conspiracy.
But
Rhodes
and
his
fellow
Oath
Keepers
only
received
a
commutation.

Perhaps
this
is
because
the
Oath
Keepers

stashed
a
huge
cache
of
weapons
at
a
Comfort
Inn
in
Arlington
and
hoped
that
Trump
would
invoke
the
Insurrection
Act
as
they
marched
in
military
formation
on
the
Capitol.
Perhaps
it
was
because
they
were

uniquely
careless
about
their
communications.

At
his
trial
in
2022,
prosecutors

played
a
recording
of
Rhodes
saying,
“My
only
regret
is
they
should
have
brought
rifles.
We
should
have
brought
rifles.
We
could
have
fixed
it
right
then
and
there.
I’d
hang
fucking
Pelosi
from
the
lamppost.”

Rhodes
got
18
years,
but
walked
out
of
jail
on
Tuesday
and
made
a
beeline
for
Congress. According
to

The
Hill’s
Emily
Brooks,
Rhodes
and
Raiklin
were
there
to
lobby
Republican
Rep.
Gus
Bilirakis
for
a
pardon
for
Jeremy
Brown,
an
Oath
Keeper
from
Florida
currently
serving
an

87-month
sentence
for
possession
of
unregistered
guns
and
explosive
and
retention
of
a
government
document.
(He
seems
nice.)

Rhodes’s
presence
at
the
scene
of
the
crime
did
not
go
unnoticed.
One
unnamed
staffer
called
it
“disrespectful”
and
urged
him
to
“please
tell
your
story
elsewhere.”
And
it
did
not
amuse
Judge
Amit
Mehta,
who
sentence
Rhodes
and
his
co-conspirators
and
previously

described
the
prospect
of
a
pardon
for
them
“frightening
to
anyone
who
cares
about
democracy
in
this
country.”

This
morning,
Judge
Mehta
issued
an

order
sua
sponte
amending
the
conditions
of
release
for
Rhodes
and
his
fellow
Oath
Keepers
Kelly
Meggs,
Kenneth
Harrelson,
Jessica
Watkins,
Roberto
Minuta,
Edward
Vallejo,
David
Moerchel,
and
Joseph
Hacket.
Because
their
sentences
were
commuted,
rather
than
pardoned,
they
remain
under
supervision
of
the
court.
And
so
Judge
Mehta
is
able
to
bar
them
from
entering
the
Capitol
complex
or
surrounding
area
without
permission
of
the
court.
Presumably
Trump
will
remedy
this
oversight
shortly.

In
the
meantime,
former
Capitol
Cop
Michael
Fanone
put
it
more
succinctly.

And,
lo!
Even
as
we
were
typing,
the
Justice
Department
was
hopping
to
the
defense
of
these
saintly
patriots.
In
a

motion
to
dismiss
the
terms
of
supervised
release,
the
government
demands
that
Judge
Mehta
rescind
his
order.

As
the
terms
of
supervised
release
and
probation
are
included
in
the
“sentences”
of
the
defendants,
the
Court
may
not
modify
the
terms
of
supervised
release;
the
term
is
no
longer
active
by
effect
of
the
Executive
Order.
See
United
States
v.
Haymond,
588
U.S.
634,
648
(2019)
(Supreme
Court
has
acknowledged
“that
an
accused’s
final
sentence
includes
any
supervised
release
sentence
he
may
receive”
and
therefore
“supervised
release
punishments
arise
from
and
are
treat[ed]
as
part
of
the
penalty
for
the
initial
offense”)
(cleaned
up)).

The
motion
was
signed
by
Ed
Martin,
the
interim
US
Attorney
for
DC.
Martin
is
a

conservative
activist
and
a
a
prominent
member
of
the
“Stop
the
Steal”
movement
who
gave
a
speech
at
the
Ellipse
on
January
6
and

tweeted
“Like
Mardi
Gras
in
DC
today:
love,
faith
and
joy.
Ignore

#FakeNews”
at
2:57
p.m.,
after
rioters
had
breached
both
the
House
and
Senate
Chambers.

---

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

What
is
it
that
they
say
about
criminals
returning
to
the
scene
of
the
crime?

That
would
be
Stewart
Rhodes,
the
white
supremacist
Oath
Keepers
militia
leader
who
led
an
attack
on
the
Capitol
four
years
ago
scarfing
doughnuts
inside
the
Longworth
House
Office
Building.
He’s
the
one
with
the
eye
patch,
since
he

dropped
a
loaded
handgun
while
teaching
a
gun
safety
course
and

shot
out
his
eye
in
1993.
The
other
dude
is
Ivan
Raiklin,
the

self-styled
“Secretary
of
Retribution”
for
Trump,
who
flogged
nonsensical
theories
about
Mike
Pence’s
ability
to
discard
electoral
votes
at
will.

Within
hours
of
taking
the
oath
of
office
Monday,
President
Trump
had
already

pardoned
almost
1,600
participants
in
the
Capitol
Riot,
many
of
whom
assaulted
police
officers.
Among
those
were
members
of
the
white
supremacist
Proud
Boys
gang,
several
of
whom
were
convicted
of
seditious
conspiracy.
But
Rhodes
and
his
fellow
Oath
Keepers
only
received
a
commutation.

Perhaps
this
is
because
the
Oath
Keepers

stashed
a
huge
cache
of
weapons
at
a
Comfort
Inn
in
Arlington
and
hoped
that
Trump
would
invoke
the
Insurrection
Act
as
they
marched
in
military
formation
on
the
Capitol.
Perhaps
it
was
because
they
were

uniquely
careless
about
their
communications.

At
his
trial
in
2022,
prosecutors

played
a
recording
of
Rhodes
saying,
“My
only
regret
is
they
should
have
brought
rifles.
We
should
have
brought
rifles.
We
could
have
fixed
it
right
then
and
there.
I’d
hang
fucking
Pelosi
from
the
lamppost.”

Rhodes
got
18
years,
but
walked
out
of
jail
on
Tuesday
and
made
a
beeline
for
Congress. According
to

The
Hill’s
Emily
Brooks,
Rhodes
and
Raiklin
were
there
to
lobby
Republican
Rep.
Gus
Bilirakis
for
a
pardon
for
Jeremy
Brown,
an
Oath
Keeper
from
Florida
currently
serving
an

87-month
sentence
for
possession
of
unregistered
guns
and
explosive
and
retention
of
a
government
document.
(He
seems
nice.)

Rhodes’s
presence
at
the
scene
of
the
crime
did
not
go
unnoticed.
One
unnamed
staffer
called
it
“disrespectful”
and
urged
him
to
“please
tell
your
story
elsewhere.”
And
it
did
not
amuse
Judge
Amit
Mehta,
who
sentence
Rhodes
and
his
co-conspirators
and
previously

described
the
prospect
of
a
pardon
for
them
“frightening
to
anyone
who
cares
about
democracy
in
this
country.”

This
morning,
Judge
Mehta
issued
an

order
sua
sponte
amending
the
conditions
of
release
for
Rhodes
and
his
fellow
Oath
Keepers
Kelly
Meggs,
Kenneth
Harrelson,
Jessica
Watkins,
Roberto
Minuta,
Edward
Vallejo,
David
Moerchel,
and
Joseph
Hacket.
Because
their
sentences
were
commuted,
rather
than
pardoned,
they
remain
under
supervision
of
the
court.
And
so
Judge
Mehta
is
able
to
bar
them
from
entering
the
Capitol
complex
or
surrounding
area
without
permission
of
the
court.
Presumably
Trump
will
remedy
this
oversight
shortly.

In
the
meantime,
former
Capitol
Cop
Michael
Fanone
put
it
more
succinctly.

And,
lo!
Even
as
we
were
typing,
the
Justice
Department
was
hopping
to
the
defense
of
these
saintly
patriots.
In
a

motion
to
dismiss
the
terms
of
supervised
release,
the
government
demands
that
Judge
Mehta
rescind
his
order.

As
the
terms
of
supervised
release
and
probation
are
included
in
the
“sentences”
of
the
defendants,
the
Court
may
not
modify
the
terms
of
supervised
release;
the
term
is
no
longer
active
by
effect
of
the
Executive
Order.
See
United
States
v.
Haymond,
588
U.S.
634,
648
(2019)
(Supreme
Court
has
acknowledged
“that
an
accused’s
final
sentence
includes
any
supervised
release
sentence
he
may
receive”
and
therefore
“supervised
release
punishments
arise
from
and
are
treat[ed]
as
part
of
the
penalty
for
the
initial
offense”)
(cleaned
up)).

The
motion
was
signed
by
Ed
Martin,
the
interim
US
Attorney
for
DC.
Martin
is
a

conservative
activist
and
a
a
prominent
member
of
the
“Stop
the
Steal”
movement
who
gave
a
speech
at
the
Ellipse
on
January
6
and

tweeted
“Like
Mardi
Gras
in
DC
today:
love,
faith
and
joy.
Ignore

#FakeNews”
at
2:57
p.m.,
after
rioters
had
breached
both
the
House
and
Senate
Chambers.

---

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

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

[They]
think
by
holding
on
to
your
money
(assuming
they
have
an
agreement
that
says
they
keep
it
if
you
leave
before
it
gets
paid
out)
that
that
will
trap
you
in
the
firm.
It
is
not
a
common
approach,
and
frankly
those
firms
tend
to
have
other
problems
they
aren’t
dealing
with,
hence
they
think
they
need
golden
handcuffs
to
keep
people
there.

—
Blane
Prescott,
a
managing
shareholder
at
MesaFive
who
consults
with
firms
on
compensation,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
one
of
the
methods
Biglaw
firms
may
use
to
discourage
partners
from
making
lateral
moves.
Prescott
went
on
to
say
he
isn’t
a
“big
fan”
of
this
technique
and
doesn’t
see
its
use
increasing
in
the
future.
Is
your
firm
using
golden
handcuffs
to
keep
partners
in
place?
Please
let
us
know,
either
via
text
(646-820-8477)
or

email.

---

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’s
been
quite
a
month,
hasn’t
it?
California
has
been
burning
down.
New
Orleans

got
more
snow
than
Minneapolis.

The
QAnon
Shaman
is
back,
in
hand,
the
political
equivalent
of
a
wink
and
a
“job
well
done.”

With
things
feeling
as
weird
as
they
are,
you’d
be
completely
within
the
spectrum
of
reasonable
reactions
anywhere
from
sobbing
at
your
desk
to
taking
up
day
drinking.
One
thing
you
should
not
do,
however,
is
change
up
your
retirement
investments.

Almost
from
Day
One
of
this
column,

I
have
been
a
proponent
of
low
cost,
passively
managed
index
fund
investing.
You
put
your
money
into
this
type
of
fund,
keep
adding
to
your
capital
(preferably
with
periodic
automatic
investments),
and
just
leave
it
alone
without
regard
to
the
news
of
the
day.
If
you
have
been
investing
this
way
for
any
significant
time,
you
have
done
quite
well
for
yourself.

The
stock
market
has
had
a
bunch
of
huge
dips
over
the
past
10
years
—
for
example,
several

shocks
related
to
the
COVID
pandemic.
Equities
markets
recovered
from
all
of
these
setbacks
in
relatively
short
order.

You
can
probably
find
plenty
of
smug
Redditors
who
claim
to
have
gotten
out
before
a
big
dip,
and
back
in
at
the
bottom,
to
triumphant
effect.
A
few
of
them
might
even
be
right:
with
as
many
people
out
there
trying
to
time
the
market
as
there
are,
odds
are
that
a
handful
actually
will
have
done
it
out
of
sheer
chance.

Still,
the
vast
majority
who
try
to
time
the
market
fail
(including
the
vast

majority
of
professional
investment
managers).
For
those
who
fail,
though,
it
is
difficult
to
tell.
If
you
tried
to
time
the
market
and
wound
up
with,
say,
a
6%
gain,
you
are
very
unlikely
to
commit
to
the
extensive
analysis
it
would
take
to
prove
that
you
would
have
realized
an
8%
gain
over
the
same
time
period
had
you
simply
stayed
put.
Much
easier
cognitively
to
just
look
at
the
little
green
upward
arrow
and
feel
like
a
genius.

So
far
I’ve
been
talking
about
staying
the
course
in
the
stock
market
through
big
general
sorts
of
news
events.
Surely
the
actual
policies
of
vastly
different
political
administrations
could
alter
the
optimal
strategy?

Nope,
not
really.
Trump
supporters
who
pulled
their
investments
when
Biden
was
elected
because
they
thought
he
was
going
to
tank
the
economy
(mostly
because
Trump
said
that,
a
lot)

were
burned
big
time.
Yet,
so
were
investors
who
pulled
their
money
out
of
the
market
in
anticipation
of
the
first
Trump
term.
Overall,
stocks
did
quite
a
bit
better,
depending
on
which
index
you
look
at,
during
the
first
Trump
term
than
they
did
under
Biden
(though
neither
holds
a
candle
to

the
stock
market’s
performance
with
Obama
in
the
White
House).

The
fact
is
that
80%
of
America’s
presidents
over
the
past
century
had
positive
stock
market
returns
during
their
tenures.
There
probably
will
be
positive
returns
again
during
this
Trump
term,
and
if
not,
a
recovery
when
whoever
the
next
president
is
comes
into
office.

If
you
are
close
to
or
in
retirement,
and
will
really
need
to
start
withdrawing
from
some
of
your
investments
in
the
near
future,
you
should
obviously
be
transitioning
to
more
stable
options
than
broad
exposure
to
the
stock
market.
For
everyone
else,
now
is
probably
not
the
time
to
go
maverick.
When
the
dips
come,
you
will
have
plenty
of
time
to
make
up
for
them
and
then
some.

More
weird
things
are
going
to
happen
over
the
coming
months
and
years.
Some
of
these
things
are
going
to
be
very
bad
for
certain
segments
of
the
population.
Look
at
your
401(k)
or
IRA
investing
strategy
as
a
little
island
of
stability
upon
which
to
weather
the
coming
storm.
It
will
be
really
nice
to
have
one
less
thing
to
worry
about.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD


(affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

In
a recent
study,
Professors
Stephen
Choi
and
Mitu
Gulati
highlight
that
Trump-appointed
judges,
particularly James
Ho and Andrew
Oldham,
stand
out
for
their
high
number
of
dissents
and
concurrences,
as
well
as
their
non-partisanship.
On
the
other
hand,
Biden-appointed
judges,
especially
those
appointed
early
in
his
presidency,
rank
lower
in
terms
of
productivity
and
influence
due
to
limited
data
and
time
on
the
bench.
The
study
suggests
that
the
appointment
strategies
of
both
administrations,
with
Trump
emphasizing
judicial
philosophy
and
Biden
focusing
on
diversity,
contribute
to
these
differences
in
performance.

When
looking
at
the
judges
appointed
by
both
presidents,
it
is
clear
that
their
circuit
court
appointees
show
distinct
patterns
in
terms
of
gender,
race,
and
geographic
representation.
Trump’s
appointees
are
predominantly
white
males,
with
a
strong
representation
across
various
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
circuits,
including
the
Ninth,
Fifth,
and
Seventh
Circuits.
While
there
are
some
appointees
from
diverse
ethnic
backgrounds,
such
as
Asian
American
and
Hispanic
judges,
the
overall
diversity
in
Trump’s
appointments
is
less
pronounced.
Female
appointees
are
present,
but
they
are
fewer
in
number
compared
to
Biden’s
appointees.

In
contrast,
Biden’s
judicial
appointments
reflect
a
more
significant
emphasis
on
racial
and
ethnic
diversity,
particularly
African
American
and
Hispanic
judges.
Biden
made
a
noticeable
impact
in
certain
circuits
such
as
the
Fourth
and
Ninth.
Additionally,
Biden’s
appointees
include
a
higher
percentage
of
women,
with
many
female
judges
from
various
racial
and
ethnic
backgrounds,
including
African
American,
Asian
American,
and
White
women.
This
contrasts
with
Trump’s
appointments,
where
female
representation
is
lower
and
less
racially
diverse.

Biden’s
appointments
also
include
a
broader
geographic
range
in
terms
of
places
of
birth,
with
several
judges
appointed
who
are
originally
from
international
locations,
such
as
Portugal
and
Germany,
reflecting
a
broader
perspective
in
his
selection
process.
Overall,
Biden’s
judicial
appointments
are
more
reflective
of
the
demographic
makeup
of
the
U.S.
population.
In
comparison,
Trump’s
appointees,
while
still
diverse,
are
more
heavily
skewed
towards
white
male
judges,
with
fewer
women
and
minorities
appointed
to
the
bench.

In
the
circuit
courts
alone,
Trump
appointed
54
judges
while
Biden
appointed
45.
These
appointments
took
very
different
shapes
though
based
on
the
vacancies.
Trump
appointed
the
most
judges
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(10),
followed
by
the
Fifth,
Sixth,
and
Eleventh
with
six
judges
each.

In
terms
of
average
vote
differentials,
the
votes
for
Trump’s
DC
Circuit,
Fifth
Circuit,
Sixth
Circuit,
and
Third
Circuit
(confirmed)
nominees
were
much
closer
on
average
than
for
his
nominees
to
other
circuits.

By
contrast,
Biden’s
(confirmed)
nominees
to
the
Sixth
and
Eleventh
Circuits
had
the
closest
votes
on
average
with
his
Fifth
Circuit
nominees
averaging
the
largest
vote
differentials.
Biden
also
appointed
the
most
judges
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
with
eight
followed
by
the
Second
Circuit
with
six.

How
did
these
appointments
look
over
the
course
of
each
presidency?

Based
on
when
they
began
active
service,
Trump
had
the
bulk
of
his
nominations
to
the
Sixth
Circuit
in
2017,
to
the
Fifth
Circuit
in
2018,
and
to
the
Ninth
and
Second
Circuits
in
2019.

Biden
appointed
the
most
judges
to
the
Second
Circuit
in
2021,
to
the
Ninth
in
2022,
and
even
had
one
judge
begin
active
service
in
2025
(Embry
Kidd in
the
Eleventh
Circuit).

To
dive
in
a
bit
more
granularly,
the
next
graph
shows
vote
differentials
by
judge
to
see
who
was
confirmed
by
more
and
less
votes.

Judge
Oldham
in
the
Fifth
Circuit
who
was
one
of
the
focal
points
of
the
Choi/Gulati
study
was
one
of
the
two
judges
confirmed
by
a
single
vote.
Nine
of
the
judges
were
confirmed
by
fewer
than
five
votes
while
four
were
confirmed
by
more
than
80
votes
in
favor. Judge
Erickson on
the
Eighth
Circuit
was
confirmed
with
the
greatest
vote
differential
with
94.
The
average
vote
differential
for
Trump’s
circuit
court
judges
was
23.2.

The
average
vote
differential
for
Biden’s
circuit
court
nominees
was
quite
a
bit
lower
at
12.4.
Two
of
Biden’s
appointees
were
also
confirmed
by
a
single
vote
while
none
of
his
nominees
were
confirmed
by
80
or
more
votes.
The
greatest
vote
differential
for
a
Biden
circuit
court
appointee
was
68
for Judge
Carillo
Ramirez from
the
Fifth
Circuit.

An
analysis
of
the
presidents’
appointments
would
not
be
complete
without
looking
into
the
judges’
decisions.
The
five
most
highly
cited
decisions
authored
by
Trump
appointees
and
then
Biden
appointees
are
provided
below.
Obviously,
the
chronological
time
a
decision
is
rendered
impacts
citation
counts
so
these
results
should
be
taken
with
a
grain
of
salt.
The
aspects
I
examined
in
each
decision
were
the
case
details,
outcome,
area(s)
of
law,
and
the
ideological
leaning
that
each
decision
conveys.

Trump

#1 Arroyo
v.
Rosas

Judge
Collins /
Ninth
Circuit
/
December
10,
2021

Case
Overview

The
case
involved
Arroyo,
a
person
with
a
disability,
who
filed
a
lawsuit
against
Rosas
for
violating
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(ADA)
and
the
California
Unruh
Act,
which
prohibits
discrimination
based
on
disability.
The
district
court
had
initially
dismissed
the
state
law
claim
(Unruh
Act)
due
to
its
concern
about
the
burden
of
handling
such
cases
in
federal
court.
However,
Arroyo’s
ADA
claim
had
already
been
decided
in
his
favor,
and
the
only
remaining
issue
was
his
state
law
claim
for
damages
under
the
Unruh
Act.

Decision

The
Ninth
Circuit
reversed
the
district
court’s
decision
to
dismiss
the
Unruh
Act
claim,
ruling
that
the
federal
court
should
have
kept
jurisdiction
over
it.
The
court
noted
that
the
claim
was
already
largely
resolved
by
the
ADA
ruling,
and
sending
it
to
state
court
would
be
inefficient
and
unnecessary.

Areas
of
Law

The
case
involved
federal
and
state
law,
specifically
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(ADA)
and
the
California
Unruh
Civil
Rights
Act.
It
dealt
with
issues
of
disability
discrimination,
judicial
economy,
and
supplemental
jurisdiction.

Ideological
Leaning

The
decision
leaned
towards
judicial
efficiency
and
fairness,
emphasizing
the
importance
of
retaining
jurisdiction
in
federal
court
when
most
of
the
case
had
already
been
resolved.
The
ruling
demonstrated
a
pragmatic
approach
rather
than
deferring
to
state
court
procedural
rules,
highlighting
the
court’s
focus
on
minimizing
unnecessary
delays
and
costs.

#2 Sonner
v.
Premier
Nutrition
Corporation

Judge
Bade /
Ninth
Circuit
/
June
17,
2020

Case
Overview

The
case
revolves
around
Sonner’s
attempt
to
secure
equitable
restitution
under
California’s
Unfair
Competition
Law
(UCL)
and
Consumer
Legal
Remedies
Act
(CLRA)
in
a
federal
court
sitting
in
diversity.
Sonner
sought
restitution
for
a
past
harm
but
failed
to
demonstrate
that
she
lacked
an
adequate
remedy
at
law.
The
issue
was
whether
federal
courts
can
award
equitable
relief
when
state
law
permits
it,
but
an
adequate
legal
remedy
exists.

Decision

The
court
ruled
that
Sonner
was
not
entitled
to
equitable
restitution
because
she
failed
to
show
that
her
legal
remedy
was
inadequate.
It
emphasized
that
federal
courts
must
follow
traditional
equitable
principles,
which
require
a
showing
of
inadequacy
in
legal
remedies
before
granting
equitable
relief.
The
decision
affirmed
the
district
court’s
dismissal
of
Sonner’s
claims
for
restitution.

Areas
of
Law

The
case
primarily
deals
with
principles
of
equitable
relief,
federal
court
jurisdiction
in
diversity
actions,
and
state
vs.
federal
law
regarding
equitable
remedies.
It
also
touches
upon
the
constitutional
right
to
a
jury
trial
and
the
procedural
application
of
California’s
UCL
and
CLRA
in
a
federal
court
setting.
The
ruling
incorporates
doctrines
from
previous
cases
like York and Sims regarding
the
role
of
federal
equitable
powers
in
diversity
cases.

Ideological
Leaning

The
decision
leans
toward
a
conservative
interpretation
of
federal
court
powers,
emphasizing
restraint
and
adherence
to
traditional
equitable
principles.
It
reflects
a
preference
for
legal
remedies
over
equitable
ones
unless
a
party
can
prove
their
inadequacy.
This
suggests
a
cautious
approach
to
expanding
federal
equitable
jurisdiction,
in
line
with
a
judicial
philosophy
that
prioritizes
legal
processes
and
constitutional
rights.

#3 Lewis
v.
City
of
Union
City,
Georgia

Judge
Newsom /
Eleventh
Circuit
/
March
21,
2019

Case
Overview
The
case
involves
a
plaintiff,
Lewis,
who
alleged
discrimination
after
being
terminated
by
her
employer,
the
City
of
Union
City,
for
failing
to
meet
a
physical
qualification
due
to
a
chronic
heart
condition.
She
compared
herself
to
two
other
employees,
McClure
and
Heard,
who
were
placed
on
administrative
leave
for
failing
physical
fitness
tests
but
under
different
conditions
and
policies.
The
court
analyzed
whether
the
plaintiff
and
her
comparators
were
“similarly
situated
in
all
material
respects”
under
the
McDonnell
Douglas
burden-shifting
framework
for
discrimination
claims.

Decision
The
court
concluded
that
Lewis
failed
to
make
a
prima
facie
case
for
discrimination
because
her
comparators
were
not
“similarly
situated
in
all
material
respects.”
The
decision
emphasized
that
comparators
must
share
substantial
similarities
in
terms
of
the
circumstances
surrounding
their
leave
or
termination,
not
just
superficial
traits.
As
a
result,
the
case
was
remanded
for
further
proceedings
consistent
with
this
reasoning.

Areas
of
Law
The
case
addresses
employment
discrimination
law
under
Title
VII,
specifically
the
McDonnell
Douglas
framework
for
proving
circumstantial
discrimination
claims.
It
also
explores
the
standards
for
comparing
similarly
situated
employees
in
disparate
treatment
cases.
Additionally,
it
touches
on
the
interpretation
of
employment
policies
and
the
need
for
comparators
to
be
in
materially
similar
situations
for
valid
comparisons.

Ideological
Leaning
The
decision
aligns
with
a
strict
application
of
the
legal
standards
for
proving
discrimination
claims,
favoring
clear,
substantive
comparisons
over
broader,
more
generalized
claims.
It
conveys
a
more
conservative,
formal
approach
to
interpreting
Title
VII
claims,
requiring
plaintiffs
to
meet
specific
criteria
for
comparability.
This
reflects
an
emphasis
on
judicial
efficiency
and
limiting
claims
where
comparators
are
not
sufficiently
similar.

#4
United
States
v.
Ruffin

Judge
Murphy /
Sixth
Circuit
/October
26,
2020

Case
Overview
The
case
involves
a
defendant,
Ruffin,
who
sought
a
sentence
reduction
under
the
First
Step
Act
due
to
his
health
conditions
and
the
risks
of
COVID-19.
The
district
court
denied
the
motion,
and
the
Sixth
Circuit
affirmed
this
decision.
The
case
centers
around
whether
the
defendant
met
the
criteria
for
“extraordinary
and
compelling
reasons”
to
warrant
a
sentence
reduction.

Decision
The
Sixth
Circuit
upheld
the
district
court’s
denial
of
Ruffin’s
sentence
reduction
motion,
emphasizing
that
sentence
reductions
under
the
First
Step
Act
are
discretionary.
The
court
concluded
that
the
defendant’s
health
concerns,
combined
with
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
did
not
rise
to
the
level
of
extraordinary
and
compelling
reasons
for
a
reduction.
It
further
found
that
the
district
court
properly
balanced
the
relevant
factors
under
18
U.S.C.
§
3553(a).

Main
Areas
of
Law
The
case
touches
on
compassionate
release
under
the
First
Step
Act,
which
allows
for
sentence
reductions
in
certain
circumstances.
It
involves
statutory
interpretation
of
18
U.S.C.
§
3582(c)(1)(A)
and
the
application
of
the
Sentencing
Guidelines.
The
case
also
discusses
judicial
discretion
in
balancing
factors
under
18
U.S.C.
§
3553(a)
when
considering
a
sentence
modification.

Ideological
Leaning
The
case
reflects
a
conservative,
cautious
approach
to
expanding
the
scope
of
compassionate
release,
suggesting
that
courts
should
adhere
to
clear
statutory
guidelines
and
restrict
judicial
discretion
to
situations
clearly
outlined
by
law.
It
emphasizes
a
strict
interpretation
of
the
First
Step
Act’s
provisions.
The
court’s
ruling
aligns
with
a
view
that
maintains
stability
in
sentencing
and
limits
broad
judicial
discretion.

#5 Tangreti
v.
Bachmann

Judge
Menashi /
Second
Circuit
/
December
28,
2020

Case
Overview

This
case
involves
a
lawsuit
filed
by
Cara
Tangreti,
a
former
inmate,
who
was
sexually
abused
by
correctional
officers
at
York
Correctional
Institute.
She
sued
eight
prison
supervisors,
including
Christine
Bachmann,
under
42
U.S.C.
§
1983,
alleging
violations
of
the
Eighth
Amendment
due
to
deliberate
indifference
to
the
risk
of
sexual
abuse.
The
case
focuses
on
whether
Bachmann
was
grossly
negligent
in
her
supervisory
role
and
whether
she
is
entitled
to
qualified
immunity.

Decision

The
court
ruled
in
favor
of
Bachmann,
granting
her
qualified
immunity.
It
concluded
that
her
actions
did
not
violate
any
clearly
established
constitutional
rights
at
the
time,
and
there
was
insufficient
evidence
that
she
was
deliberately
indifferent
to
the
risk
of
sexual
abuse.
The
court
reversed
the
district
court’s
decision
and
remanded
with
instructions
to
enter
summary
judgment
for
Bachmann.

Main
Areas
of
Law

The
main
areas
of
law
include
constitutional
law
(specifically
the
Eighth
Amendment
regarding
protection
from
cruel
and
unusual
punishment),
civil
rights
(42
U.S.C.
§
1983),
and
qualified
immunity.
The
case
also
addresses
supervisory
liability
in
prison
settings
and
the
standards
set
by
Supreme
Court
decisions
like Iqbal and Farmer
v.
Brennan.

Ideological
Leaning

The
decision
reflects
a
conservative
leaning
on
the
issue
of
qualified
immunity,
emphasizing
a
limited
application
of
supervisory
liability
and
placing
a
high
threshold
for
constitutional
violations.
It
underscores
a
more
restrictive
interpretation
of
personal
involvement
and
the
burden
of
proof
required
for
claims
of
deliberate
indifference.
This
aligns
with
a
judicial
preference
for
limiting
the
scope
of
civil
rights
suits
against
government
officials.

Biden

#1 Sanderling
Management
Ltd.
v.
Snap
Inc.

Judge
Stark /
Federal
Circuit
/
April
12,
2023

Case
Overview

This
case
involves
Sanderling
Management
Ltd.
suing
Snap
Inc.
for
patent
infringement,
alleging
that
Snap
violated
three
patents
related
to
the
use
of
distribution
rules
for
delivering
digital
image
processing
functions
based
on
geographic
conditions.
The
district
court
dismissed
the
suit,
finding
the
patents
lacked
eligibility
under
35
U.S.C.
§
101,
which
governs
patentable
subject
matter.
Sanderling
also
appealed
the
denial
of
its
motion
to
amend
its
complaint.

Court
Decision

The
Federal
Circuit
affirmed
the
district
court’s
dismissal,
agreeing
that
the
patents
were
directed
to
an
abstract
idea
of
distributing
information
based
on
geographic
conditions
and
lacked
any
inventive
concept
that
would
transform
the
claims
into
patent-eligible
subject
matter
under
the Alice framework.
The
court
also
upheld
the
denial
of
Sanderling’s
motion
to
amend
the
complaint,
noting
procedural
issues
and
a
lack
of
compelling
justification.

Areas
of
Law

The
case
deals
with
patent
law
as
it
is
focused
on
eligibility
under
35
U.S.C.
§
101,
which
excludes
abstract
ideas,
laws
of
nature,
and
natural
phenomena
from
patent
protection. It
also
focuses
on
civil
procedure
since it reviews
of
procedural
rulings,
including
motions
to
dismiss
and
for
leave
to
amend
complaints.

Ideological
Leaning

The
decision
below
aligns
with
a
restrictive
interpretation
of
patent
eligibility,
emphasizing
the
need
to
curb
overly
broad
patents
that
claim
abstract
ideas
without
sufficient
technical
innovation.
This
reflects
a
pragmatic
and
arguably
conservative
judicial
approach
to
patent
law,
consistent
with
modern
trends
in
§
101
jurisprudence.

#2 Gociman
v.
Loyola
University
of
Chicago

Judge
Jackson-Akiwumi /
Seventh
Circuit
/
July
25,
2022

Case
Overview
The
case
involves
a
group
of
students
who
filed
a
lawsuit
against
Loyola
University,
claiming
breach
of
contract
and
unjust
enrichment.
The
students
allege
that
Loyola
did
not
fulfill
its
implied
promises
to
provide
in-person
instruction
and
access
to
campus
facilities,
particularly
due
to
disruptions
caused
by
the
COVID-19
pandemic.
Loyola
argued
that
a
valid
contract
existed,
and
any
claims
of
unjust
enrichment
were
redundant
given
the
contract.

Decision
The
court
ruled
that
the
students’
breach
of
contract
claim
was
sufficiently
stated,
and
the
unjust
enrichment
claim
should
not
be
dismissed
at
this
stage.
The
district
court’s
decision
to
deny
the
students’
request
to
amend
their
complaint
was
reversed,
as
the
court
found
that
the
students
had
the
right
to
amend
their
unjust
enrichment
allegations.
The
case
was
remanded
for
further
proceedings,
allowing
the
students
to
attempt
to
amend
their
claims.

Main
Areas
of
Law
The
case
primarily
addresses
contract
law,
focusing
on
whether
the
students’
claims
meet
the
criteria
for
breach
of
contract
and
unjust
enrichment.
It
also
touches
on
procedural
law,
particularly
the
standards
for
amending
a
complaint
after
a
motion
to
dismiss.
The
case
involves
issues
of
contract
interpretation
and
the
application
of
unjust
enrichment
when
a
contract
exists
but
its
terms
are
disputed.

Ideological
Leaning
The
decision
reflects
a
pro-plaintiff
stance
in
ensuring
that
the
students’
claims
are
given
a
fair
opportunity
to
proceed,
allowing
them
to
amend
their
allegations.
It
highlights
the
courts’
preference
for
resolving
contractual
disputes
on
their
merits,
rather
than
dismissing
them
prematurely.
The
ruling
aligns
with
a
view
that
procedural
fairness
and
the
right
to
amend
claims
should
be
upheld
unless
there
is
a
clear
reason
for
futility.

#3 Trinity
Info
Media,
LLC
v.
Covalent,
Inc.

Judge
Cunningham /
Federal
Circuit
/
July
14,
2023

Case
Overview

This
case
involves
a
dispute
over
the
patent
eligibility
of
claims
from
the
‘321
and
‘685
patents,
which
are
related
to
a
matching
process
using
content-based
identifiers,
such
as
user
profiles
and
answers.
The
patents
were
challenged
under
35
U.S.C.
§
101,
claiming
that
the
asserted
claims
involved
abstract
ideas
without
an
inventive
concept.
The
claims
were
assessed
based
on
whether
they
transformed
an
abstract
idea
into
a
patentable
invention.

Decision

The
court
affirmed
the
district
court’s
decision
that
the
asserted
claims
are
patent-ineligible
under
§
101.
The
court
concluded
that
the
claims
merely
involve
abstract
ideas
implemented
with
conventional
technology,
such
as
general-purpose
processors
and
mobile
applications,
without
any
meaningful
inventive
concept.
Therefore,
the
claims
failed
both
steps
of
the
Alice/Mayo
test
for
patent
eligibility.

Areas
of
Law

The
case
primarily
involves
patent
law,
specifically
the
issue
of
patent
eligibility
under
35
U.S.C.
§
101.
It
addresses
the
application
of
the Alice/Mayo framework,
which
determines
whether
claims
are
directed
to
abstract
ideas
and,
if
so,
whether
they
contain
an
inventive
concept.
The
decision
also
touches
on
technology
law,
as
it
examines
the
patentability
of
inventions
using
conventional
technologies
like
mobile
devices
and
processors.

Ideological
Leaning

The
case
conveys
a
pragmatic
approach
to
patent
eligibility,
focusing
on
preventing
the
patenting
of
abstract
ideas
and
encouraging
innovation
that
goes
beyond
the
use
of
existing
technologies.
The
decision
reflects
a
trend
in
patent
law
towards
limiting
patents
on
basic
or
routine
technological
applications.
It
emphasizes
that
patents
should
involve
more
than
just
conventional
implementations
of
abstract
ideas,
ensuring
that
patents
are
granted
for
truly
innovative
concepts.

#4 Jarnutowski
v.
Kijakazi

Judge
Jackson-Akiwumi
/
Seventh
Circuit
/
September
12,
2022

Case
Overview

This
case
concerns
Jarnutowski’s
claim
for
Social
Security
disability
benefits,
specifically
her
ability
to
perform
“medium
work”
following
foot
surgery.
The
Administrative
Law
Judge
(ALJ)
concluded
that
she
could
perform
medium
work,
despite
her
subjective
complaints
and
medical
evidence
suggesting
limitations.
The
case
revolves
around
whether
the
ALJ
properly
evaluated
the
medical
opinions
and
Jarnutowski’s
testimony
regarding
her
functional
capacity.

Decision

The
court
reversed
the
district
court’s
judgment
upholding
the
ALJ’s
decision
and
remanded
the
case
for
further
proceedings.
The
court
found
that
the
ALJ
failed
to
sufficiently
explain
why
she
discredited
Jarnutowski’s
testimony
and
the
medical
opinion
of
her
treating
physician.
The
case
was
sent
back
to
the
Social
Security
Administration
for
further
review
and
consideration
of
the
evidence.

Areas
of
law

The
main
areas
of
law
are
Social
Security
disability
law,
particularly
the
evaluation
of
residual
functional
capacity
(RFC)
and
the
weight
given
to
medical
opinions.
It
also
touches
on
administrative
law
principles
regarding
the
duty
of
an
ALJ
to
provide
adequate
explanations
for
their
decisions.
Additionally,
the
case
involves
the
evaluation
of
subjective
complaints
and
their
consistency
with
medical
evidence.

Ideological
Leaning

The
decision
suggests
a
more
claimant-friendly
leaning,
emphasizing
the
need
for
careful
consideration
of
all
medical
evidence
and
subjective
complaints.
It
critiques
the
ALJ’s
decision-making
process
for
lacking
sufficient
justification,
protecting
claimants’
rights
to
a
fair
evaluation.
The
case
reflects
an
inclination
to
ensure
that
decisions
are
based
on
comprehensive
and
well-explained
reasoning,
especially
when
it
concerns
an
individual’s
ability
to
work.

#5 In
Re
Purdue
Pharma
L.P.

Judge
Eunice
Lee
/
Second
Circuit
/
May
30,
2023

Case
Overview
This
case
concerns
the
approval
of
a
bankruptcy
plan,
which
included
nonconsensual
third-party
releases
and
a
dispute
over
claims
raised
by
Canadian
creditors.
The
Canadian
creditors
argued
that
the
plan
improperly
treated
their
claims
differently
from
domestic
claims
and
violated
sovereign
immunity
protections.
The
court
examined
the
legality
of
the
releases
and
the
plan’s
classification
of
claims.

Decision
The
court
reversed
part
of
the
district
court’s
decision,
specifically
regarding
the
Bankruptcy
Code’s
stance
on
nonconsensual
third-party
releases,
deeming
them
permissible
with
proper
factual
findings.
It
upheld
the
bankruptcy
court’s
approval
of
the
plan
and
the
differentiation
between
Canadian
and
domestic
claims.
The
case
was
remanded
for
further
proceedings
consistent
with
the
court’s
opinion.

Areas
of
Law
The
case
primarily
involves
bankruptcy
law,
particularly
the
approval
of
a
bankruptcy
plan
under
Chapter
11.
It
also
touches
on
sovereign
immunity,
as
the
Canadian
creditors
claimed
their
rights
were
violated
by
the
plan’s
provisions.
Additionally,
the
decision
addresses
the
classification
of
claims
and
treatment
of
foreign
creditors
under
bankruptcy
proceedings.

Ideological
Leaning
The
court’s
decision
reflects
a
pragmatic,
creditor-friendly
approach,
emphasizing
the
bankruptcy
court’s
broad
discretion
to
approve
plans
that
discharge
debts
and
release
third
parties.
It
underscores
a
more
flexible
view
of
sovereignty,
particularly
when
foreign
entities
voluntarily
participate
in
the
process.
The
ruling
aligns
with
a
tendency
to
prioritize
the
economic
recovery
and
fairness
of
bankruptcy
processes
over
strict
interpretation
of
sovereign
immunity.

Takeaways

1) Confirmation
Votes: Trump’s
appointees
had
narrower
confirmation
votes,
with
an
average
vote
differential
of
23.2,
while
Biden’s
appointees
had
a
lower
average
vote
differential
of
12.4,
indicating
differences
in
partisan
support.

2) Diversity
and
Representation: Trump’s
appointments
were
predominantly
white
males,
while
Biden
emphasized
racial,
ethnic,
and
gender
diversity,
appointing
more
women
and
people
of
color
to
reflect
the
nation’s
demographic
makeup.

3) Geographic
Distribution: Trump
appointed
judges
largely
shifted
the
balance
in
certain
circuits
like
the
Fifth
and
Ninth,
while
Biden
impacted
a
broad
geographic
range
of
circuits,
including
circuits
like
the
Second,
Ninth,
and
Eleventh,
but
generally
to
a
lesser
extent
than
Trump.

4) Trump-Appointed
Judges’
Decisions
Above: Adopt
a
somewhat
cautious
and
formal
approach
to
the
law,
often
emphasizing
procedural
precision
and
adherence
to
established
legal
principles.
Rulings
typically
limit
judicial
discretion,
prioritize
traditional
standards
(e.g.,
strict
comparator
requirements
in
discrimination
claims),
and
uphold
conservative
interpretations
of
statutes
(e.g.,
narrow
views
on
compassionate
release
or
equitable
remedies).

5) Biden-Appointed
Judges’
Decisions
Above: Demonstrate
a
progressive
and
expansive
interpretation
of
legal
protections,
often
favoring
broader
access
to
justice
and
enhanced
protections
for
individuals.
Decisions
expand
interpretations
of
discrimination
laws,
contractual
rights,
and
procedural
fairness,
reflecting
a
more
inclusive
and
equity-driven
judicial
philosophy.

Read
more
from
Legalytics
here….

---

Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
Check
out
more
of
his
writing
at

Legalytics
and

Empirical
SCOTUS.
For
more
information,
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.

Bill
McGinley
is
out
at
the
“Department
of
Government
Efficiency,”
(DOGE).
According
to

reporting
by
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
the
Republican
election
attorney
is
joining
Vivek
Ramaswamy
in
leaving
the
Elon
Musk-led
quasi-governmental
agency.

McGinley
is
no
stranger
to
public
service.
The
attorney
left
Jones
Day
in
2017
to
join
the
first
Trump
administration
as
the
White
House
Cabinet
secretary.
He
was

initially
tapped
to
fill
the
role
of
White
House
Counsel
in
the
current
administration,
following
in
the
footsteps
of
another
former
Jones
Day
partner
Don
McGahn.
But
in
December
Trump
changed
direction
and
named
him
as
counsel
to
DOGE.

But
apparently
that
role
isn’t
appealing
to
McGinley.
And
it
certainly
comes
with
a
lot
of
baggage
—
shortly
after
its
creation
at
least

three
lawsuits
were
filed
contesting
DOGE’s
authority.
National
Security
Counselors,
the
Public
Citizen
and
State
Democracy
Defenders
Fund,
and
the
American
Federation
of
Government
Employees
labor
union
all
filed
cases
arguing
DOGE
violates
the
1972
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act.

As
for
what’s
next
for
McGinley,
he’s
taking
his
talents
to
the
private
sector.
“I
am
in
discussions
regarding
a
number
of
private
sector
opportunities
and
will
have
something
to
announce
in
the
next
couple
of
weeks,”
McGinley
told
the
Wall
Street
Journal.

---

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].

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“How
the
modern
Supreme
Court
might
view
the
14th
Amendment
and
birthright
citizenship”: Joan
Biskupic
of
CNN
has this
news
analysis.

“The
Next
Trump
Judges
Will
Be
So
Much
Worse;
The
Federalist
Society’s
waning
influence
in
the
Trump
White
House
means
that
his
next
nominees
will
be
considerably
further
to
the
right,
and
personally
committed
to
the
work
of
protecting
Donald
Trump”: Molly
Coleman
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.

“New
Research
Finds
Potential
Alternative
to
Abortion
Pill
Mifepristone;
The
research
could
further
complicate
the
polarized
politics
of
abortion
because
the
drug
in
the
study
is
the
key
ingredient
in
a
pill
used
for
emergency
contraception”: Pam
Belluck
and
Emily
Bazelon
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.

“Trump
Gives
TikTok
an
Illegal
Amnesty;
The
tech
firms
that
host
the
app
are
putting
their
shareholders
at
risk
by
failing
to
comply
with
the
law”: This
editorial appears
in
today’s
edition
of
The
Wall
Street
Journal.

“Supreme
Court
Seems
Ready
to
Reject
Limit
on
Excessive-Force
Suits;
The
justices
heard
arguments
over
whether
courts
must
limit
their
scrutiny
of
challenges
to
police
shootings
to
‘the
moment
of
threat’”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“Courthouse
News
Loses
Bid
for
Remote
Virginia
State
Court
Access”: Ufonobong
Umanah
of
Bloomberg
News
has this
report (subscription
required
for
full
access)
on a
ruling that
a
divided
three-judge
panel
of
the U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit issued
today.