Category: News Feeds

Donald
Trump’s
victory
in
the
2024
presidential
election
threatens
to
turn
our
legal
system
into
a
Federalist
Society
Chick-Fil-A
hoedown.
But
at
least
two
federal
judges
are
doing
their
best
to
hold
the
line.

According
to
reporting
by
Reuters,
both
Max
O.
Cogburn
Jr.,
district
judge
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and
Algenon
L.
Marbley,
district
judge
for
the
Southern
District
of
Ohio,
have
withdrawn
their
plans
to
take
senior
status.
Senior
status
is
a
sort
of
a
federal
judiciary
retirement
light,
which
allows
the
president
to
appoint
a
successor.

Senior
status
is
available
to
judges
over
the
age
of
65
who
have
completed
at
least
15
years
on
the
federal
bench.
Senior
judges
typically
have
reduced
caseloads
but
continue
to
hear
cases,
including
new
ones,
without
formally
retiring.
Presidents
may
name
new
full-time
judges
to
fill
those
judges’
seats.

Both
judges
were
appointed
by
Democrats
—
Cogburn
by
Barack
Obama
and
Marbley
by
Bill
Clinton
—
but
President
Joe
Biden
was
unable
to
fill
those
seats.
That’s
because
of
the
“blue
slip”
tradition,
requiring
approval
for
judicial
nominees
from
home
state
senators.
However,
during
Trump’s
first
term
in
office,
the
GOP

abandoned
the
custom
in
order
to
stack
the
judiciary
with
far-right
acolytes.
Since
then,
Dems
have,
more
or
less,
stuck
with
the
system.
The
Democrats’
unwillingness
to
fight
fire
with
fire

severely
limited Biden’s
ability
to
counter
the
tremendous
influence
Trump
was
able
to
exert
in
his
first
term
as
president.
Though
the
number
of
judicial
appointees
Biden
shepherded
through
the
process
may
ultimately
wind
up
higher
than
Trump
I,
Biden
abandoned

valuable
appellate
court
seats
in
the
process.

So,
we’re
left
with
74-
and
70-year-olds
unable
to
semi-retire
lest
they
see
their
seats
in
the
hands
of
judges
who
would
undo
their
years
of
work.
Helluva
system.

---

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].

Donald
Trump’s
victory
in
the
2024
presidential
election
threatens
to
turn
our
legal
system
into
a
Federalist
Society
Chick-Fil-A
hoedown.
But
at
least
two
federal
judges
are
doing
their
best
to
hold
the
line.

According
to
reporting
by
Reuters,
both
Max
O.
Cogburn
Jr.,
district
judge
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and
Algenon
L.
Marbley,
district
judge
for
the
Southern
District
of
Ohio,
have
withdrawn
their
plans
to
take
senior
status.
Senior
status
is
a
sort
of
a
federal
judiciary
retirement
light,
which
allows
the
president
to
appoint
a
successor.

Senior
status
is
available
to
judges
over
the
age
of
65
who
have
completed
at
least
15
years
on
the
federal
bench.
Senior
judges
typically
have
reduced
caseloads
but
continue
to
hear
cases,
including
new
ones,
without
formally
retiring.
Presidents
may
name
new
full-time
judges
to
fill
those
judges’
seats.

Both
judges
were
appointed
by
Democrats
—
Cogburn
by
Barack
Obama
and
Marbley
by
Bill
Clinton
—
but
President
Joe
Biden
was
unable
to
fill
those
seats.
That’s
because
of
the
“blue
slip”
tradition,
requiring
approval
for
judicial
nominees
from
home
state
senators.
However,
during
Trump’s
first
term
in
office,
the
GOP

abandoned
the
custom
in
order
to
stack
the
judiciary
with
far-right
acolytes.
Since
then,
Dems
have,
more
or
less,
stuck
with
the
system.
The
Democrats’
unwillingness
to
fight
fire
with
fire

severely
limited Biden’s
ability
to
counter
the
tremendous
influence
Trump
was
able
to
exert
in
his
first
term
as
president.
Though
the
number
of
judicial
appointees
Biden
shepherded
through
the
process
may
ultimately
wind
up
higher
than
Trump
I,
Biden
abandoned

valuable
appellate
court
seats
in
the
process.

So,
we’re
left
with
74-
and
70-year-olds
unable
to
semi-retire
lest
they
see
their
seats
in
the
hands
of
judges
who
would
undo
their
years
of
work.
Helluva
system.

---

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].

Donald
Trump’s
victory
in
the
2024
presidential
election
threatens
to
turn
our
legal
system
into
a
Federalist
Society
Chick-Fil-A
hoedown.
But
at
least
two
federal
judges
are
doing
their
best
to
hold
the
line.

According
to
reporting
by
Reuters,
both
Max
O.
Cogburn
Jr.,
district
judge
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and
Algenon
L.
Marbley,
district
judge
for
the
Southern
District
of
Ohio,
have
withdrawn
their
plans
to
take
senior
status.
Senior
status
is
a
sort
of
a
federal
judiciary
retirement
light,
which
allows
the
president
to
appoint
a
successor.

Senior
status
is
available
to
judges
over
the
age
of
65
who
have
completed
at
least
15
years
on
the
federal
bench.
Senior
judges
typically
have
reduced
caseloads
but
continue
to
hear
cases,
including
new
ones,
without
formally
retiring.
Presidents
may
name
new
full-time
judges
to
fill
those
judges’
seats.

Both
judges
were
appointed
by
Democrats
—
Cogburn
by
Barack
Obama
and
Marbley
by
Bill
Clinton
—
but
President
Joe
Biden
was
unable
to
fill
those
seats.
That’s
because
of
the
“blue
slip”
tradition,
requiring
approval
for
judicial
nominees
from
home
state
senators.
However,
during
Trump’s
first
term
in
office,
the
GOP

abandoned
the
custom
in
order
to
stack
the
judiciary
with
far-right
acolytes.
Since
then,
Dems
have,
more
or
less,
stuck
with
the
system.
The
Democrats’
unwillingness
to
fight
fire
with
fire

severely
limited Biden’s
ability
to
counter
the
tremendous
influence
Trump
was
able
to
exert
in
his
first
term
as
president.
Though
the
number
of
judicial
appointees
Biden
shepherded
through
the
process
may
ultimately
wind
up
higher
than
Trump
I,
Biden
abandoned

valuable
appellate
court
seats
in
the
process.

So,
we’re
left
with
74-
and
70-year-olds
unable
to
semi-retire
lest
they
see
their
seats
in
the
hands
of
judges
who
would
undo
their
years
of
work.
Helluva
system.

---

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].

Donald
Trump’s
victory
in
the
2024
presidential
election
threatens
to
turn
our
legal
system
into
a
Federalist
Society
Chick-Fil-A
hoedown.
But
at
least
two
federal
judges
are
doing
their
best
to
hold
the
line.

According
to
reporting
by
Reuters,
both
Max
O.
Cogburn
Jr.,
district
judge
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and
Algenon
L.
Marbley,
district
judge
for
the
Southern
District
of
Ohio,
have
withdrawn
their
plans
to
take
senior
status.
Senior
status
is
a
sort
of
a
federal
judiciary
retirement
light,
which
allows
the
president
to
appoint
a
successor.

Senior
status
is
available
to
judges
over
the
age
of
65
who
have
completed
at
least
15
years
on
the
federal
bench.
Senior
judges
typically
have
reduced
caseloads
but
continue
to
hear
cases,
including
new
ones,
without
formally
retiring.
Presidents
may
name
new
full-time
judges
to
fill
those
judges’
seats.

Both
judges
were
appointed
by
Democrats
—
Cogburn
by
Barack
Obama
and
Marbley
by
Bill
Clinton
—
but
President
Joe
Biden
was
unable
to
fill
those
seats.
That’s
because
of
the
“blue
slip”
tradition,
requiring
approval
for
judicial
nominees
from
home
state
senators.
However,
during
Trump’s
first
term
in
office,
the
GOP

abandoned
the
custom
in
order
to
stack
the
judiciary
with
far-right
acolytes.
Since
then,
Dems
have,
more
or
less,
stuck
with
the
system.
The
Democrats’
unwillingness
to
fight
fire
with
fire

severely
limited Biden’s
ability
to
counter
the
tremendous
influence
Trump
was
able
to
exert
in
his
first
term
as
president.
Though
the
number
of
judicial
appointees
Biden
shepherded
through
the
process
may
ultimately
wind
up
higher
than
Trump
I,
Biden
abandoned

valuable
appellate
court
seats
in
the
process.

So,
we’re
left
with
74-
and
70-year-olds
unable
to
semi-retire
lest
they
see
their
seats
in
the
hands
of
judges
who
would
undo
their
years
of
work.
Helluva
system.

---

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].

Donald
Trump’s
victory
in
the
2024
presidential
election
threatens
to
turn
our
legal
system
into
a
Federalist
Society
Chick-Fil-A
hoedown.
But
at
least
two
federal
judges
are
doing
their
best
to
hold
the
line.

According
to
reporting
by
Reuters,
both
Max
O.
Cogburn
Jr.,
district
judge
for
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina,
and
Algenon
L.
Marbley,
district
judge
for
the
Southern
District
of
Ohio,
have
withdrawn
their
plans
to
take
senior
status.
Senior
status
is
a
sort
of
a
federal
judiciary
retirement
light,
which
allows
the
president
to
appoint
a
successor.

Senior
status
is
available
to
judges
over
the
age
of
65
who
have
completed
at
least
15
years
on
the
federal
bench.
Senior
judges
typically
have
reduced
caseloads
but
continue
to
hear
cases,
including
new
ones,
without
formally
retiring.
Presidents
may
name
new
full-time
judges
to
fill
those
judges’
seats.

Both
judges
were
appointed
by
Democrats
—
Cogburn
by
Barack
Obama
and
Marbley
by
Bill
Clinton
—
but
President
Joe
Biden
was
unable
to
fill
those
seats.
That’s
because
of
the
“blue
slip”
tradition,
requiring
approval
for
judicial
nominees
from
home
state
senators.
However,
during
Trump’s
first
term
in
office,
the
GOP

abandoned
the
custom
in
order
to
stack
the
judiciary
with
far-right
acolytes.
Since
then,
Dems
have,
more
or
less,
stuck
with
the
system.
The
Democrats’
unwillingness
to
fight
fire
with
fire

severely
limited Biden’s
ability
to
counter
the
tremendous
influence
Trump
was
able
to
exert
in
his
first
term
as
president.
Though
the
number
of
judicial
appointees
Biden
shepherded
through
the
process
may
ultimately
wind
up
higher
than
Trump
I,
Biden
abandoned

valuable
appellate
court
seats
in
the
process.

So,
we’re
left
with
74-
and
70-year-olds
unable
to
semi-retire
lest
they
see
their
seats
in
the
hands
of
judges
who
would
undo
their
years
of
work.
Helluva
system.

---

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].

*
Joe
Biden
is
pardoning
his
son
Hunter.
Anyone
concerned
about
justice
and
the
rule
of
law…
should
have
said
their
peace
when
the
bog
standard
plea
deal
for
Hunter’s
charges
that
could’ve
resolved
this
without
a
pardon
got
blown
up
by
grandstanding
politicians.
[

CNN]

*
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
have
time
for
death
penalty
appeals
from
likely
innocents,
but
it
is
more
than
ready
to
consider
the
rights
of
vapers
to
buy
flavored
products.
Which
seems
like
a
betrayal
of
the
tobacco
farming
Framers
but
“history
and
tradition”
are
elusive
concepts.
[Reuters]

*
Attorney
blames
his
rage
over
racism
after

mailing
poop
to
judges
and
politicians.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Energy
practices
gear
up
for
AI
to
suck
up
more
of
the
world’s
power.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Companies
ask
full
Federal
Circuit
to
set
tighter
rules
on
what
juries
are
allowed
to
award
in
patent
cases.
And
by
“full”
Federal
Circuit,
they
mean
“not-the-full”
Federal
Circuit
as
Judge
Pauline
Newman

remains
“pocket
impeached”
by
her
colleagues.
[Law360]

*
Partner
classes
are
still
shrinking.
[American
Lawyer]

Last
night
President
Biden
pardoned
his
son
for
any
and
all
crimes
committed
since
January
1,
2014.
But
that’s
not
stopping
Special
Counsel
David
Weiss
and
his
sidekick
Leo
Wise,
who
oppose
dismissing
of
the
cases
against
him
on
principal.

Hunter
Biden
was
convicted
on
firearms
charges
in
Delaware
in
June,
related
to
a
gun
permit
from
2018
on
which
he
falsely
denied
being
a
habitual
drug
user.
In
September,
he
pled
guilty
in
California
to
failing
to
pay
his
taxes
on
time
between
2016
and
2019.
Sentencing
was
pending
in
both
cases.

In
an

official
statement,
his
father
noted
that
“the
charges
in
his
cases
came
about
only
after
several
of
my
political
opponents
in
Congress
instigated
them”
and
that
those
opponents
openly
took
“credit
for
bringing
political
pressure
on
the
process”
that
unraveled
the
plea
deal
negotiated
last
summer:

From
the
day
I
took
office,
I
said
I
would
not
interfere
with
the
Justice
Department’s
decision-making,
and
I
kept
my
word
even
as
I
have
watched
my
son
being
selectively,
and
unfairly,
prosecuted. Without
aggravating
factors
like
use
in
a
crime,
multiple
purchases,
or
buying
a
weapon
as
a
straw
purchaser,
people
are
almost
never
brought
to
trial
on
felony
charges
solely
for
how
they
filled
out
a
gun
form.
Those
who
were
late
paying
their
taxes
because
of
serious
addictions,
but
paid
them
back
subsequently
with
interest
and
penalties,
are
typically
given
non-criminal
resolutions. It
is
clear
that
Hunter
was
treated
differently.

The
ten-year
period
is
important,
since
Trump’s
henchmen
will
soon
be
controlling
the
Justice
Department,
and
they’ve
made
no
secret
of
their
intention
to
try
to

prosecute
the
president’s
son
for
violating
the
Foreign
Agents
Registration
Act.
In
fact,
the
plea
deal
fell
apart
because
Special
Counsel
David
Weiss
backed
away
from
a
promise
that
Biden
would
not
be
prosecuted
for
FARA
if
he
pled
to
the
gun
and
tax
charges.
Coincidentally,
this
change
of
heart
came
about
roughly
five
minutes
after
Republicans
in
Congress
complained
about
the
“sweetheart
deal.”

Last
night,
Hunter
Biden
docketed
notice
of
the
pardons
in
Delaware,
where
he’s
charged
with
lying
on
a
gun
permit
application,
and
California,
where
he’s
charged
with
tax
crimes.

“The
President’s
pardon
moots
Mr.
Biden’s
pending
and
yet
to
occur
sentencing
and
entry
of
judgment
in
this
case
and
requires
an
automatic
dismissal
of
the
Indictment
with
prejudice,”
his
lawyer
Abbe
Lowell

wrote,
adding
that
“this
Court
must
dismiss
the
Indictment
against
Mr.
Biden
with
prejudice
and
adjourn
all
future
proceedings
in
this
matter.”

But
Weiss,
who
was
appointed
by
Bill
Barr,
isn’t
ready
to
give
up
the
ghost
just
yet.
In
an

opposition
filed
in
California,
he
argued
that
“The
defendant’s
motion
should
be
denied
since
there
is
no
binding
authority
on
this
Court
which
requires
dismissal.”

“As
a
matter
of
past-practice
in
this
district,
courts
do
not
dismiss
indictments
when
pardons
are
granted,”
Weiss
wrote,
citing
such
luminaries
as
Steve
Bannon,
Michael
Flynn,
Joe
Arpaio,
and
Ollie
North.
“Instead,
it
has
been
the
practice
of
this
court
that
once
an
Executive
Grant
of
Clemency
has
been
filed
on
the
docket,
the
docket
is
marked
closed,
the
disposition
entry
is
updated
to
reflect
the
executive
grant
of
clemency,
and
no
further
action
is
taken
by
the
Court.”

And
although
Weiss
purported
not
to
have
seen
the
pardon
itself
(which
Lowell
inexplicably
failed
to
docket),
he
took
particular
umbrage
at
the
suggestion
that
the
prosecution
was
politically
motivated,
huffing
that
“The
court
similarly
found
[Biden’s]
vindictive
prosecution
claims
unmoored
from
any
evidence
or
even
a
coherent
theory
as
to
vindictiveness.”

Judge
Mark
Scarsi
of
the
Central
District
of
California
has
taken
no
action,
thus
far.
But
in
Delaware,
Judge
Maryellen
Noreika
said
in
a
minute
order
that
she
intends
to
terminate
the
proceedings,
and
instructing
the
government
to
say
by
tomorrow
if
it
objects
to
termination
by
dismissal.
Presumably
it
does,
although
no
objection
has
hit
the
docket
as
of
this
writing.

Meanwhile
over
at
Truth
Social,
the
guy
who
pardoned
Vanky’s
father-in-law
for
campaign
finance
violations
and
tax
evasion
and
then
named
him
ambassador
to
France
has
thoughts.

It’s
gonna
be
a
long
four
years.

US
v.
Biden
[Delaware
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

US
v.
Biden
[California
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

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

*
Joe
Biden
is
pardoning
his
son
Hunter.
Anyone
concerned
about
justice
and
the
rule
of
law…
should
have
said
their
peace
when
the
bog
standard
plea
deal
for
Hunter’s
charges
that
could’ve
resolved
this
without
a
pardon
got
blown
up
by
grandstanding
politicians.
[

CNN]

*
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
have
time
for
death
penalty
appeals
from
likely
innocents,
but
it
is
more
than
ready
to
consider
the
rights
of
vapers
to
buy
flavored
products.
Which
seems
like
a
betrayal
of
the
tobacco
farming
Framers
but
“history
and
tradition”
are
elusive
concepts.
[Reuters]

*
Attorney
blames
his
rage
over
racism
after

mailing
poop
to
judges
and
politicians.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Energy
practices
gear
up
for
AI
to
suck
up
more
of
the
world’s
power.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Companies
ask
full
Federal
Circuit
to
set
tighter
rules
on
what
juries
are
allowed
to
award
in
patent
cases.
And
by
“full”
Federal
Circuit,
they
mean
“not-the-full”
Federal
Circuit
as
Judge
Pauline
Newman

remains
“pocket
impeached”
by
her
colleagues.
[Law360]

*
Partner
classes
are
still
shrinking.
[American
Lawyer]

Elon
Musk
is

not
a
lawyer.
Nor
is
he
really

a
genius
inventor.
But
he

is
a
guy
with
confidence
inversely
related
to
his
competence
and
expertise,
so
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
that
he’s
bragging
that
he’s
inventing
a
legal
tech
product
that
will
replace
the
whole
system!
An
AI
offering
that
will
replace
judges
and
“render
extremely
compelling
legal
verdicts.”

Grok,
Musk’s
version
of
generative
AI,
is
just
like
OpenAI’s
or
Anthropic’s,
except
it
spits
out
answers
with
a

dash
of
conspiracy
theory
and
all
the

humor
and
wit
of
a
concussed
rooster
pecking
on
a
Ouija
board.
Science
fiction
is
full
of
artificial
intelligences
modeled
after
their
creator
and
—
on
that
count
—
the
famously
unfunny
Musk
seems
to
have
succeeded.

Someone
who
still
posts
on
X
recently
suggested
that
Grok
might
soon
be
able
to
summarize
large
pieces
of
legislation
—
you
know,
the
thing
that
every
commercial
grade
GenAI
product
is
already
doing
—
“so
politicians
can’t
hide
stuff
from
us.”
You
might
ask,
“Wouldn’t
relying
on
summaries
actually
exacerbate
the
power
of
politicians
and
lobbyists
to
bury
small,
unrelated
issues
in
a
several
hundred
page
bill?”
And
you
ask
that
because
you’re
not
the
sort
of
person
dumping
your
life
savings
into
fake
money
schemes.

In
response
to
this
message
about
Grok’s
summarizing
functions,
Musk
wrote:

No,
it
will
not.

But
this
does
encapsulate
the
Elon
Musk
experience:
throw
some
cases
into
an
algorithm
already

struggling
with
basic
fact
inquires
and
announce
that
it
will
replace
litigation!
This
approach
tracks
the
overall
development
model
for
Grok,
which
Musk
champions
for
training
on
its
access
to
everyone’s
public
Tweets.

For
most
technologists,
Garbage
In,
Garbage
Out
is
a
precautionary
axiom.
For
Musk
it’s
a
design
philosophy.

To
be
blunt,
“all
court
cases”
means
a
lot
of
bad,
cursory,
and
confusingly
drafted
opinions
that
aren’t
particularly
useful
to
anyone
outside
the
parties.
And
sometimes
not
even
clear
to
them.

Not
to
mention
that
a
lot
of
times
judges
are
just
plain
wrong
and
no
one
bothers
to
clean
up
the
record.
Many
an
erroneous
summary
judgment
opinion
sits
safely
on
the
books
because
the
underlying
case
settles
before
trial.
By
way
of
a
notable
example,
Kathryn
Mizelle’s
opinion
that

“sanitation”
doesn’t
mean
“something
that’s
sanitary”
because

sanitation
departments
pick
up
garbage
—
is
still
perfectly
undisturbed
because
afterward
the
Biden
administration
dropped
the
whole
sanitary
mask
order
on
its
own
in
light
of
the
pandemic
coming
to
an
end.
Nonetheless,
Mizelle’s
opinion
fits
squarely
into
the
“all
court
cases”
category
even
though
it’s
less

Marbury
v.
Madison
than

that
answer
from
Billy
Madison.

Legal
tech
providers
with
far
greater
expertise
in
this
field
and
a
much
deeper
reservoir
of
secondary
sources
have
put
in
a
lot
of
effort
to
make
legal
AI
work.
When
Thomson
Reuters
showed
me
some
early
AI
work,
they
felt
that
“hallucinations”
—
AI
being
outright
wrong
—
could
be
controlled
with
the
benefit
of
their
broader
library,
but
that
the
challenge
in
building
something
that
can
work
for
legal
is
solving
for
results
that
are
real
but
wrong.
Misreading
dicta,
imputing
parenthetical
quotes
in
string
cites
to
the
case
at
hand,
granting
too
much
weight
(or
far
too
little
weight)
to
a
particular
concurrence…
these
are
all
higher
level
challenges
that
actually
serious
legal
tech
providers
are
spending
massive
amounts
of
money
to
solve.

Meanwhile,
Musk
is
just
tossing
cases
into
the
hopper
and
letting
Grok
sort
it
out
and
deliver
“extremely
compelling
legal
verdicts”
in
favor
of
the
plaintiff
while
taunting
the
defendant
as
“the
fourth
generation
of
imbecile”
or
some
drivel.
It’s
the
sort
of
half-assery
he’s
already
shown
toward
his
new
job
as
head
of
federal
government
efficiency
(maybe
we
cut
every
employee
with
an
odd
social
security
number!).
Or
actually,
“co-head”
because
the
efficiency
group
can’t
even
streamline
its
own
leadership.

Though
it’s
also
impossible
to
read
this
announcement
outside
of
the
broader
context
of
Musk’s
dealings
with
the
law.
He
locked
himself
into
a
corner
in
buying
Twitter
because
he
blew
off
standard
legal
advice,
waiving
protections
that
he
would
—

hopelessly
—
try
to
resuscitate
after
the
fact.
He
cultivates
fanboys
who

bombard
judges
ruling
against
him
with
angry
letters.
He’s
working
hard
to

move
all
of
his
legal
exposure
to
appear
before
N.D.
Texas
Judge
Reed
O’Connor

who
just
happens
to
be
invested
in
Musk’s
business. Of
course
he
dreams
of
a
chatbot
that
spits
out
opinions!

It
would
save
him
a
lot
of
trips
to
Northern
Texas.

---

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.

*
Joe
Biden
is
pardoning
his
son
Hunter.
Anyone
concerned
about
justice
and
the
rule
of
law…
should
have
said
their
peace
when
the
bog
standard
plea
deal
for
Hunter’s
charges
that
could’ve
resolved
this
without
a
pardon
got
blown
up
by
grandstanding
politicians.
[

CNN]

*
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
have
time
for
death
penalty
appeals
from
likely
innocents,
but
it
is
more
than
ready
to
consider
the
rights
of
vapers
to
buy
flavored
products.
Which
seems
like
a
betrayal
of
the
tobacco
farming
Framers
but
“history
and
tradition”
are
elusive
concepts.
[Reuters]

*
Attorney
blames
his
rage
over
racism
after

mailing
poop
to
judges
and
politicians.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Energy
practices
gear
up
for
AI
to
suck
up
more
of
the
world’s
power.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Companies
ask
full
Federal
Circuit
to
set
tighter
rules
on
what
juries
are
allowed
to
award
in
patent
cases.
And
by
“full”
Federal
Circuit,
they
mean
“not-the-full”
Federal
Circuit
as
Judge
Pauline
Newman

remains
“pocket
impeached”
by
her
colleagues.
[Law360]

*
Partner
classes
are
still
shrinking.
[American
Lawyer]