Cabinet backs bill that would extend Mnangagwa’s rule till 2030

HARARE

Zimbabwe’s
cabinet
backed
draft
legislation
on
Tuesday
that
would
change
the
constitution
to
extend
presidential
terms
from
five
years
to
seven,
allowing
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
to
stay
in
office
until
2030.

Other
proposed
changes
in
the
bill
presented
to
cabinet
include
a
provision
that
the
president
be
elected
by
parliament
rather
than
through
a
direct
popular
vote.

Justice
Minister
Ziyambi
Ziyambi
told
a
news
briefing
that
the
bill
would
be
sent
to
the
speaker
of
parliament
and
published
in
an
official
gazette
before
lawmakers
consider
it.

Mnangagwa,
83,
is
currently
meant
to
step
down
in
2028
after
serving
two
five-year
terms,
and
there
has
been
a
succession
battle
in
the
ruling
Zanu
PF
party
over
who
will
take
over.

He
came
to
power
after
a
military
coup
ousted
longtime
leader
Robert
Mugabe
in
2017.
Lawyers
and
opposition
politicians
have
condemned
moves
by
his
party
to
extend
his
time
in
office.

“Zanu
PF
is
not
seeking
to
amend
the
constitution;
it
is
attempting
to
introduce
an
entirely
new
constitution
outside
people
participation
and
a
referendum

a
step
it
plainly
has
no
right
to
take,”
prominent
lawyer
Thabani
Mpofu
said.

“A
constitution
is
enacted
by
the
people
as
a
whole,
not
by
a
single
political
party
or
faction.
Parliament’s
law‑making
power
is
confined
to
legislating
for
the
peace,
order,
and
good
governance
of
the
country.
Replacing
the
constitution
exceeds
that
mandate
and
undermines
this
constitutional
principle.”

Jameson
Timba,
a
former
opposition
senator,
said
in
a
statement
that
the
cabinet’s
approval
of
the
changes
was
“politically
destabilising”.

He
said
a
group
called
Defend
the
Constitution
Platform
would
immediately
consult
lawyers
and
brief
regional
and
international
partners
as
part
of
efforts
to
oppose
the
changes.

Professor
Lovemore
Madhuku,
a
constitutional
law
lecturer
at
the
University
of
Zimbabwe,
said
“the
attempts
to
amend
the
constitution
to
extend
the
president’s
term
will
be
fought
and
defeated.”

“The
proposed
constitutional
amendments
are
totally
unacceptable.
The
movers
of
these
proposals
have
no
respect
for
the
people.
The
NCA
party
and
I
will
be
counted
among
those
who
will
be
at
the
forefront
of
mobilising
for
the
total
rejection
of
these
proposals,”
Madhuku
added.

Zanu
PF
has
ruled
Zimbabwe
since
independence
from
Britain
in
1980.
It
has
a
two-thirds
majority
in
the
lower
house
of
parliament
and
also
overwhelmingly
controls
the
upper
house
through
traditional
leaders
and
other
proxies
who
generally
vote
with
it,
allowing
it
to
change
the
constitution.

Ziyambi
has
publicly
declared
that
they
do
not
need
a
public
referendum
to
force
through
the
changes,
a
stance
that
is
set
to
be
tested
in
court.


Here
is
a
breakdown
of
the
amendments
Zanu
PF
is
planning:

🔴 Changing
way
the
president
is
elected

The
Bill
removes
the
current
system
of
directly
electing
the
president
by
popular
vote.
Instead,
the
president
would
be
elected
by
parliament.
To
win,
a
candidate
must
secure
a
majority
of
parliamentary
votes.

🔴 Longer
terms
for
the
president
and
MPs

The
Bill
increases
the
term
of
office
for
both
the
president
and
Members
of
Parliament
from
five
years
to
seven
years.

🔴 Changes
to
succession

Instead
of
a
vice
president
automatically
assuming
office
following
a
vacancy,
the
bill
proposes
that
parliament
elect
a
new
president
within
a
specified
period
after
the
death,
resignation
or
removal
of
an
incumbent.

🔴 Changes
to
the
Attorney
General’s
office

Under
the
Bill,
anyone
appointed
as
Attorney
General
would
need
to
meet
the
qualifications
required
of
a
Supreme
Court
judge.

🔴 A
bigger
Senate

The
Bill
allows
the
president
to
appoint
10
more
senators,
increasing
the
total
number
from
80
to
90.

🔴 Control
of
elections

Responsibility
for
voter
registration
and
the
voters’
roll
would
move
from
ZEC
to
the
Registrar
General.
A
new
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Delimitation
Commission
would
be
set
up
to
take
over
the
task
of
drawing
constituency
and
ward
boundaries
from
ZEC.

🔴 Judicial
appointments

The
Bill
removes
the
public
interview
process
for
judicial
appointments.
This
represents
a
shift
away
from
the
current
system
of
open
scrutiny
in
the
selection
of
judges.

🔴 Role
of
the
Defence
Forces

The
constitution
would
be
amended
to
change
how
the
role
of
the
Defence
Forces
is
described.
Instead
of
stating
that
the
military
must
“uphold”
the
constitution,
it
would
say
they
must
act
“in
accordance
with”
the
constitution.

🔴 Abolition
of
commissions

The
Bill
abolishes
the
Zimbabwe
Gender
Commission
and
transfers
its
functions
to
the
Zimbabwe
Human
Rights
Commission.
The
Peace
and
Reconciliation
Commission
is
also
abolished.

🔴 Traditional
leaders
and
partisan
politics

Requiring
traditional
leaders
not
to
engage
in
partisan
politics
“violates
their
political
rights,”
a
memorandum
accompanying
the
Bill
says.
Amendments
would
allow
traditional
chiefs
and
village
heads
to
openly
dabble
in
politics.


Additional
reporting
Reuters
and
NewzWire

Mnangagwa orders sweeping general amnesty amid prison overcrowding

HARARE

President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
has
approved
a
sweeping
general
amnesty
for
2026
that
will
see
thousands
of
prisoners
released
or
have
their
sentences
reduced,
in
a
move
that
appears
aimed
at
easing
chronic
overcrowding
in
Zimbabwe’s
prisons.

The
amnesty,
to
be
exercised
under
the
president’s
constitutional
powers
of
mercy,
will
apply
to
wide
categories
of
inmates,
including
all
convicted
female
prisoners,
juveniles,
prisoners
aged
60
and
above,
inmates
with
disabilities,
and
those
certified
as
terminally
ill.

Also
eligible
are
prisoners
serving
effective
sentences
of
48
months
or
less,
inmates
held
at
open
prisons,
and
life-sentenced
prisoners
who
have
served
at
least
20
years.

In
addition,
prisoners
serving
sentences
exceeding
48
months
will
receive
an
extra
remission
of
one
quarter
of
their
effective
term
of
imprisonment.

Despite
its
broad
scope,
the
general
amnesty
will
exclude
prisoners
previously
released
under
amnesty,
those
sentenced
by
a
court
martial,
inmates
with
a
record
of
escaping
from
lawful
custody,
and
offenders
convicted
of
specified
serious
crimes.

Excluded
offences
include
murder,
treason,
rape
and
other
sexual
offences,
carjacking,
robbery
and
armed
robbery,
public
violence,
human
trafficking,
unlawful
possession
of
firearms,
as
well
as
offences
under
the
Electricity
Act,
Postal
and
Telecommunications
Act,
Public
Order
and
Security
laws,
railway
offences
and
copper-related
crimes.

The
announcement
comes
against
the
backdrop
of
a
deepening
crisis
in
correctional
facilities,
which
are
currently
holding
nearly
10,000
inmates
beyond
their
designed
capacity.

The
prison
population
stood
at
27,683
inmates
as
of
early
January,
against
an
official
holding
capacity
of
17,800

an
excess
of
9,883
prisoners.

The
scale
of
congestion
prompted
Prosecutor
General
Loice
Matanda-Moyo
to
issue
a
directive
to
prosecutors
nationwide
urging
them
to
aggressively
pursue
bail,
fines
and
community
service
in
place
of
custodial
sentences.

“This
situation
is
undesirable,”
Matanda-Moyo
said
in
an
internal
memo
dated
January
7,
2026.
“Only
in
deserving
cases
should
prosecutors
advocate
for
custodial
sentences.”

Of
the
total
prison
population,
5,970
inmates
are
unconvicted
accused
persons
awaiting
trial,
a
situation
the
Prosecutor
General
said
undermines
constitutional
protections
guaranteeing
the
presumption
of
innocence.

In
her
directive,
Matanda-Moyo
warned
prosecutors
against
routinely
opposing
bail,
stressing
that
incarceration
before
trial
should
be
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule.

“Our
law
scoffs
at
pre-trial
incarceration,”
she
said.
“An
accused
is
presumed
innocent
until
proven
guilty.”

She
further
ordered
prosecutors
to
revisit
bail
conditions
where
accused
persons
remain
in
custody
solely
because
they
cannot
afford
monetary
bail,
and
to
ensure
that
petty
offenders
are
not
detained
unnecessarily.

Authorities
have
not
disclosed
how
many
inmates
are
expected
to
benefit
from
the
2026
amnesty,
announced
following
a
cabinet
meeting
in
Harare
on
Tuesday.

Parliament to elect president under planned constitutional amendments

HARARE

The
government
is
preparing
sweeping
constitutional
amendments
that
would
extend
presidential
terms
to
seven
years,
end
direct
presidential
elections
and
fundamentally
reshape
the
country’s
succession
framework.

Justice
minister
Ziyambi
Ziyambi
is
expected
to
table
a
memorandum
to
cabinet
on
Tuesday
outlining
the
proposed
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
Amendment
Bill,
2026,
which
introduces
far-reaching
changes
to
the
country’s
governance
system
and
institutional
architecture.

One
of
the
most
significant
proposals
is
the
repeal
of
Section
92
of
the
constitution
to
allow
the
president
to
be
elected
by
a
joint
sitting
of
parliament
instead
of
through
a
direct
popular
vote.

Under
the
leaked
draft,
seen
by
ZimLive,
members
of
the
National
Assembly
and
Senate
would
elect
the
president
by
majority
vote
following
general
elections
or
whenever
a
vacancy
arises.

The
bill
also
seeks
to
extend
the
term
of
office
for
both
the
president
and
parliament
from
five
years
to
seven
years,
a
move
which
could
allow
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa

currently
serving
his
second
and
final
term
under
existing
constitutional
limits

to
remain
in
office
for
an
additional
two
years,
from
2028
to
2030.

The
memorandum
argues
that
longer
terms
would
reduce
what
it
describes
as
“election
mode
toxicity”
and
allow
more
time
for
government
programmes
to
be
implemented,
framing
the
change
as
necessary
for
stability
and
policy
continuity.

Lawyers
have
argued
that
such
constitutional
amendments
may
require
approval
through
a
public
referendum,
but
Ziyambi
has
publicly
declared
that
a
referendum
will
not
be
necessary.

A
Constitutional
Court
application
allegedly
sponsored
by
Zanu
PF
and
fronted
by
the
Matabeleland
pressure
group
Ibhetshu
LikaZulu
and
its
secretary
general
Mbuso
Fuzwayo
is
set
to
be
heard
after
the
group
was
granted
direct
access
in
an
unopposed
application
on
Monday.

The
question
of
whether
a
referendum
is
required
to
pass
the
amendments
is
expected
to
be
central
to
the
case,
which
could
be
determined
before
Chief
Justice
Luke
Malaba
retires
on
May
14.

The
government’s
proposals
are
expected
to
trigger
intense
political
debate,
with
critics
warning
that
removing
direct
presidential
elections
could
dilute
citizens’
role
in
choosing
their
leader
and
further
centralise
power
within
parliament,
where
Zanu
PF
holds
a
dominant
majority.

The
amendment
opens
up
the
possibility
of
an
unpopular
but
wealthy
politician
becoming
president
by
buying
MPs’
loyalty.

The
draft
amendments
also
significantly
alter
presidential
succession
rules,
potentially
reshaping
internal
political
dynamics
within
the
ruling
party.

Instead
of
a
vice
president
automatically
assuming
office
following
a
vacancy,
the
bill
proposes
that
parliament
elect
a
new
president
within
a
specified
period
after
the
death,
resignation
or
removal
of
an
incumbent.

Analysts
say
the
change
could
undercut
the
traditional
advantage
enjoyed
by
a
sitting
vice
president
and
open
succession
to
broader
political
contestation,
a
shift
likely
to
fuel
speculation
about
succession
politics
within
Zanu
PF,
where
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga
has
frequently
been
viewed
as
a
potential
successor
to
Mnangagwa.

Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga

In
another
controversial
provision,
the
bill
proposes
increasing
the
size
of
the
Senate
by
allowing
the
president
to
appoint
an
additional
10
senators
chosen
for
their
professional
skills
and
competencies,
further
expanding
presidential
influence
within
parliament.

The
draft
legislation
also
proposes
abolishing
the
Zimbabwe
Gender
Commission
and
transferring
its
functions
to
the
Zimbabwe
Human
Rights
Commission
“since
the
latter
is
already
mandated
to
protect
all
human
rights.”

The
bill
would
also
repeal
constitutional
provisions
establishing
the
National
Peace
and
Reconciliation
Commission.

Additional
changes
include
transferring
responsibility
for
voter
registration
and
custody
of
the
voters’
roll
from
the
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
(ZEC)
to
the
Registrar
General,
and
allowing
traditional
leaders
to
participate
in
partisan
politics
by
repealing
existing
constitutional
restrictions.
Requiring
traditional
leaders
not
to
engage
in
partisan
politics
“violates
their
political
rights,”
Ziyambi
argues
in
the
memorandum.

The
government
also
plans
to
amend
the
functions
of
the
Zimbabwe
Defence
Forces
by
replacing
their
duty
“to
uphold
this
Constitution”
with
wording
requiring
them
to
act
“in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.”

Ziyambi
argues
in
the
memorandum
that
the
constitutional
amendments
will
“reinforce
constitutional
governance,
strengthen
democratic
structures,
clarify
institutional
mandates,
and
harmonise
Zimbabwe’s
constitutional
order
with
tested
and
successful
practices
in
other
progressive
jurisdictions.”

If
adopted,
the
proposals
would
represent
the
most
extensive
overhaul
of
Zimbabwe’s
constitutional
framework
since
the
current
constitution
was
enacted
in
2013.


READ: Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
Amendment
Bill
2026

Law Society of Zimbabwe ratchets up pressure on Mnangagwa over judge

HARARE

The
Law
Society
of
Zimbabwe
(LSZ)
has
ratcheted
up
the
pressure
on
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
to
urgently
appoint
a
tribunal
to
investigate
High
Court
judge
Never
Katiyo,
warning
that
continued
delays
are
undermining
public
confidence
in
the
judiciary.

In
a
letter
to
Attorney
General
Virginia
Mabhiza
dated
February
2,
the
LSZ
said
it
agreed
with
concerns
raised
by
laywer
Beatrice
Mtetwa
that
Mnangagwa
has
failed
to
discharge
his
constitutional
obligation
to
timeously
appoint
a
tribunal
after
a
recommendation
by
the
Judicial
Service
Commission
(JSC).

The
tribunal,
to
be
established
in
terms
of
section
186
of
the
Constitution,
would
inquire
into
whether
Justice
Katiyo
should
remain
in
office
following
multiple
complaints
about
his
conduct.

“As
an
institution
the
judiciary’s
reputation
and
integrity
is
seriously
undermined
by
inaction
on
the
part
of
the
president
in
circumstances
where
a
tribunal
has
been
recommended,”
wrote
LSZ
executive
secretary
Edward
Mapara.

The
intervention
by
the
lawyers’
professional
body
escalates
pressure
on
Mnangagwa
to
act.

Mtetwa
recently
wrote
to
the
Attorney
General
accusing
the
President
of
breaching
section
324
of
the
Constitution,
which
requires
constitutional
obligations
to
be
performed
diligently
and
without
delay.
She
said
the
delay
in
appointing
the
tribunal
had
created
an
untenable
situation
for
litigants,
including
her
client,
whose
matter
has
been
set
down
before
Justice
Katiyo
despite
complaints
lodged
against
him.

The
LSZ
confirmed
that
it
had
submitted
three
names
for
consideration
as
potential
tribunal
members,
adding
that
the
expectation
had
been
that
the
tribunal
would
be
appointed
promptly.
However,
more
than
two
months
later,
no
action
has
been
taken.

“You
will
recall
that
we
submitted
three
names
for
appointment
on
the
tribunal…
The
impression
created
then
was
that
the
tribunal
would
be
set
promptly,”
Mapara
wrote.

The
lawyers’
body
warned
that
litigants
forced
to
appear
before
a
judge
whose
conduct
is
under
scrutiny
face
“real
and
not
imagined”
embarrassment,
saying
the
situation
could
be
avoided
if
Mnangagwa
exercised
his
constitutional
obligations.

Justice
Katiyo
has
been
at
the
centre
of
controversy
following
complaints
that
include
allegations
he
issued
a
judgement
dealing
with
issues
that
were
never
argued
before
him.
The
JSC
subsequently
recommended
that
a
tribunal
be
established
to
examine
the
question
of
his
continued
fitness
for
office.

In
November
last
year,
the
Attorney
General’s
Office
indicated
that
preliminary
processes
required
to
appoint
tribunal
members
had
been
completed,
raising
expectations
that
the
matter
would
be
resolved
swiftly.

However,
with
no
tribunal
yet
constituted,
pressure
is
mounting
on
Mnangagwa
to
act,
amid
growing
concerns
within
legal
circles
about
judicial
accountability
and
the
integrity
of
the
justice
delivery
system.

The
LSZ
copied
its
letter
to
the
Judicial
Service
Commission
and
the
Judge
President.

The
Attorney
General’s
Office
had
not
responded
to
requests
for
comment
at
the
time
of
publication.

Huge Merger Causing A Lot Of Separation – See Also – Above the Law

Perkins
Coie
Considers
Paying
Partners
To
Stay:
Will
retention
bonuses
prevent
them
from
bleeding
out?
Top
Attorney
At
Goldman
Wants
To
Minimize
Epstein
Connections:
Thousands
in
gifts
and
sweet
nicknames
suggest
more
than
just
a
professional
relationship,
no?
Cooley
Chills
Out
The
Early
Recruitment
Frenzy:
Law
students
are
thankful!
Thousands
Of
Law
Students
Call
For
The
Federal
Officer
Accountability
Act:
Strengthening
the
Constitution
takes
a
lot
of
support!
FAMU
Law
Puts
The
Black
Back
In
Black
History
Month:
They
got
a
little
too
overzealous
with
legal
compliance
and
corrected
course.
The
DOJ
Wants
To
Shuffle
Off
Its
Problems:
Blaming
it
on
Congress
won’t
help!
Rümeysa
Öztürk
Nets
Another
Win
Against
The
Government:
Another
win
for
free
speech!

How You Show Up In The Room Matters More Than You Think – Above the Law

As
in-house
lawyers,
we
are
often
called
in
when
there
are
problems
to
solve
and
challenges
to
overcome.
The
phone
rings.
The
meeting
invite
goes
out.
Something
has
gone
sideways,
and
leadership
needs
everyone
(including
the
in-house
lawyer)
at
the
table.

When
you
walk
into
that
room,
how
and
when
you
speak
can
be
as
important
as
the
words
you
speak.
I
have
learned
this
the
hard
way
and
watched
others
learn
it
too. 

The
instinct
is
to
demonstrate
value
immediately

to
prove
you
belong
there,
to
show
you
understand
the
gravity
of
the
situation,
to
fill
the
silence
with
analysis

but
that
instinct
can
work
against
you.

What
are
some
things
to
keep
in
mind?


Your
Legal
Perspective
Is
Not
The
Only
Perspective
That
Matters

This
is
hard
for
lawyers
to
accept.
We
are
trained
to
spot
issues,
flag
risks,
and
protect
the
organization.
That
is
our
job,
but
in
a
room
full
of
people
trying
to
solve
a
problem,
legal
risk
is
one
consideration
among
many.
There
are
operational
realities,
financial
constraints,
reputational
concerns,
and
human
factors
that
may
not
show
up
in
a
legal
memo.

In
my
experience,
it
helps
to
get
all
the
options
on
the
table
first.
Let
the
business
talk.
Let
the
ideas
flow.
Then
consider
the
legal
implications
and
how
they
impact
risk.
You
will
be
more
effective
(and
more
welcome)
if
you
are
seen
as
someone
who
helps
the
team
think
through
options
rather
than
someone
who
shuts
them
down
before
they
start.


You
Do
Not
Have
To
Be
The
Loudest
Voice
In
The
Room

In
fact,
that
is
not
what
leadership
expects
from
the
in-house
counsel.
Speak
in
low
tones.
Not
animated.
Not
passionate.
Confident.
Start
by
answering
the
question
asked.
Do
not
overexplain.
Less
can
be
more.
You
do
not
need
to
repeat
what
you
have
heard
in
more
detail
just
to
show
you
were
listening.
You
have
nothing
to
prove.
You
are
not
the
smartest
person
in
the
room.
Do
not
act
like
you
are.

I
have
seen
lawyers
lose
credibility
in
seconds
by
talking
too
much,
too
fast,
or
too
forcefully.
The
goal
is
not
to
dominate
the
conversation.
The
goal
is
to
add
value
at
the
right
moment,
in
the
right
way.


Listen
More
Than
You
Speak

This
sounds
simple.
It
is
not.

Listening
means
more
than
waiting
for
your
turn
to
talk.
It
means
reading
the
room.
It
means
watching
for
cues
from
your
audience.
It
means
noticing
when
someone
is
confused,
frustrated,
or
checked
out.
It
means
noticing
when
the
CEO
glares
at
one
of
the
team
members.
And,
it
means
noticing
when
the
energy
shifts.

Give
the
people
in
the
room
time
to
digest
what
you
have
shared.
Give
them
time
to
ask
questions.
Do
not
rush
to
fill
every
silence.
Silence
is
not
a
problem
to
solve.
Sometimes
it
is
where
the
real
thinking
happens.


Stay
Calm
When
Things
Get
Heated

Things
can
get
heated.
Decisions
are
hard.
Stakes
are
high.
People
are
stressed.

You
do
not
have
to
match
that
energy.
Be
the
calm
voice
in
the
room.
Do
not
take
it
personally
when
someone
pushes
back
or
dismisses
your
concern.
Your
job
is
to
provide
perspective,
not
to
win
arguments.

The
moment
you
become
defensive
or
reactive,
you
lose
something
that
is
very
hard
to
get
back.


Trust
Takes
Time
To
Earn
But
Can
Be
Lost
In
An
Instant

This
is
the
part
that
stays
with
me.
If
you
are
invited
into
the
room,
you
are
already
halfway
there.
Someone
decided
your
perspective
matters.
Someone
wants
you
at
the
table.
That
is
not
nothing.

Do
not
blow
it
when
you
get
in
there.
Every
interaction
is
a
deposit
or
a
withdrawal.
Every
time
you
show
up
prepared,
measured,
and
helpful,
you
build
trust.
Every
time
you
grandstand,
overexplain,
or
make
it
about
you,
you
chip
away
at
what
you
have
built.

The
in-house
lawyers
who
earn
lasting
influence
are
not
the
ones
who
talk
the
most
or
know
the
most.
They
are
the
ones
who
show
up
consistently,
read
the
room
accurately,
and
add
value
without
needing
credit.

How
you
show
up
matters.
How
you
listen
matters.
How
you
speak
(and
when)
matters
more
than
you
think.




Lisa
Lang
is
an
accomplished
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
dedicated
to
empowering
fellow
legal
professionals. She
offers
insights
and
resources
tailored
for
in-house
counsel
through
her
website
and
blog,
Why
This,
Not
That™
(
www.lawyerlisalang.com).
Lisa
actively
engages
with
the
legal
community
via
LinkedIn,
sharing
her
expertise
and
fostering
meaningful
connections.
You
can
reach
her
at 
[email protected],
connect
on
LinkedIn
(
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/).

The Executive Branch Discovers Judicial Independence, Hates It – Above the Law

The
Department
of
Justice
is
trying
to
make
its
recent
spate
of
high-profile
legal
losses
Congress’s
problem.
Per

Bloomberg
Law
,
DOJ
leadership
is
openly
soliciting
examples
of
judges
who
had
the
audacity
to
rule
against
the
government
so
those
judges
can
be…
reported
to
Congress
for
impeachment.

At
a
recent
virtual
meeting
with
leaders
from
the
nation’s
93
U.S.
attorney’s
offices,
DOJ
officials
asked
prosecutors
to
provide
“vivid
instances”
in
which
judges
allegedly
obstructed
the
government
through
adverse
rulings.
Yeah,
DOJ
leadership
is
really
asking
to
get
a
rundown
of
the
Department’s
spiciest
losses
so
they
can
dress
them
up
as
constitutional
crises.
The
request
reportedly
came
from
Associate
Deputy
Attorney
General
Aakash
Singh,
and
it
fits
neatly
into
what
Todd
Blanche

has
openly
described
as
a
“war

on
the
federal
judiciary.

A
DOJ
spokesperson
confirmed
the
effort,
explaining
that
the
department
is
collecting
“the
most
egregious
examples
of
this
obstruction”
to
help
Congress
“rein
in
judges
violating
their
oaths.”
According
to
DOJ,
these
violations
include
judges
declining
to
sign
off
on
criminal
complaints
or
search
warrants
and
judges
“erroneously
inserting
themselves”
into
the
U.S.
attorney
nomination
process.
All
of
which
are
examples
of
judges
doing
the
damn
job.

This
is
nothing
but
political
theater.
A
show
staged
when
the
executive
branch
throws
a
tantrum
because
the
judiciary

refuses
to
act
as
a
rubber
stamp
.
The
Constitution
gave
judges
life
tenure
precisely
so
they
wouldn’t
have
to
worry
about
being
hauled
before
Congress
every
time
the
government
doesn’t
like
the
answer
it
gets.

And
even
as
theater,
it’s
bad
theater.
There
are
not
67
votes
in
the
Senate
to
remove
a
federal
judge,
so
no
one’s
job
is
seriously
being
threatened.
The
GOP
might
not
even
have
the
support
to
refer
it
to
the
Senate,
despite
House
Speaker
Mike
Johnson’s

recent
enthusiasm

for
judicial
impeachments.
As
Rep.
Darrell
Issa,
chair
of
the
House
Judiciary
Committee
panel
with
oversight
of
the
judicial
branch,
admitted
last
week,
“We
don’t
do
one
unless
we
think
we
truly
have
the
elements
necessary
for
the
Senate
to
agree
with
us.”

What
the
DOJ
is
doing
instead
is
laying
the
groundwork
for
intimidation,
and
following
on
to
the
Republican
talking
point
about
judges.
The

message
to
judges

is
unmistakable:
rule
against
us
too
often,
too
loudly,
or
too
inconveniently,
and
we’ll
put
your
name
on
a
list
and
see
what
Congress
can
do
with
it.
That’s
not
how
an
independent
judiciary
functions,
that’s
how
an
administration
tries
to
chill
dissent
from
a
co-equal
branch
of
government.




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].

From Curling To Constitutional Crisis: Team USA Athlete Calls ICE Shootings ‘Wrong’ – Above the Law

Rich
Ruohonen
(Photo
by
David
Berding/Getty
Images)



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day
.


I’m
proud
to
be
here
to
represent
Team
USA
and
to
represent
our
country.
But
we’d
be
remiss
if
we
didn’t
at
least
mention
what’s
going
on
in
Minnesota
and
what
a
tough
time
it’s
been
for
everybody.
This
stuff
is
happening
right,
right
around
where
we
live.


I
am
a
lawyer,
as
you
know,
and
we
have
a
constitution,
and
it
allows
us
to
(have)
freedom
of
press,
freedom
of
speech,
protects
us
from
unreasonable
searches
and
seizures,
and
makes
it
that
we
have
to
have
probable
cause
to
be
pulled
over.
And
what’s
happening
in
Minnesota
is
wrong.
There’s
no
shades
of
gray.
It’s
clear.



— Rich
Ruohonen
,
a
Minnesota
lawyer
on
the
curling
team
for
Team
USA
at
the
2026
Winter
Olympics,
in
comments

given
during
a
press
conference

in
Italy,
concerning
the
shocking
events
happening
in
his
home
state,
where
Immigration
and
Customs
Enforcement
agents
shot
and
killed
two
U.S.
civilians,
Renee
Good
and
Alex
Pretti.
Ruohonen
is
one
of
six
Minnesotans
on
the
U.S.
Olympic
curling
team,
and
he’s

hoping
to
make
history

as
the
oldest-ever
U.S.
athlete
to
compete
in
the
Olympics.





Staci
Zaretsky
 is
the
managing
editor
of
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.

Judge Rules There Was No Reason To Detain Or Deport Grad Student Over A Damn Op-Ed Piece – Above the Law

(Image
by
Getty)

Some
good
news
for
everyone
asking
if
due
process
still
has
a
heart
beat!
Rümeysa
Öztürk,
a
grad
student
at
Tufts
University,
was
arrested
last
March
for
co-writing
an
article
that
evaluated
policy
decisions.
This
sort
of
squarely
political
speech
is
exactly
what
the
First
Amendment
was
meant
to
protect.
And
yet,
she
was
kidnapped
by
ICE
in
broad
daylight
and
the
state
came
up
with
some
bs
story
about
her
being
a
terrorist.
Thankfully
she’s
gotten
a
lot
of
support
from
the
start:
the
attempt
to
speedily
deport
her
was

thwarted

and
she
was
eventually

allowed
to
go
back
home
.
But
that
wasn’t
the
end
of
her
legal
troubles.
An
administration
so
desperate
for
legal
victories
that
they
tried
to
lock
a
guy
up
over
a
thrown
sandwich
(they
failed,
by
the
way)
continued
to
apply
legal
pressure
against
Öztürk.
After
this
most
recent
ruling,
there’s
a
good
chance
they’ll
finally
leave
her
alone.

CNN

has
coverage:

An
immigration
judge
terminated
removal
proceedings
against
Tufts
University
doctoral
student
Rümeysa
Öztürk,
who
was
detained
for
over
a
month
last
year
as
part
of
the
Trump
administration’s
effort
to
target
and
deport
international
students
and
activists
involved
in
pro-Palestinian
advocacy,
her
lawyers
said
Monday.

The
move
comes
after
recently
unsealed
court
documents
showed
the
federal
government
didn’t
have
any
evidence
that
Öztürk
had
been
supporting
terrorist
activity
when
she
was
arrested,
and
that
her
visa
revocation
and
arrest
were
because
of
an
opinion
article
she
wrote
containing
criticisms
of
Israel.

A
win
for
free
speech!
The
“accuse
them
of
terrorism
to
bypass
their
due
process
rights
and
figure
out
charges
later”
strategy
is
one
that
the
government
has
used
heavily
since
at
least
the
Bush
Jr.
administration.
And
while
Ms.
Öztürk
was
fortunate
enough
to
have
strong
legal
representation
that
could
advocate
on
her
behalf,
there’s
no
telling
how
many
other
people
weren’t
as
well-equipped
to
defend
themselves
from
the
government
over
an
offending
article,
presence
at
a
protest,
or
looking
like
they
have
the
last
name
Ramirez.

The
rule
of
law
may
be
on
its
last
legs,
but
it
ain’t
dead
yet!


Immigration
Judge
Terminates
Removal
Proceedings
Against
Tufts
Student
Detained
By
Trump
Administration,
Attorneys
Say

[CNN]


Earlier
:

2nd
Circuit
Orders
Return
Of
Vermont
Grad
Student
Abducted
By
ICE
Because
She
Wrote
An
Article
They
Didn’t
Like


Rümeysa
Öztürk
Finally
Returns
Home
After
Being
Detained
Over
6
Weeks
For
Sharing
Her
Opinions



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.