Court Slaps Down Yet Another Trump Attack On Harvard – Above the Law

On
May
23,
US
District
Judge
Allison
Burroughs
granted
a

temporary
restraining
order

barring
the
Trump
administration
from
kicking
Harvard
University
out
of
the
Student
and
Exchange
Visitor
Program
(SEVP)
that
allows
it
to
sponsor
foreign
student
visas.
The
government
wasn’t
subtle
about
kneecapping
the
school
as
punishment
for
First
Amendment
protected
activity,
and
even
explicitly
tied
the
decision
to
the
school’s
failure
to
ensure
“viewpoint
diversity”
on
campus.
At
a
hearing
on
May
29,
the
judge
made
clear
that
she
was
going
to
issue
a
permanent
injunction
irrespective
DHS’s
efforts
to

retcon
a
paper
trail

to
justify
its
arbitrary
decision
to
kick
Harvard
out
of
the
program.

But
when
God
closes
a
door,
she
opens
a
window.
And
the
president
is
pretty
sure
he
is
a
walking
deity,
so
he
devised
a
scheme
to
vandalize
the
nation’s
oldest
university
another
way.

On
June
4,
he
issued
a

proclamation

purporting
to
“enhance
national
security”
by
“addressing
risks
at
Harvard
University.”
Citing
exactly
the
same
list
of
sins
used
to
justify
the
now-enjoined
ejection
from
SEVP,
the
president
“determined
that
it
is
necessary
to
restrict
the
entry
of
foreign
nationals
who
seek
to
enter
the
United
States
solely
or
principally
to
participate
in
a
course
of
study
at
Harvard
University
or
in
an
exchange
visitor
program
hosted
by
Harvard
University.”

The
proclamation
purported
to
rest
on
the
president’s
authority
under
§§
212(f)
and
215(a)
of
the
Immigration
and
Nationality
Act
(INA),
along
with
8
U.S.C.
1182(f)
and
1185(a),
which
“authorize
the
President
to
suspend
entry
of
any
class
of
aliens
whose
entry
would
be
detrimental
to
the
interests
of
the
United
States.”
So,
instead
of
forcing
Harvard
to
shut
its
doors
to
foreign
students,
Trump
is
instead
slamming
the
doors
to
the
entire
United
States
to
the
“class”
of
foreign
students
headed
for
the
school.

The
next
day,
the
school
filed
an

amended


complaint

and
a

motion
for
yet
another
TRO

asking
Judge
Burroughs
to
enjoin
the
proclamation.
As
they
point
out,
the
supposed
“class”
of
dangerous
foreigners
is
only
a
national
security
threat
insofar
as
they
intend
to
matriculate
in
Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
They
are
apparently
harmless
at
any
other
school
in
the
country.

The
statute
gives
the
President
authority
to
protect
the
nation
from
a
class
of
aliens
whose
entry
would
be
“detrimental
to
the
interests
of
the
United
States.”
8
U.S.C.
§
1182(f).
But
the
President
is
not
suspending
entry
for
any
class
of
aliens.
To
the
contrary,
all
of
those
aliens
may
enter
the
Country
unabated,
just
as
long
as
they
go
to
any
school
but
Harvard.
The
President’s
actions
thus
are
not
to
protect
the
“interests
of
the
United
States,”
but
instead
to
provide
another
means
for
the
Administration
to
retaliate
against
Harvard
for
the
exercise
of
its
constitutional
rights.

The
amended
complaint
also
added
a
whole
bunch
of
new
evidence
that
the
Trump
administration
is
acting
to
suppress
and
retaliate
against
Harvard’s
First
Amendment
protected
speech.

Politico

reports
that
dozens
of
high-level
executive
branch
officials
met
to
“brainstorm”
ways
to
attack
the
school,
after
which
Secretary
of
State
Marco
Rubio

announced

a
“pilot”
program
for
“enhanced
vetting”
of
visa
applicants
which
just
so
happened
to
involve

one
and
only
one
school
.
As
usual,
President
Trump
made
sure
to
announce
his
animus.

And
it
worked.
Within
hours
“the
absolute
best
Judge
(for
them!)”
issued

another
TRO

blocking
implementation
of
the
proclamation
and
setting
a
hearing
for
June
16.
Who
“will,
in
the
end,
WIN!”
remains
up
in
the
air.


Harvard
v.
DHS

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye

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

How Appealing Weekly Roundup – Above the Law

(Image
via
Getty)



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.


“Supreme
Court
Rules
for
Straight
Woman
in
Job
Discrimination
Suit;
The
justices
rejected
an
appeals
court’s
requirement
that
members
of
majority
groups
meet
a
heightened
standard
to
win
employment
discrimination
cases”:
 Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report
.


“Judge
Orders
Trump
Administration
to
Take
Steps
to
Give
Due
Process
to
Deported
Migrants;
The
judge
also
said
the
men,
expelled
under
the
Alien
Enemies
Act,
were
likely
to
prevail
in
their
claims
that
they
had
been
treated
unfairly,
deported
with
no
chance
to
contest
their
removals”:
 Alan
Feuer
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report
.


“Trump
privately
complains
about
Amy
Coney
Barrett
and
other
Supreme
Court
justices
he
nominated”:
 Kristen
Holmes
and
John
Fritze
of
CNN
have this
report
.


“It’s
Officially
Bad
Decision
Season”:
 You
can
access
today’s
new
episode
of
the
“Strict
Scrutiny”
podcast via
this
link
 and on
YouTube
.

Unchecked Development Eats Up Wetlands in Harare

HARARE,
ZIMBABWE

Not
long
ago,
grass
and
flowers
grew
on
the
wetland
in
Borrowdale.
Flocks
of
birds

including
red
and
yellow
bishops

were
common
here,
and
butterflies
too.

“Everything
from
anthills,
fig
trees
and
flowers.
People
took
walks
there
to
enjoy
the
tranquility
of
the
place,”
says
Brian
Foster
Mawer,
a
resident
of
Dandaro
Retirement
Village,
which
abuts
the
wetland.

The
79-year-old
has
lived
here
for
more
than
two
decades
and
has
watched
much
of
the
wetland
disappear.
Over
time,
people
have
dug
up
swathes
of
the
land
to
cultivate
maize,
slowly
degrading
this
natural
flood
buffer
and
vital
water
reservoir.

But
the
remaining
wetland
may
not
survive
much
longer.
Vifot
Investments,
a
real
estate
investment
company,
aims
to
plant
concrete
in
the
heart
of
the
wetland.
Heavy
vehicles
have
already
started
pouring
construction
materials
into
this
neighborhood
west
of
Harare,
as
the
company
primes
the
land
to
construct
130
homes
and
20
office
blocks.

This
project,
still
in
its
early
stages,
is
just
one
example
of
a
broader
trend
where
authorities
approve
large-scale
construction
projects
on
wetlands
despite
clear
environmental
warnings,
says
Reuben
Akili,
director
of
the
Combined
Harare
Residents
Association.

All
this
is
happening
as
Zimbabwe
prepares
to
host
the
Ramsar
Convention
on
Wetlands
in
July.
This
global
summit
is
dedicated
to
protecting
the
world’s
remaining
wetlands,
but
conservationists
say
the
country
is
losing
its
own
at
an
alarming
rate,
and
in
many
cases
through
questionable
land
deals
and
by
ignoring
environmental
regulations.


Linda
Mujuru,
GPJ
Zimbabwe

Roger
Fairlie
sits
on
a
bench
overlooking
a
wetland
he
helps
preserve
with
other
residents
in
Harare.
Fairlie,
founder
of
the
Greystone
Nature
Reserve,
has
been
vocal
about
the
urgent
need
to
protect
wetlands
from
unchecked
development.

“The
city
of
Harare
has
been
irresponsible
in
terms
of
allocating
pieces
of
land.
They
have
been
allocating
land
anywhere,”
says
Robert
Mutyasira,
chairperson
of
the
Borrowdale
Residents
and
Ratepayers
Association.

But
the
concern
runs
deeper
than
just
one
neighborhood
and
one
construction
project.
In
2013,
the
Longcheng
Plaza
mall
opened atop
a
vital
wetland
along
the
Harare-Bulawayo
Highway.

An
analysis
by
Harare
Wetlands
Trust,
using
field
surveys
and
Google
Earth
imagery,
found
that
wetlands
across
Harare
declined
by
50%
between
2007
and
2019.
The
study
focused
on
10
key
headwater
wetlands,
including
Borrowdale.
The
organization
attributes
the
loss
to
cultivation,
housing
developments
and
illegal
settlement.

Wetlands
act
as
natural
sponges
for
rain.
Because
so
many
have
been
destroyed,
heavy
flooding
has
become
a
norm
in
the
Harare
suburbs
of
Budiriro
and
Mabvuku.

The
concern
for
wetlands
preservation
stretches
beyond
Zimbabwe.
Jakarta,
Indonesia’s
capital,
is
sinking
due
to
decades
of
wetland
destruction.
The
crisis
there
is
so
bad
that
the
government
is
relocating
the
national
capital.
In
Brazil,
massive
developments
are
eating
into
the
Pantanal,
the
world’s
largest
wetland.
And
in
Argentina,
the
Parana
Delta
luxury
projects
are
taking
over
this
vital
ecosystem.
In
fact,
around
35%
of
the
world’s
wetlands
have
disappeared
since
1970.

In
many
of
these
cases,
governments
are
scrambling
to
contain
the
damage,
if
a
little
too
late.
But
in
Zimbabwe,
the
government
is
aiding
destruction
that,
if
continued
unchecked,
could
lead
to
more
severe
flooding
and
worse
water
shortages,
environmentalists
say.

On
paper,
the
country
has
strong
environmental
laws.
Development
on
or
near
a
wetland
requires
consultation
with
the
Environmental
Management
Agency,
and
construction
should
only
happen
after
an
environmental
impact
assessment
is
approved
by
the
agency.

But
enforcement
is
lax.

In
the
Vifot
Investments
case,
environmentalists
from
the
Harare
Wetlands
Trust
in
a
2021
report
accuse
authorities
of
approving
an
environmental
impact
assessment
while
ignoring
the
serious
irregularities
it
contained.
They
allege
that
Vifot
included
wrong
information
about
the
exact
location
of
the
site
in
the
assessment
they
submitted,
in
order
to
bypass
regulations.
Although
the
project
site
is
on
a
wetland,
they
say
the
assessment
inaccurately
categorizes
it
as
within
a
light
industrial
zone
in
Tynwald,
a
different
location.

The
case
has
been
in
the
national
spotlight
for
some
time
now.
Several
city
officials
have
been
arrested
or
charged
over
the
land
deal,
including
Aaron
Chigona,
director
of
the
Environmental
Management
Agency.
He
was
arrested
in
January
2024
and
spent
over
a
year
on
remand
for
his
alleged
role
in
the
controversial
land
deal.
This
March,
the
court
freed
him
without
prosecution,
and
he
retained
his
role
at
the
agency.


Linda
Mujuru,
GPJ
Zimbabwe

The
Borrowdale
Vlei
wetland
in
Harare.
A
real
estate
investment
company
plans
to
build
130
cluster
homes
and
20
office
blocks
on
the
wetland,
raising
concerns
among
environmentalists
and
residents
about
water
access
and
ecosystem
degradation.

The
agency
was
satisfied
with
the
Vifot
environmental
impact
assessment,
says
Amkela
Sidange,
education
and
publicity
manager.
The
project
will
have
minimal
impact
on
the
wetland,
she
says.
“[It]
includes
a
nature
park
within
the
wetland
area,
enhancing
rather
than
harming
it.
The
cluster
homes
will
occupy
just
5
hectares
of
non-wetland
land,”
she
says.

When
Global
Press
Journal
first
reached
out
to
Vifot
Managing
Director
Liangming
Jin,
he
offered
the
reporter
US$200
for
“lunch,”
which
she
declined.
What
he
later
told
Global
Press
Journal
contradicts
information
from
authorities.

First,
Jin
says
the
company
plans
to
construct
residential
houses
on
14
hectares
of
the
land,
contrary
to
the
5
hectares
mentioned
by
Sidange.
The
company
will
then
construct
office
blocks
on
the
rest
of
it.
“I
will
know
the
finer
details
of
the
office
plans
in
six
months,
as
my
architects
are
still
designing,”
he
says.

Vifot
will
implement
several
measures
to
minimize
impact
on
the
environment,
such
as
water
canals,
he
says.

Jin
says
he
bought
the
land
from
the
city
of
Harare.

Mayor
Jacob
Mafume
tells
Global
Press
Journal
he
isn’t
aware
of
Vifot’s
particular
project,
but
says
he
is
aware
that
wetlands
are
being
sold
illegally
in
the
country.

Linda
Mujuru,
GPJ
Zimbabwe

Liangming
Jin,
managing
director
of
Vifot
Investments,
at
his
office
in
Harare.
His
company’s
plans
to
develop
housing
and
office
blocks
on
a
protected
wetland
have
drawn
criticism
over
misleading
environmental
assessments
and
the
impact
on
Harare’s
already
strained
water
system.

“Sometimes
it’s
not
brought
to
our
attention,”
Mafume
says.

When
problems
are
brought
to
their
attention,
he
says
his
office
“will
attend
to
the
reversal
if
need
be
or
attend
to
the
rectification
of
whatever
problems
have
emanated
from
the
permission
that
has
been
granted.”

The
judicial
system
has
failed
to
protect
the
country’s
wetlands,
says
Mutyasira,
from
the
Borrowdale
residents
association.
“We
have
not
seen
success
in
the
courts.”
When
wetlands
are
private
property,
the
issue
becomes
even
more
difficult
to
contest,
he
adds.
But
heftier
penalties
might
help.
“Even
if
wetlands
are
privately
owned,
that
ownership
should
be
taken
away,”
he
adds.

One
solution
could
be
getting
the
community
involved,
says
Roger
Fairlie,
founder
of
the
Greystone
Nature
Reserve,
a
wetland
he
maintains
with
other
local
residents.
“You
can’t
do
it
on
your
own,”
he
says.
The
real
power,
he
adds,
lies
in
helping
people
understand
just
how
important
wetlands
are.

Sidange,
from
the
Environmental
Management
Agency,
says
companies
with
approved
projects
should
not
see
approval
as
a
green
light
to
degrade
the
environment.
It’s
a
commitment
for
them
to
protect
it.
If
not,
authorities
could
easily
cancel
or
nullify
certification
for
construction,
she
says.

Meanwhile,
as
the
world
prepares
to
gather
in
Harare
and
discuss
protection
of
wetlands,
the
ground
beneath
this
city
is
disappearing.
The
city
doesn’t
supply
water
to
many
areas
of
Harare,
while
in
many others
the
water
that
arrives
is
contaminated
.
People
like
Mawer
rely
on
boreholes.

But
even
the
boreholes
are
drying
up,
and
a
large
construction
project
could
choke
what
groundwater
remains.

What the Musk–Trump Feud Tells Us About the Future of Power


Over
the
past
fortnight
or
so,
a
dramatic
and
very
public
fallout
has
erupted
between
Elon
Musk
(billionaire
CEO
of
Tesla
and
SpaceX)
and
Donald
Trump,
the
recently
re-elected
president
of
the
United
States.

It
is
vulgar,
bizarre,
and
deeply
instructive.
And
while
the
temptation
is
to
dismiss
it
as
just
another
American
melodrama,
the
consequences
stretch
well
beyond
Washington
and
Wall
Street.

What
we
are
witnessing
is
not
merely
a
personal
feud,
but
a
warning
about
what
happens
when
private
wealth
becomes
entangled
with
state
power,
when
political
authority
is
auctioned
off
to
the
highest
bidder,
and
when
public
institutions
become
bargaining
chips
in
a
game
of
ego.

For
Zimbabwean
readers
who
may
not
be
following
the
story
closely,
here
is
the
context.
Donald
Trump,
after
losing
the
2020
election
and
being
banned
from
major
social
media
platforms
following
the
January
6
Capitol
riots,
was
politically
wounded.
But
in
2022,
Elon
Musk
purchased
Twitter
(now
renamed
X)
and
reinstated
Trump’s
account
in
the
name
of
“free
speech.”
That
move
was
more
than
symbolic.
It
gave
Trump
his
digital
megaphone
back,
something
he
desperately
needed
to
revive
his
political
brand.

Over
the
next
two
years,
Musk
became
more
than
just
a
tech
baron
with
opinions.
He
became
a
political
actor,
amplifying
conservative
voices,
funding
right-wing
causes,
and
openly
backing
Trump’s
return
to
the
presidency.

By
the
time
Trump
was
re-elected
in
2024,
Musk
had
poured
untold
millions
into
Trump-affiliated
super
PACs
and
influence
operations.
It
was
the
culmination
of
a
strange
alliance:
one
man
with
the
codes
to
the
world’s
algorithms,
the
other
with
access
to
the
nuclear
ones.

For
a
while,
the
arrangement
seemed
to
work.
Musk
got
proximity
to
power,
favourable
regulatory
treatment,
and
the
kind
of
access
that
most
businessmen
can
only
dream
of.
Trump
got
tech
muscle,
digital
reach,
and
credibility
with
a
certain
breed
of
libertarian
capitalist.

But
now,
the
alliance
is
unraveling
in
spectacular
fashion.
The
fallout
is
happening
fast
and
in
public.
Trump’s
flagship
legislation,
dubbed
the
“Big
Beautiful
Bill,”
is
designed
to
overhaul
U.S.
manufacturing
and
infrastructure.
In
it,
however,
is
a
sharp
reversal
of
electric
vehicle
subsidies,
something
that
Musk’s
Tesla
empire
depends
on.
The
bill
passed
with
bipartisan
fanfare,
but
Musk
immediately
condemned
it
as
a
betrayal.
He
accused
Trump
of
abandoning
innovation
and
clean
energy,
and
suggested
the
bill
was
a
gift
to
the
oil
lobby
and
legacy
automakers.
In
response,
Trump
lashed
out
in
familiar
style,
labeling
Musk
ungrateful,
unstable,
and
a
danger
to
American
jobs.
Musk,
never
one
to
back
down,
retaliated
by
suggesting
that
Trump’s
name
appears
in
sealed
Jeffrey
Epstein
documents:
a
not-so-subtle
warning
that
he
may
yet
go
nuclear
himself.

The
situation
is
escalating.
Pro-Trump
influencers
on
X
are
now
openly
calling
for
Tesla
to
be
investigated.
Republican
lawmakers
close
to
Trump
are
making
noise
about
federal
contracts
with
SpaceX.
Musk,
meanwhile,
has
begun
boosting
anti-Trump
posts
and
floating
the
idea
of
supporting
an
independent
candidate
in
2028.
It
is
a
political
blood
feud
playing
out
across
timelines,
boardrooms,
and
legislative
corridors.

And
yet,
amid
all
the
drama,
there
lies
a
deeper
story,
one
that
Zimbabwe,
and
indeed
the
entire
global
South,
should
pay
close
attention
to.
This
is
not
merely
a
tale
of
clashing
egos.
It
is
the
logical
outcome
of
a
world
where
billionaires
have
become
political
actors
without
accountability,
where
the
lines
between
public
policy
and
private
interest
have
blurred
beyond
recognition,
and
where
the
rules
of
democracy
are
being
rewritten
in
real
time
by
men
who
were
never
elected
to
anything.

We
are
entering
a
phase
in
global
politics
where
traditional
institutions
are
becoming
weaker
than
the
personalities
that
claim
to
defend
them.
When
Musk
can
threaten
to
ground
NASA
space
missions
because
of
a
personal
dispute
with
the
president,
it
reveals
how
fragile
even
the
most
sophisticated
systems
can
become.
And
when
Trump
can
move
markets
by
threatening
federal
retaliation
against
a
private
company,
it
shows
how
easily
the
machinery
of
the
state
can
be
converted
into
a
tool
of
personal
vengeance.

In
Zimbabwe,
we
have
seen
our
own
versions
of
this
dynamic,
where
the
lines
between
party,
state,
and
personal
interest
have
blurred.
We
know
what
happens
when
national
resources
are
used
to
settle
political
scores,
or
when
entire
policies
are
reshaped
to
reward
loyalty
and
punish
dissent.
What
makes
the
Musk–Trump
fallout
so
important
is
not
just
its
scale
or
theatricality,
but
the
precedent
it
is
setting
for
the
rest
of
the
world.
If
even
the
United
States,
with
all
its
checks
and
balances,
can
be
brought
to
heel
by
a
billionaire-political
spat,
what
does
that
say
for
countries
with
far
weaker
institutions?

There
is
also
a
lesson
here
about
the
dangers
of
over-centralized
platforms.
Musk’s
control
over
X
means
that
he
now
effectively
moderates
one
of
the
world’s
most
influential
information
networks.
This
gives
him
the
power
not
just
to
shape
political
discourse,
but
to
distort
it
for
his
own
interests.

As
this
conflict
intensifies,
some
users
on
the
platform
have
reported
algorithmic
bias,
selective
censorship,
and
the
subtle
favouring
of
narratives
that
suit
Musk’s
perspective.
In
Zimbabwe,
where
freedom
of
expression
is
often
precarious,
the
centralization
of
digital
power
in
the
hands
of
unelected
tech
giants
should
concern
us
deeply.

The
other
issue
is
the
myth
of
technocratic
neutrality.
Musk,
like
many
tech
moguls,
has
long
portrayed
himself
as
an
innovator
above
politics.
But
his
actions
reveal
that
billionaires
are
not
neutral
actors.
They
have
agendas,
they
back
parties,
they
lobby
for
laws,
and
they
punish
those
who
cross
them.
In
this
regard,
Musk
is
no
different
from
the
oligarchs
we
often
criticize
in
other
parts
of
the
world.
The
only
difference
is
that
he
speaks
the
language
of
disruption
and
innovation,
rather
than
cronyism
and
corruption.
But
the
outcome
is
the
same:
the
public
interest
is
subjugated
to
private
empire-building.

To
be
clear,
this
is
not
a
defense
of
Donald
Trump.
His
record,
both
as
a
businessman
and
a
president,
speaks
for
itself.
What
matters
here
is
the
dynamic
between
public
power
and
private
capital.
When
they
are
fused
together,
as
they
were
in
the
early
stages
of
the
Musk–Trump
alliance,
democracy
suffers.
And
now
that
they’ve
turned
against
each
other,
it
is
the
public
that
is
paying
the
price
(through
market
instability,
policy
whiplash,
and
a
deep
erosion
of
trust).

The
irony
is
that
both
men
claim
to
be
champions
of
the
people.
Trump
says
he
represents
the
forgotten
American
worker.
Musk
says
he
is
building
a
better
future
for
humanity.
But
as
their
feud
unfolds,
we
see
the
truth:
these
men
are
not
builders
of
systems.
They
are
users
of
systems,
systems
they
believe
should
bend
to
their
will.
And
when
they
don’t,
they
take
their
toys
and
go
to
war,
leaving
ordinary
people
to
deal
with
the
fallout.

This
spectacle
may
be
unfolding
in
the
United
States,
but
it
offers
a
mirror
to
the
rest
of
us.
It
challenges
us
to
ask:
who
really
governs
in
the
modern
era?

Is
it
elected
officials?
Is
it
corporate
leaders?
Or
is
it
the
algorithms
that
amplify
some
voices
and
silence
others?

Here
in 
Zimbabwe,
where
the
line
between
government
and
private
power
has
always
been
delicate,
we
must
be
vigilant.
We
must
resist
the
seduction
of
strongmen,
whether
they
wear
suits
or
hoodies.
We
must
insist
that
public
institutions
remain
public,
and
that
policy
is
shaped
by
debate,
not
by
vengeance.

Ultimately,
the
Musk–Trump
feud
is
a
story
about
the
collapse
of
boundaries:
between
public
and
private,
between
leadership
and
spectacle,
between
influence
and
impunity.
It
is
a
cautionary
tale
for
any
country
tempted
to
treat
politics
as
a
personal
enterprise
or
national
policy
as
a
billionaire’s
experiment.
In
a
healthy
democracy,
no
one
man,
no
matter
how
rich
or
popular,
should
be
allowed
to
hold
the
system
hostage.

The
future
will
belong
not
to
those
who
dominate
headlines,
but
to
those
who
build
institutions
resilient
enough
to
withstand
them.
For
Zimbabwe,
and
for
many
other
countries
watching
from
the
sidelines,
that
is
the
real
lesson.
Let’s
not
look
away.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Yet Another Top Biglaw Firm Shutters An Office In China – Above the Law

Biglaw
firms
continue
to
shutter
their
offices
in
China.
Today,
we
have
news
on
the
sixth
large
law
firm
to
close
the
doors
of
a
Chinese
office
in
2025.

As
noted
by
the

American
Lawyer
,
Seyfarth
Shaw

a
firm
that
brought
in
$931,927,000
gross
revenue
in
2024,
putting
it
at
No.
61
on
the
most
recent
Am
Law
100

plans
to
shut
down
its
Shanghai
office,
which
it
first
launched
in
2013.
The
firm
plans
to
retain
its
Hong
Kong
office,
which
will
become
its
only
presence
in
Asia.
A
firm
spokesperson
issued
the
following
statement:

“As
part
of
our
ongoing
strategic
review
to
ensure
we
are
best
positioned
to
serve
our
clients
globally,
we
have
made
the
decision
to
close
our
Shanghai
office
later
this
year.
We
remain
committed
to
supporting
our
clients
with
needs
in
Mainland
China
and
will
do
so
by
consolidating
our
presence
and
refocusing
our
resources
in
our
Hong
Kong
office.
We
look
forward
to
continuing
to
provide
the
innovative
solutions
our
clients
need
to
navigate
the
region’s
dynamic
and
evolving
landscape.”

This
is
a
milestone
office
closure,
because
it
marks
the
20th
U.S.-based
firm
to
have
shut
down
one
or
more
offices
in
mainland
China
since
the
exodus
began
in
2024. 

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.


Seyfarth
Closes
Doors
in
Shanghai,
Retains
Office
in
Hong
Kong

[American
Lawyer]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Prison cells meant for 35 inmates now holding over 80, Zimbabwe rights body says

HARARE

Prison
cells
meant
to
hold
35
inmates
are
now
crammed
with
more
than
80
people
at
Harare
Remand
Prison,
where
broken
phone
lines
have
cut
off
detainees
from
families
and
two
university
students
were
barred
from
writing
exams
while
in
custody,
the
Zimbabwe
Human
Rights
Commission
said
Wednesday.

The
commission
visited
the
prison
on
April
29
to
investigate
the
conditions
of
detention,
particularly
for
inmates
arrested
in
politically
sensitive
cases
such
as
journalist
Blessed
Mhlanga
and
94
others
held
following
protests
on
March
31.

“Inmates
experienced
inhumane
living
conditions
mostly
due
to
overcrowding,”
said
the
commission,
led
by
chairperson
Fungayi
Jessie
Majome.
“Prison
cells
designed
for
35
inmates
were
holding
more
than
80,
leading
to
unsanitary
and
degrading
living
conditions.”
The
commission
added:
“Numerous
detainees
raised
allegations
of
police
abuse
during
their
arrests,
including
physical
violence
and
theft
of
personal
belongings.”

The
state-run
TelOne
phone
lines
at
the
prison
have
broken
down,
leaving
many
inmates
unable
to
communicate
with
their
families
even
in
emergencies,
the
report
said.

The
commission
also
raised
concern
that
Mhlanga,
a
first-year
law
student,
and
a
22-year-old
economics
student
from
the
University
of
Zimbabwe
were
denied
the
opportunity
to
sit
for
their
exams.

“Some
of
the
inmates
reported
significant
violations
of
their
rights
to
education
and
healthcare,”
the
commission
said.
“Mhlanga,
a
first-year
law
student,
and
another
University
of
Zimbabwe
Economics
student
were
denied
the
opportunity
to
sit
for
their
examinations
while
in
custody.”

There
were
also
reports
of
police
abuse
during
arrest,
including
physical
violence
and
theft,
according
to
the
commission.

The
commission
identified
66
irregular
migrants
of
various
nationalities
who
were
being
held
without
criminal
charges
and
were
not
awaiting
trial.
It
said
detaining
them
violated
their
rights.

The
ZHRC
said
it
had
taken
steps
to
secure
redress,
including
getting
assurance
from
the
officer
in
charge
that
injured
inmates
would
receive
medical
help,
engaging
TelOne
to
restore
phone
lines,
and
contacting
the
University
of
Zimbabwe
to
help
the
students
reschedule
their
exams.

The
commission
also
said
it
was
encouraged
by
the
release
on
bail
of
Mhlanga
and
the
other
detainees
after
its
visit.

“Protecting
human
rights
is
paramount,”
the
commission
said.
“There
is
need
to
address
all
outstanding
issues
and
to
uphold
the
dignity
and
rights
of
all
individuals
including
those
in
detention.”

A
full
report
is
available
on
the
ZHRC
website.

An AI Program May Soon Be The One With The Best Grades In Your Study Group – Above the Law

It’s
okay,
this
used
to
confuse
me
too.

The
“AI
Can’t
Replace
X!”
gambit
is
a
key
component
of
assessing
how
effective
AI
is
at
any
given
time.
AI
can’t
replace
artists
quickly
progressed
from
recreations
that
look
like
stroke
symptoms
to

Balenciaga
Pope
Francis

and

seemingly
self-aware
Voe
3
short
films

in
the
span
of
four
years.
“But
those
are
artistic
endeavors”,
the
naysayers
say.
“AI
could
never
break
down
chaotic
fact
patterns
into
bite-sized
bits
of
information
and
apply
formulaic
processes
to
arrive
at
legal
conclusions
like
we
do!”
At
first,
it
seemed
like
they
were
right.
Earlier
AI
models
were
given
the
sort
of
answers
you’d
find
in
a
law
school
exam
and
scored
6.4
out
of
10.

But
that
was
February
of
this
year
.
We’re
four
months
down
the
line
from
back
then,
which
was
more
than
enough
time
for
a
new
generation
of
AI
to
emerge
and
be
submitted
to
law
school
exam-like
conditions.
According
to

Reuters
,
the
scores
are
looking
a
lot
better
than
a
64%:

The
latest
generation
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
can
ace
most
law
school
final
exams,
a
new
study
has
found.

OpenAI’s
newest
model,
called
o3,
earned
grades
ranging
from
A+
to
B
on
eight
spring
finals
given
by
faculty
at
the
University
of
Maryland
Francis
King
Carey
School
of
Law,
researchers
found
in
a
new
paper
published
on
SSRN.

Generative
AI
looks
to
be
catching
up
to
actual
high-performing
law
students,
based
on
the
latest
study.
Unlike
ChatGPT,
which
immediately
generates
text
in
response
to
a
user’s
query,
o3
is
what
is
known
as
a
reasoning
model.
This
means
that
it
generates
tentative
answers
and
multiple
approaches
to
questions
after
internally
evaluating
and
revising
those
responses,
after
which
it
produces
the
final
text
for
the
user.

AHT
AHT
AHT,
come
back
here!
These
results
do
not
mean
that
you
have
free
license
to
go
use
o3
to
cite
controlling
cases
in
your
work
product
without
checking
it
first!
Nor
does
it
mean
that
you
shouldn’t
study
as
hard
in
the
coming
semesters

your
professors
and
bar
exam
adjudicators
presumably
won’t
allow
you
to
use
o3
or
some
reasoning
model,
besides
your
own
brain,
to
try
and
get
top
marks
on
your
exams.
Does
this
mean
that
law
professors
should
be
a
little
extra
cautious
with
assigning
take-home
finals?
Hell
yeah,
it
does!
The
study
authors
are
already
considering
having
the
program
throw
in
a
couple
of
spelling
and
grammar
errors
just
to
make
it
harder
for
the
grading
professors
to
differentiate
AI
answers
from
that
one
kid
who
constantly
shows
up
to
office
hours.
I
never
would
have
guessed
that
the
Turing
test
would
be
carried
out
by
law
professors
grading
Torts
finals.

What’s
next
for
o3
and
its
progeny?
My
money
is
on
it

writing
the
next
bar
exam
,
but
I
doubt
it
will
stop
there.
How
big
is
the
skill
gap
between
performing
at
a
level
of
an
ahead-of-the-curve
law
student
and
doing
paralegal
work?
Between
that
and
summer
associate
assignments?
Jobs
are
safe
for
now,
but
who
knows
what
developments
will
be
made
in
another
four
months.


Artificial
Intelligence
Is
Now
An
A+
Law
Student,
Study
Finds

[Reuters]


Earlier
:

Linklaters
Put
AI
Through
Law
Exams



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s

.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent
.

Stat(s) Of The Week: This Is A Spinal Tap – Above the Law

Two
months
ago,
Above
the
Law
launched
the

Biglaw
Spine
Index

to
track
what
Am
Law
200
firms
are
doing
in
response
to
the
Trump
administration’s
attacks
on
Biglaw
and
the
legal
system.

We
thought
it
might
be
worth
taking
a
look
at
where
things
currently
stand. 


(Note
that
figures
add
up
to
more
than
100%
because
some
firms
have
taken
more
than
one
action

e.g.,
representing
a
targeted
firm
and
also
signing
an
amicus
brief.)

For
details
on
how
individual
firms
have
responded,
check
out
the

Biglaw
Spine
Index
.


Earlier:


New
Survey
Results
Are
In:
The
Legal
Profession
Is
Overwhelmingly
Opposed
To
The
Biglaw
Deals
With
Trump

The 500 Largest Law Firms In America (2025) – Above the Law

There
are
many
different
and
exciting
ways
to
rank
law
firms.
How
prestigious
are
they?
How
much
money
are
they
making?
How
much
do
partners
earn?
How
much
are
associates
earning
in
cash
compensation?
How
big
are
they?

Yes,
size
matters,
and
because
the
legal
profession
is
obsessed
with
every
single
measurable
and
quantifiable
factor
law
firms
have
to
offer,
there’s
obviously
a
ranking
for
that.

So,
which
Biglaw
firm
is
the
biggest
of
them
all?

Earlier
this
week,
the
National
Law
Journal
unleashed
its
annual NLJ
500
,
a
ranking
of
largest
law
firms
in
the
United
States
covering
the
previous
calendar
year.
If
you’ve
ever
wondered
about
precise
law
firm
headcounts,
this
is
the
ranking
for
you.

These
are
the
10
largest
law
firms
in
America,
according
to
NLJ,
along
with some
insights
 on
the
list:

  1. Dentons
  2. DLA
    Piper
  3. Baker
    McKenzie
  4. Kirkland
    &
    Ellis
  5. Latham
    &
    Watkins
  6. Norton
    Rose
    Fulbright
  7. Hogan
    Lovells
  8. Greenberg
    Traurig
  9. White
    &
    Case
  10. Jones
    Day

As
a
whole,
the
total
number
of
attorneys
at
NLJ
500
firms
rose
5.5%
in
2024
compared
with
2023.
And
the
average
firm
size
for
the
NLJ
500
cohort
rose,
increasing
5.6%
from
376
to
396.

The
2024
growth
is
on
top
of
the
gains
made
in
2023,
when
the
total
number
of
attorneys
at
NLJ
500
firms
increased
by
2.3%
from
2022.

The
accelerated
head
count
growth
last
year
came
amid
a
13%
rise
in
gross
revenue
for
Am
Law
100
law
firms
last
year
and
a
nearly
11%
rise
in
revenue
for
Second
Hundred
firms, American
Lawyer
reported.

Click here to
see
the
NLJ’s
full
list
of
the
500
largest
law
firms
in
the
country.

Congratulations
go
out
to
Dentons
for
employing
more
lawyers
than
any
other
firm.
This
firm
wins
the
award
for
putting
the
“big”
in
Biglaw

and
managed
to
elbow
DLA
Piper
out
of
a
repeat
top
title.
Give
a
round
of
applause
to
the
rest
of
the
Top
10
for
keeping
their
Biglaw
firms
bigger
than
all
the
rest.
As
for
every
other
firm,
keep
growing
and
someday
you’ll
be
a
Biglaw
behemoth
too.


The
2025
NLJ
500:
Ranked
by
Head
Count

[National
Law
Journal]


The
2025
NLJ
500:
After
Head
Count
Growth
Exploded
in
2024,
Law
Firms
Pull
in
the
Reins

[National
Law
Journal]


Staci Zaretsky




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 BlueskyX/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Biglaw Firms Enshrined In Protest Song – Above the Law

WilmerHale
handed
the
Trump
administration

another
defeat

last
week,
with
Judge
Richard
Leon
striking
down
the
retaliatory
executive
order
with
extreme
prejudice,
a
bevy
of
exclamation
points,
and
a
gumbo
recipe:

The
Order
is
akin
to
a
gumbo.
Sections
2
through
5
are
the
meaty
ingredients—e.g.,
the
Andouille,
the
okra,
the
tomatoes,
the
crab,
the
oysters.
But
it
is
the
roux—here,
§
1—which
holds
everything
together.
A
gumbo
is
served
and
eaten
with
all
the
ingredients
together,
and
so
too
must
the
sections
of
the
Order
be
addressed
together.
As
explained
in
this
Memorandum
Opinion,
this
gumbo
gives
the
Court
heartburn.

And
if
a
culinary
beatdown
wasn’t
enough,
WilmerHale
now
has
a
protest
song
to
its
name.

The
Silent
Moon
Project
has
a
new
song
called
Justice
on
Trial:
The
Stand
of
WilmerHale,
giving
Biglaw
resistance
the
folk
anthem
treatment.


They
came
for
the
lawyers,
cloaked
in
command
With
Executive
Orders
and
a
trembling
hand
WilmerHale
stood
though
the
storm
was
wild
For
justice
for
rights
for
every
law-abiding
child.

While
Wilmer’s
victory
forms
the
hook,
the
other
firms
standing
their
ground
get
namechecked
as
well:


Jenner
&
Block,
Perkins
Coie
too
Fought
for
the
law
when
few
dared
to
Susman
Godfey
answered
the
call
Suing
the
powers
that
threatened
us
all.

This
should
not
slap
as
hard
as
it
does.
Honestly,
hearing
big-buck
law
firms
honored
in
song
should
feel
cringe

shades
of

Everyone’s
A
Winner
at
Nixon
Peabody


but
there’s
something
about
the
genre
that
makes
it
work
better
than
Nixon’s
weird
pop
nonsense.

And
the
firms
on

the
flipside
of
the
Trump
fight

get
some
publicity
too:


But
others
knelt
and
sold
their
name
Skadden,
Paul,
Weiss

what
a
shame
$100
million
won’t
buy
back
your
soul
When
you
traded
the
law
to
keep
your
role

Some
of
the
other

surrender
monkeys

get
called
out
too.
There’s
a
good
amount
of
detail
packed
into
this
piece
so
if
you’re
looking
for
a
quick
recap
of
the
last
couple
months
of
Above
the
Law
coverage,
it’s
pretty
much
all
here.

The
song
even
calls
out
that
gumbo
recipe!




HeadshotJoe
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
.