Category: News Feeds

Ed.
note
(January
21,
2025):
In
light
of
Donald
Trump’s
recent
executive
order
revoking
birthright
citizenship,
consider
this
thorough
takedown
of
the
argument
from
2018.

When
you
attack
birthright
citizenship,
I
know
what
you
are
really
doing.
I
know
you
are
really
trying
to
lay
down
intellectual
covering
fire,
under
which
your
argument
for
white
nationalism
can
be
brought
to
the
masses.
I
know
you
are
afraid
of
the

browning
of
the
country,
I
know
you’ve
crunched
the
numbers
and
have
come
to
the
obvious
conclusion
that
you
can’t
deport
your
way
into
a
future
of
white
majorities.
I
know
you
have
two
options:
double
down
on
apartheid
rule,
or
strip
away
rights
from
non-white
people
who
you
can’t
stop
from
living
here.
The
Electoral
College
is
going
to
do
the
work
of
the
former,
so
when
you
come
for
birthright
citizenship,
I
know
you
are
fighting
for
the
latter
goal.

I
also
know
that
you
count
on
decent
people
being
too
weak
or
frightened
to
stand
up
to
you
when
you
try
to
infect
people
with
your
bigotry
and
stupidity.

You
can’t
get
an
op-ed
in
the
Washington
Post
if
you
titled
it
“America
Needs
To
Be
Ethnically
Cleansed
Of
Illegals.”
Somebody
over
there
would
notice
that
as
inappropriate.
But,
if
you
call
it:
“Citizenship
shouldn’t
be
a
birthright,”
well
the
Post

ran
that
very
piece
of
racist
drivel
yesterday.
I’m
sure
somebody
over
there
noticed
that
as
inappropriate
too…
but
somebody
else
probably
said,
“Hey,
there
are
good
people
on
both
sides.”

The
argument
against
birthright
citizenship
is
a
common
one
in
white
nationalist
circles.
But
unlike
most
of
their
stink,
this
one
comes
perfumed
with
an
air
of
Constitutional
interpretation.
That
thin
veneer
occasionally
gets
the
dumbass
argument
repeated
or
published
by
mainstream
sources,
because
otherwise
intelligent
and
upstanding
mainstream
non-lawyers
can
be
easily
intimidated
by
things
that
sound
like
they
have
some
basis
in
the
Constitution.
Essentially,
the
argument
comes
in
three
parts:

1.
The
original
Constitution
did
not
define
“citizenship.”
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
blown)
2.
Birthright
citizenship
stems
from
a
misinterpretation
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
confused)
3.
Birthright
citizenship
encourages
illegal
immigration.
(Non-lawyer
mind
=
intrigued)

The
Post
op-ed
was
written
by

Michael
Anton,
a
former
Trump
national
security
adviser.
It
quotes
the
work
of
Edward
Ehler,
an
anti-immigration
author.
It
hits
all
of
these
classic
points.

1.

The
notion
that
simply
being
born
within
the
geographical
limits
of
the
United
States
automatically
confers
U.S.
citizenship
is
an
absurdity
—
historically,
constitutionally,
philosophically
and
practically.

2.

Constitutional
scholar
Edward
Erler
has
shown
that
the
entire
case
for
birthright
citizenship
is
based
on
a
deliberate
misreading
of
the
14th
Amendment.

3.

Practically,
birthright
citizenship
is,
as
Erler
put
it,
“a
great
magnet
for
illegal
immigration.”
This
magnet
attracts
not
just
millions
of
the
world’s
poor
but
also
increasingly
affluent
immigrants.

Usually,
these
central
premises
stand
unopposed.
Lawyers
don’t
fight
these
white
nationalists
on
the
law,
because
their
interpretation
is
so
stupid
that
it’s
barely
worth
their
time.
And
liberals
don’t
fight
on
the
law,
they
fight
on
the
policy
that
immigration
is
good
for
the
country,
a
point
on
which
there
is
overwhelming
evidence.

But,
I
have
the
time.
As
a
wise
man
once
said:

“If
the
milk
turns
out
to
be
sour,
I
ain’t
the
type
of
pussy
that’d
drink
it.”

1.
The
Constitution
didn’t
define
federal
citizenship,
because
it
was
taken
as
an
article
of
faith
that
citizenship
flowed
from
the
individual
states,
and
not
the
federal
government.
Our
entire
concept
of
“diversity
jurisdiction”
rests
on
the
concept
of
people
being
citizens
of
different
states
and
not
one
country
as
a
whole.
That
doesn’t
mean
that
the
Founders
thought
birthright
citizenship
was
“absurd.”
It
just
means
that
they
didn’t
think
it
was
their
call
to
make.

2.
The
Constitution
does
weigh
in
on
the
issue
with
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
Everybody
agrees
that
the
whole
point
was
to
grant
citizenship
to
newly
freed
slaves,
citizenship
that
was
taken
from
them
by
the
Dred
Scott
decision.^[1]
To
give
African-Americans
citizenship,
it
had
to
be
as
a
matter
of
birth.
There
was
no
other
way.
You
couldn’t
do
it
through
whether
their
parents
were
citizens,
because
Dred
Scott
said
their
parents
were
not.
You
couldn’t
do
it
as
a
one-time
grant
to
newly
freed
slaves,
because
that
would
leave
out
all
already
free
blacks.
The
only
way
to
do
the
thing
we
all
agree
they
were
trying
to
accomplish
was
to
make
citizenship
attach
upon
birth.

WHERE
IS
THE
MISINTERPRETATION?
These
white
assholes
keep
saying
that
we’re
misreading
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
HOW?
The
writers
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
wanted
to
do
a
thing.
They
did
it
in
the
only
way
they
could.
THEY
WROTE
IT
DOWN.
Where’s
the
freaking
confusion?

If
you
pin
one
of
these
jerks
down,
they’ll
start
talking
about
Native
Americans.
The
Fourteenth
Amendment
didn’t
confer
citizenship
to
Native
Americans,
who
were
clearly
born
here,
and
thus,
they
argue,
citizenship
wasn’t
meant
to
be
a
birthright.
I
have
little
patience
for
people
who
use
our
racism
towards
the
First
Americans
to
justify
racism
towards
New
Americans,
but
there
you
go.
If
you
think
that
our
treatments
towards
Native
Americans
was
a
feature
instead
of
a
bug,
that’s
your
argument.

3.
Birthright
citizenship
is,
almost
exclusively,
a
“New
World”
phenomenon.
In
Europe
and
Africa,
citizenship
generally
flows
from
the
parents,
not
the
place
of
birth.

Why?
Well…
slavery.
Other
New
World
nations
had
the
same
problem
America
did
after
the
Civil
War.
Having
a
system
where
rights
flow
from
the
parents
is
UNWORKABLE
in
a
society
made
up
of
newly
freed
people.
Conversely,
European
colonists
wanted
their
kids
to
be
citizens
of
their
home
countries,
even
as
they
were
traipsing
about
the
world,
oppressing
others.
Almost
all
the
countries
in
the
Western
Hemisphere
tie
citizenship
to
the
land.

That
reality
means
we
can
test
the
white
nationalist
assumptions
that
birthright
citizenship
has
the
unintended
consequence
of
creating
a
perverse
incentive
for
illegal
immigration.
When
we
look
at
Europe
do
we
see
countries
that
are
free
from
the
challenges
presented
by
illegal
immigration?
No?
Then
I
think
these
white
nationalists
need
to
STFU
and
come
up
with
an
argument
that
is
grounded
in
REALITY.

*************************
This
stuff
isn’t
hard,
folks.
Birthright
citizenship
is
NOT
a
controversial
proposition.
Mainstream
media
is
hell-bent
on
creating
an
argument
where
there
isn’t
one,
in
their
endless
effort
to
normalize
white
supremacists.
Not
all
arguments
are
created
equal,
and
it
really
shouldn’t
be
too
much
to
ask
a
national
publication
like
the
Washington
Post
to
be
able
to
READ
THE
FIRST
SENTENCE
OF
THE
FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT
before
publishing
white
nationalists’
talking
points.

People
who
make
arguments
against
birthright
citizenship
are
racist,
dumb,
or
both.
Here
endeth
the
lesson.

[1]
As
an
aside,
it’s
an
article
of
faith
that
Dred
Scott
necessitated
the
Fourteenth
Amendment,
but
you
could
just
as
easily
argue
that
Dred
Scott
was
wrong
on
the
law
at
the
time
it
was
decided.
Maybe
if
we
weren’t
so
quick
to
excuse
racist
white
men
as
“trapped
by
their
times,”
we’d
more
easily
recognize
that.

Citizenship
shouldn’t
be
a
birthright
[Washington
Post]

---

Elie
Mystal
is
the
Executive
Editor
of
Above
the
Law
and
the
Legal
Editor
for

More
Perfect.
He
can
be
reached

@ElieNYC
on
Twitter,
or
at


[email protected].
He
will
resist.

The
first
month
of
the
new
year
is
nearly
over,
but
it
was
just
enough
time
for
another
Biglaw
firm
to
shut
down
an
office
in
China.
This
is
the
second
large
law
firm
to
close
the
doors
of
a
Chinese
office
in
2025.

As
noted
by
the

American
Lawyer,
Morgan
Lewis
&
Bockius
has
shut
down
its
Shenzhen
office,
which
was
first
opened
less
than
two
years
ago.
Morgan
Lewis
now
becomes
the
16th
U.S.
firm
to
shutter
an
office
in
mainland
China
since
the
exodus
began
in
2024.

It
seems
that
the
firm’s
office
leader
lateraled
to
DLA
Piper
back
in
November,
and
unable
to
fill
his
shoes,
Morgan
Lewis
decided
to
shutter
the
office.
Am
Law
has
additional
details:

Morgan
Lewis
confirmed
the
office
closure.
“We
parted
ways
with
our
only
two
lawyers
in
Shenzhen
and
reestablished
our
China-based
intellectual
property
practice
in
our
Shanghai
office,
where
it
was
initially
established
in
2017,”
Lesli
Ligorner,
[of]
Morgan
Lewis’
Shanghai
office
said.
…

“Our
combined
Beijing,
Hong
Kong,
and
Shanghai
offices
provide
corporate,
capital
markets,
corporate
investigations,
investment
management,
employment,
litigation,
and
intellectual
property
services
to
firm
clients
through
almost
70
lawyers,
supported
by
46
professional
staff,
including
our
October
2024
addition
of
Bingna
Guo
in
Beijing,”
Ligorner
said.

Which
Biglaw
firm
will
be
the
next
say
zàijiàn
to
its
offices
in
China?
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
if
you
have
any
intel.
Thank
you.

Morgan
Lewis
Closes
Shenzhen
Office
After
Less
Than
Two
Years
[American
Lawyer]

---

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.

Pfizer
Chairman
and
CEO
Albert
Bourla
did
not
mince
his
words
at
the
43rd
annual
J.P.
Morgan
Healthcare
Conference
in
San
Francisco
on
Monday
regarding
the

controversial
positions
that
Robert
F.
Kennedy
Jr.
has
taken
on
vaccines.
Kennedy
is
President-elect
Donald
Trump’s
nominee
to
lead
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
but
needs
to
be
confirmed
by
the
Senate.

Bourla,
whose
company
is
synonymous
with
the
Covid
vaccines
in
the
mainstream
American
consciousness,
was
asked
by
Chris
Schott,
a
J.P.
Morgan
analyst,
about
how
he
believes
things
might
change
on
the
vaccine
front.

“Clearly,
the
things
that
he
has
said
for
the
vaccines
in
the
past
are
in
complete
contradiction
with
what
we
believe
and
what
the
medical
community
believes,
and
what
the
scientific
community
believes
and
what
regulators
all
over
the
world
believe.
And
vaccines
are
the
most
effective,
cost-effective
health
care
intervention
that
have
existed
since
clean
water,”
Bourla
said,
according
to
a
recording
of
the
session.

While
reiterating
that
he
has
already
engaged
with
the
President-elect
and
his
team
and
would
like
to
work
with
Trump
on
areas
of
mutual
interest,
Bourla
issued
a
clear
warning

“On
the
vaccines,
if
he
[Kennedy]
does
some
of
the
things
that
he
has
spoken
in
the
past,
I
think
he
will
find
in
front
of
him,
not
[just]
us,
but
the
entire
medical
community,
the
entire
scientific
community,
the
entire
health
care
[community]
—
in
terms
of
insurance
companies
because
they
know
that
this
is
very
cost
effective.
And
also
the
employers
who
are
really
believing
that
by
using
vaccination,
they
are
reducing
their
health
care
costs
rather
than
increasing
it,”
Bourla
declared.

The
rate
of
childhood
vaccinations
has
been
dropping
in
the
United
States,
and
Bourla
warned
that
this
might
lead
to
the
worsening
of
diseases
should
Kennedy
act
on
his
beliefs.

“And
even
worse,
if
he
does
some
of
the
things,
because
already
…
we
are
losing
some
vaccinations
in
[chicken]
pox
and
…
polio,
in
terms
of
how
many
people
are
vaccinating.
If
we
go
below
a
specific
threshold,
we
will
start
having
an
epidemic,
and
that
will
be
detrimental
for
him
and
for
the
administration.
So
I
think
we
made
that
very
clear,”
he
said.

In
fact,
vaccination
rates
in
kindergarteners
have
declined
since
2020.
According
to
the

CDC,
“After
10
years
of
near
95%
nationwide
vaccination
coverage,
coverage
with
measles,
mumps,
and
rubella
vaccine
(MMR);
diphtheria,
tetanus,
and
acellular
pertussis
vaccine
(DTaP);
poliovirus
vaccine
(polio);
and
varicella
vaccine
(VAR) declined
to
approximately
93%
over
the
2020–21
and
2021–22
school
years
and
remained
essentially
unchanged
during
the
2022–23
school
year.”

After
painting
the
picture
of
a
worst-case
scenario
in
the
U.S.,
Bourla
struck
a
more
conciliatory
tone
by
saying
how
he
can
work
with
the
Trump
administration
on
areas
of
mutual
interest.

“He
has
seen
a
lot
of
his
friends
and
people
that
he
knew
dying
from
cancer,
and
he
keeps
asking
every
time
I
meet
—
‘What
are
we
doing
with
cancer?’
and
‘Can
we
cure
it?’
And
I
think
that’s
an
opportunity
to
try
to
build
programs
that
will
accelerate
the
cancer
development,”
Bourla
said.

Aside
from
Pfizer,
other
companies
were
also
asked
if
they
expect
any
changes
from
the
incoming
administration
on
vaccines.
The
CEO
of
Moderna,
which
created
the
mRNA
Covid
vaccine,
and
has
other
vaccines
in
its
pipeline
said
that
it
is
too
early
to
know
what
the
Trump
administration
is
going
to
do
in
terms
of
vaccines.
But
Stéphane
Bancel
went
on
to
add
the
following
in
more
detail:

The
piece
that
we
are
confident
in,
I
think,
is
that
every
elected
leader
and
every
public
health
leader
in
those
agencies
—
FDA,
CMS,
CDC
and
so
on
—
want
to
protect
the
American
people,
want
to
make
America
healthy
again.
And
so
vaccine
is
a
very
important
tool.
If
you
think
about
vaccines
in
the
elderly,
if
a
recommendation
was
to
be
changed,
the
impact
will
be
seen
in
the
same
season
—
in
which
you
might
see
in
increase
in
costs
…
in
the
same
season
because
we
know
that
[if]
a
70-year-old
person
is
hospitalized,
[that
person]
is
of
course
going
to
cost
much
more
that
same
year
by
being
hospitalized
with
very
high
cost.
And
so
there’s
a
lot
of
doctors,
scientists
in
all
those
agencies
that
know
the
facts
and
will
be
able
to
provide
to
the
new
elected
leaders
those
facts
so
that
they
understand
the
benefit
and
the
risk-benefit
[ratio]
in
terms
of
vaccinations
that
has
been
known
and
demonstrated
for
a
long
time.

And
so
we’re
going
to
collaborate
with
the
new
administration,
like
we’ve
always
done
with
every
administration
in
every
country
where
we
operate.
We
believe
that
focusing
on
the
data
and
the
risk-reward
ratio
will
be
the
right
way
to
do
it.

The
CEO
of
GSK
(GlaxoSmithKline)
wasn’t
asked
specifically
about
the
prospect
of
vaccines
under
Trump,
but
Emma
Walmsley
did
sing
their
praises.

“The
reality
is
there
is
no
better
return
on
healthcare
budget
investments
than
investing
in
vaccines
that
stop
disease
before
it
starts.
That’s
why
you’re
seeing
a
regulatory
environment
that,
in
the
IRA
[Inflation
Reduction
Act],
has
been

removing
copays,”
she
said
according
to
a
transcript
of
her
session
at
JPM.

Photo:
WhataWin,
Getty
Images

*
TikTok
is
back
in
business
with
Trump
declaring
that
he
won’t
enforce
the
law
at
this
time.
That’s
not
a
power
granted
by
the
statute
but…
YOLO.
[Reuters]

*
Trump
says
he
wants
the
death
penalty
for
anyone
killing
cops…
then
pardoned
a
bunch
of
people
who
tried
to
kill
cops.
[AP
News]

*
“What
To
Expect
From
Trump’s
Judicial
Nominations”…
well
if
Aileen
Cannon
made
his

first
cut,
the
cupboard
might
be
bare.
[Law360]

*
Prince
Harry’s
lawsuit
against
the
Murdochs
on
hold
pending
a
reportedly
massive
settlement
offer.
[Newsweek]

*
The
role
of
the
Chief
Justice
in
the
inauguration…
how
did
that
guy
get
there?
[One
First]

*
Trump
signs
executive
order
nullifying
Fourteenth
Amendment
and
a
lawsuit
is
already
filed.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Tom
Goldstein’s

wild
poker
and
women
indictment
may
just
be
the
beginning
of
his
problems.
[National
Law
Journal]

They
continued
to
weaponize
the
criminal
justice
system
against
perceived
critics
and
the
political
opposition.
Impunity
for
the
ruling
party
ZANU-PF
violence,
intimidation,
harassment,
and
repression
against
opposition
members
and
civil
society
activists
restricted
civic
and
political
space.

The
authorities
failed
to
uphold
the
government’s
domestic
and
international
human
rights
obligations
to
respect
peaceful
activism.

Intensified
Crackdown
on
Government
Critics

Ahead
of
the
August
17
Southern
African
Development
Community
(SADC)
heads
of
state
summit
in
Zimbabwe’s
capital,
Harare,
the
authorities
intensified
the
crackdown
on
opposition
members
and civil
society activists.
Security
forces
arrested
more
than 160
people,
including
a
religious
leader,
elected
parliament
and
council
officials,
political
activists,
union
leaders,
students,
and
journalists.

On
June
16,
police  arrested over
70
people
at
a
private
event
to
commemorate
the
Day
of
the
African
Child
at
the
home
of
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
(CCC)
party
leader,
Jameson
Timba.
The
police
charged
the
detainees,
including
Timba
with
“participating
in
a
gathering
with
the intent
to
promote
violence,
breaches
of
peace
or
bigotry,”
as
well
as
disorderly
conduct.
The
detainees’
lawyers
said
the
police
had
beaten
their
clients
during
arrest,
and
further
ill-treated,
tortured,
and
denied
them
medical
care
and
other
rights
in
detention.
The
detainees
included
a
woman
with
a year-old
child.  Tambudzai
Makororo,
whose
leg
was fractured during
the
arrest,
was
not
allowed
surgery
until
23
days
later.
Makororo’s
son
died
while
she
was
in
custody,
but
the
authorities denied her
request
to
attend
the
funeral.

On
June
24,
police arrested
44
members of
the
Zimbabwe
National
Students
Union,
including
its
president,
Emmanuel
Sitima,
and
required
them
to
pay
fines
for
“disorderly
conduct”
before
releasing
them.

At
a
ZANU-PF
meeting
on
June
27,
President
Emerson
Mnangagwa
said
he
was
“aware
of
certain
rogue
elements within
the
nation
who
are
bent
on
peddling
falsehoods
and
instigating
acts
of
civil
disorder,
especially
before,
during,
and
after
regional
and
world
stage
events.”
He
said
security
agencies
were
on
high
alert
to
decisively
deal
with
the
so-called
rogue
elements.

Police
on
June
29
arrested
in
a
private
home,
five
members
of
a
movement
called National
Democratic
Working
Group, for
allegedly
holding
an
“unsanctioned
gathering”
and
“agitating
for
criminal
acts
in
the
country.”
A
spokesperson
for
the
five
said
they
were meeting
to
organize food
disbursements
to
needy
people
in
their
area. On
June
30,
authorities disrupted a
memorial
event
for
an
opposition
supporter
killed
in
2022
and
arrested
several
participants.

On
July
31,
suspected
state
agents pulled
four
activists off
a
plane
before
takeoff
at
the
Harare
International
airport,
and
forcibly
disappeared
them
for
nearly
eight
hours.
Lawyers
said
the
agents
subjected
all
four
to torture
and
other
ill-treatment,
and
that
the
agents threatened
to
rape and
kill
the
wife
of
Robson
Chere,
one
of
the
detained
activists.
The
authorities
charged
the
four
activists
with
“disorderly
conduct”
for
allegedly
participating
in
a
protest
on
June
27.
Three
of
the
four
activists
were granted
bail after
35
days
in
detention.

On
August
2,
Jacob
Ngarivhume,
leader
of
the
opposition
party
Transform
Zimbabwe,
was
arrested
and
charged
for
allegedly
participating
in
a
July
16
event
where
police
arrested
over
70
CCC
members. Ngarivhume
was granted
bail on
October
23,
after
82
days
in
detention.

The
authorities
have
continued
to
deny
those
arrested
their
rights
to
bail
and
a
fair
trial.
A
leading
opposition
politician,
Job
Sikhala, was
freed in
January
after
being
jailed
for
595
days
on
charges
of
inciting
public
violence.

On
August
20,
the
ZANU-PF
spokesperson
said
activists
had
been
arrested
as
a
“preventative
measure”
and
could
be
released
following
the
“success”
of
the
SADC
Summit.
However,
authorities
at
time
of
writing
are
yet
to
unconditionally
release
detained
activists
and
opposition
members
since
the
SADC
Summit
ended
in
August.

Repression
of
Civil
Society
Organizations

The
authorities
have
continued
to
restrict
civic
space
and
the
rights
to
freedom
of
expression,
association,
and
peaceful
assembly.
The
government
has
sought
to
enact,
or
has
enacted,
legislation
that
would
substantially
compound
existing
restrictions
on
human
rights. The
Private
Voluntary
Organizations
Amendment
Bill 2021
passed
by
parliament
in
February
2023
failed
to
get presidential
assent and
lapsed
in
August
2023.
A
new
bill
was
passed
by
the
senate
on
October
17
and
if
signed
into
law
by
the
president,
it
will
directly
affect
the
structure
and
management
of
civil
society
organizations.
It
will
also
allow
the
authorities
to
cancel
the
registration
of
organizations
deemed
to
have
“political
affiliation”
with
little
to
no
recourse
to
judicial
review.
Actions
considered
in
violation
of
certain
provisions
of
the
law
could
be
prosecuted,
with
penalties
ranging
from
heavy
fines
to
imprisonment.

Impunity
for
Abuses

The
authorities’
failure
to
investigate
and
prosecute
abuses
primarily
committed
by
state
security
agents
has
entrenched
the
culture
of
impunity.
On
June
29,
2024,
media
quoted
the
National
Army
commander,
Lt.
Gen. Anselem
Sanyatwe,
who
has
been
placed
under
sanctions
by
the
United
States
government,  as
saying that
in
future
elections,
people
would
be
marched
to
polling
stations
to
vote
for
the
ruling
ZANU-PF
party,
“whether
you
like
it
or
not.”

For
decades,
Zimbabwe’s
military
and
other
state
security
forces
have interfered in
the
nation’s
political
and
electoral
affairs
in
violation
of
citizens’
civil
and
political
rights. The
government
and
military
hierarchies
have
repeatedly
ignored
the
provisions
of Zimbabwe’s
Constitution, which
prohibits
members
of
security
agencies
from
acting
in
a
partisan
manner,
further
the
interests
of
any
political
party,
or
cause
or
violate
anyone’s
fundamental
rights
or
freedoms.

In
March,
the
US
government
renewed sanctions
against
11
individuals,
including
President
Mnangagwa,
and
three
entities
for
their
involvement
in
corruption
or
serious
human
rights
abuses.
The
announcement
noted
that
Zimbabwe’s
security
forces
had
engaged
in
the
violent
repression
of
political
activists
and
civil
society
organizations.

Proposed
Abolition
of
the
Death
Penalty

In
March,
Zimbabwe’s
cabinet
approved a
bill that,
if
passed
by
parliament,
would
abolish
the
death
penalty.
Although
Zimbabwe
carried
out
its
last
executions
in
2005,
courts
have
continued
to
impose
the
death
sentence.
There
are
currently 63
prisoners on
death
row. The Constitution  protects
the
right
to
life,
but
empowers
courts
in
limited
circumstances
to
impose
the
death
penalty
for
people
convicted
of
the
charge
of
aggravated
murder.
The
proposed
law
would
prohibit
the
imposition
of
death
penalty
in
the
country
and
would
require
the
Supreme
Court
to
substitute
the
death
penalty
on
appeal,
for
some
other
appropriate
penalty.

Sexual
Orientation
and
Gender
Identity

Section
73
of
the
2006
Criminal
Code
of
Zimbabwe
criminalizes
same-sex
sexual
activities
between
men.
Sentences
include
a
maximum
penalty
of
one
year
and
a
fine.
Article
78(3)
of
the
Constitution
prohibits
same-sex
marriage.
Lesbian,
gay,
bisexual,
and
transgender
people
frequently
face
threats,
harassment
and
violence.
In
August
2024,
two
men
were arrested
and
charged
under
sodomy
laws while
they
were
seeking
justice
for
blackmail
and
extortion.

Children’s
Rights

Child
labor remained
a serious
problem, with
children
participating
in
hazardous
work
in tobacco
farming and
other
sectors. School
fees continued
to
pose
a barrier to education. Pregnant
girls
and
adolescent
mothers continued
to
face
challenges
continuing
formal
education.

Post
published
in:

Featured

The
Unexpected
Hours
Threshold
Is
A
Reason
To
Jump
Ship:

This
isn’t
the
first
time
they’ve
done
it
either.

Upholding
The
TikTok
Ban
Is
Costing
The
Country
Its
Reputation:

Not
only
is
the
grass
actually
greener
on
the
other
side,
we’ve
been
lied
to
about
it!

Goldstein
Plays
The
Trump
Card:

Hopefully
this
will
help
him
beat
his
poker
related
charges.

Drake
Cries
Wolf
Against
The
Popular
Kids
As
The
Tide
Shifts
Against
Him:

Spurned
“One
Dance”
pop
star
names
popular
streamers
in
defamation
lawsuit.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Today
President
Biden

confirmed
his
belief
the
Equal
Right
Amendment
is
the
“law
of
the
land,”
because
in
2020
Virginia
became
the
38th
state
to
ratify
the
amendment
(though
it
was
after
the
Congressionally
imposed
seven
year
sunset
period).
Which
state
first
ratified
the
28th
Amendment?

Hint:
The
state
ratified
the
amendment
on
the
same
day
the
amendment
was
approved
by
Congress.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Judge
Arthur
Engoron
heard
the
business
fraud
case
involving
Donald
Trump
and
his
businesses.
Engoron
ultimately
imposed
a
$450
million
judgment
against
the
defendants.

During
that
trial,
Trump
had
repeatedly
disparaged
court
personnel,
including
the
judge’s
law
clerk.
After
the
judge
entered
a
gag
order
to
protect
the
courtroom
staff,
Trump
went
outside
the
courtroom
and
told
reporters
that
“a
person
who’s
very
partisan
[is]
sitting
alongside”
the
judge.
This
appeared
to
again
disparage
the
judge’s
clerk
and
thus
to
violate
the
gag
order.
Judge
Engoron
had
Trump
take
the
witness
stand.

Trump
testified
that
he
had
not
in
fact
been
referring
to
the
judge’s
clerk
as
being
a
partisan,
but
rather
was
referring
to
Michael
Cohen,
Trump’s
former
lawyer,
who
had
been
on
the
witness
stand
at
the
time.

This
was
obviously
a
lie,
and
the
judge
ultimately

so
ruled:
“The
idea
that
the
statement
would
refer
to
the
witness
doesn’t
make
any
sense
to
me.”
According
to
the
judge,
Trump’s
testimony,
under
oath,
was
“not
credible.”

Lying
under
oath.
That’s
not
good.
In
the
1990s,
Republicans
wanted
to
impeach
President
Bill
Clinton
for
lying
under
oath.

But
I
digress.

In
the
days
leading
up
to
January
6,
2021,
President
Trump
urged
his
supporters
to
come
to
Washington,
D.C.,
telling
them
that
the
day
would
be
“wild.”
Trump
gave
a
speech
on
the
sixth,
and
the
assembled
crowd
attacked
the
Capitol
Building.
Whether
or
not
you
agree
that
Trump
instigated
the
riot,
he
indisputably
remained
silent
for
three
hours
while
a
mob
attacked
Congress.
Whether
Trump
thought
the
crowd
consisted
of
members
of
Antifa,
or
FBI
informants,
or
simply
peaceful
protestors,
Trump
did
not
lift
a
finger
or
say
a
word
to
defend
the
Capitol
Building.
A
simple
statement
would
have
sufficed.
Perhaps:
“If
you
by
any
chance
are
my
supporters,
please
understand
that
I
didn’t
mean
this
at
all.
You
misunderstood
me.
I
didn’t
mean
that
you
should
ransack
the
Capitol
Building.
Please
go
home.”

But
no.

Trump
is
not
one
to
protect
the
United
States
to
the
best
of
his
ability.
Nor,
as
Judge
Engoron
held,
is
Trump
one
to
tell
the
truth,
even
when
under
oath.

On
Monday
at
noon,
Donald
J.
Trump
will
put
his
hand
on
a
bible
and
repeat
under
oath
the
words
set
forth
in
Article
II,
Section
One,
Clause
8
of
the
Constitution:

I
do
solemnly
swear
(or
affirm)
that
I
will
faithfully
execute
the
Office
of
President
of
the
United
States,
and
will
to
the
best
of
my
ability,
preserve,
protect
and
defend
the
Constitution
of
the
United
States.

That
doesn’t
give
me
a
whole
lot
of
comfort.

How
about
you?

---

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

When

last
we
checked
in
with
Proskauer
they
were
doing
associates
dirty.
Despite
not
formally
having
an
hours
requirement
to
receive
year-end
bonuses,
some
associates
found
themselves
with
nothing
but
coal
in
their
stocking
from
the
firm.
Why
didn’t
they
get
the
cash
they
were
expecting?
Well,
they
didn’t
meet
the
hours
requirement
—
by
as
little
as
3
hours!
You
know,
that
hours
requirement
that
doesn’t
formally
exist…
(According
to
tipsters,
this
year
isn’t
the
first
time
the
firm
pulled
this
particular
move.)

Now
some
insiders
are
reporting
back
what’s
been
going
down
since
the
story
broke.
Unsurprisingly
morale
is
not
great
—
even
associate
that
made
the
invisible
hours
threshold
last
year
feel
blindsided
by
the
firm’s
policy.
And
the
firm
leadership
has
been
forced
by
the
negative
publicity
to
acknowledge
the
standard
they’ve
been
holding
associates
to.

From
a
tipster:

After
your
article
was
posted,
literally
9
minutes
later,
we
received
an
email
for
a
virtual
town
hall
to
take
place
the
next
day
at
noon.
Now
we
have
a
2000
hour
requirement
for
the
current
fiscal
year…
which
started
in
November.

They
say
it
can
change
from
year
to
year
but
they
will
tell
us
ahead
of
time
(yeah
right,
we’re
not
going
to
believe
that
shit
anymore)

It’s
vile
and
I
can’t
wait
to
leave
this
firm.
Hope
they
enjoy
the
millions
they
make
from
squeezing
every
last
ounce
of
humanity
from
the
firm
that
used
to
be
a
good
place
to
work.
Morale
is
very
very
low.
Would
not
be
surprised
if
they
start
hemorrhaging
associates.
Maybe
that’s
their
intention.

Oof,
doesn’t
sound
like
Proskauer
is
a
fun
place
to
work
right
now.
Maybe
they’ll
take
the
hint
and
start
being
straightforward
with
associates.

---

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

---

---