Author: TSA Press

Despite

the
cringy
sloganeering
Nancy
Pelosi
is
lying
at
us
with,
reasonable
people
understand
that
Congress
is
trying
to
get
rid
of
TikTok.
And
after
a
majority
vote
in
favor
of
the
ban
at
the
house,
it’s
looking
like
Congress
may
actually
pull
together
enough
to
put
the
squeeze
on
the
dance
app.
It’s
all
in
the
name
of
“protecting
the
American
public,”
I
just
wish
they
had
that
same
energy
for
student
loans
debt
or
healthcare
for
all
or
any
of
the
stuff
that
people
are
actually
requesting.
If
it
also
passes
in
the
Senate,
it
is
unlikely
the
fight
ends
there
—
that
will
just
motivate
ByteDance
to
take
the
squabble
to
court.
From

Bloomberg
Law:

Once
again,
the
US
government
is
aiming
to
shut
down
TikTok
unless
it’s
divested
from
Beijing-based
ByteDance.
But
the
company
has
made
clear
it
has
no
intention
of
selling.
Indeed,
TikTok’s
management
vowed
in
an
internal
memo
to
staff
“we
will
move
to
the
courts
for
a
legal
challenge”
if
the
bill
winding
its
way
through
Congress
is
signed
into
law.

That
sets
the
stage
for
a
watershed
legal
battle
between
the
US
government
and
the
offspring
of
a
$240
billion
startup
that’s
come
to
define
China’s
growing
technological
muscle.
The
outcome
could
define
the
business
landscape
for
Chinese
companies
like
Tencent
Holdings
Ltd.
and
PDD
Holdings
Inc.’s
Temu
with
growing
US
ambitions.
And
it’s
a
test
of
how
Beijing
will
respond
to
growing
pressure
on
homegrown
champions
from
ByteDance
to
Huawei
Technologies
Co.
The
proposed
bill
in
fact
deliberately
calls
out
the
potential
to
circumscribe
apps
from
countries
that
count
as
foreign
adversaries.

Might
be
hard
for
most
to
stomach
this
much
drama
over
an
app
on
teenagers’
phones,
but
them’s
the
facts.
Billions
of
dollars
are
at
stake
and
it’s
not
just
for
for
ByteDance.
The
outcome
of
this
case
could
set
precedent
for
how
massively
popular
foreign
apps
are
regulated
in
the
country
for
years
to
come,
not
to
mention
open
a
massive
power
vacuum
for
the
silly
app
that
also
doubles
as
a
massive
news
and
information
platform
market.

TikTok
Digs
In
to
Fight
US
Ban
With
170
Million
Users
at
Stake
[Bloomberg
Law]

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Despite

the
cringy
sloganeering
Nancy
Pelosi
is
lying
at
us
with,
reasonable
people
understand
that
Congress
is
trying
to
get
rid
of
TikTok.
And
after
a
majority
vote
in
favor
of
the
ban
at
the
house,
it’s
looking
like
Congress
may
actually
pull
together
enough
to
put
the
squeeze
on
the
dance
app.
It’s
all
in
the
name
of
“protecting
the
American
public,”
I
just
wish
they
had
that
same
energy
for
student
loans
debt
or
healthcare
for
all
or
any
of
the
stuff
that
people
are
actually
requesting.
If
it
also
passes
in
the
Senate,
it
is
unlikely
the
fight
ends
there
—
that
will
just
motivate
ByteDance
to
take
the
squabble
to
court.
From

Bloomberg
Law:

Once
again,
the
US
government
is
aiming
to
shut
down
TikTok
unless
it’s
divested
from
Beijing-based
ByteDance.
But
the
company
has
made
clear
it
has
no
intention
of
selling.
Indeed,
TikTok’s
management
vowed
in
an
internal
memo
to
staff
“we
will
move
to
the
courts
for
a
legal
challenge”
if
the
bill
winding
its
way
through
Congress
is
signed
into
law.

That
sets
the
stage
for
a
watershed
legal
battle
between
the
US
government
and
the
offspring
of
a
$240
billion
startup
that’s
come
to
define
China’s
growing
technological
muscle.
The
outcome
could
define
the
business
landscape
for
Chinese
companies
like
Tencent
Holdings
Ltd.
and
PDD
Holdings
Inc.’s
Temu
with
growing
US
ambitions.
And
it’s
a
test
of
how
Beijing
will
respond
to
growing
pressure
on
homegrown
champions
from
ByteDance
to
Huawei
Technologies
Co.
The
proposed
bill
in
fact
deliberately
calls
out
the
potential
to
circumscribe
apps
from
countries
that
count
as
foreign
adversaries.

Might
be
hard
for
most
to
stomach
this
much
drama
over
an
app
on
teenagers’
phones,
but
them’s
the
facts.
Billions
of
dollars
are
at
stake
and
it’s
not
just
for
for
ByteDance.
The
outcome
of
this
case
could
set
precedent
for
how
massively
popular
foreign
apps
are
regulated
in
the
country
for
years
to
come,
not
to
mention
open
a
massive
power
vacuum
for
the
silly
app
that
also
doubles
as
a
massive
news
and
information
platform
market.

TikTok
Digs
In
to
Fight
US
Ban
With
170
Million
Users
at
Stake
[Bloomberg
Law]

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Despite

the
cringy
sloganeering
Nancy
Pelosi
is
lying
at
us
with,
reasonable
people
understand
that
Congress
is
trying
to
get
rid
of
TikTok.
And
after
a
majority
vote
in
favor
of
the
ban
at
the
house,
it’s
looking
like
Congress
may
actually
pull
together
enough
to
put
the
squeeze
on
the
dance
app.
It’s
all
in
the
name
of
“protecting
the
American
public,”
I
just
wish
they
had
that
same
energy
for
student
loans
debt
or
healthcare
for
all
or
any
of
the
stuff
that
people
are
actually
requesting.
If
it
also
passes
in
the
Senate,
it
is
unlikely
the
fight
ends
there
—
that
will
just
motivate
ByteDance
to
take
the
squabble
to
court.
From

Bloomberg
Law:

Once
again,
the
US
government
is
aiming
to
shut
down
TikTok
unless
it’s
divested
from
Beijing-based
ByteDance.
But
the
company
has
made
clear
it
has
no
intention
of
selling.
Indeed,
TikTok’s
management
vowed
in
an
internal
memo
to
staff
“we
will
move
to
the
courts
for
a
legal
challenge”
if
the
bill
winding
its
way
through
Congress
is
signed
into
law.

That
sets
the
stage
for
a
watershed
legal
battle
between
the
US
government
and
the
offspring
of
a
$240
billion
startup
that’s
come
to
define
China’s
growing
technological
muscle.
The
outcome
could
define
the
business
landscape
for
Chinese
companies
like
Tencent
Holdings
Ltd.
and
PDD
Holdings
Inc.’s
Temu
with
growing
US
ambitions.
And
it’s
a
test
of
how
Beijing
will
respond
to
growing
pressure
on
homegrown
champions
from
ByteDance
to
Huawei
Technologies
Co.
The
proposed
bill
in
fact
deliberately
calls
out
the
potential
to
circumscribe
apps
from
countries
that
count
as
foreign
adversaries.

Might
be
hard
for
most
to
stomach
this
much
drama
over
an
app
on
teenagers’
phones,
but
them’s
the
facts.
Billions
of
dollars
are
at
stake
and
it’s
not
just
for
for
ByteDance.
The
outcome
of
this
case
could
set
precedent
for
how
massively
popular
foreign
apps
are
regulated
in
the
country
for
years
to
come,
not
to
mention
open
a
massive
power
vacuum
for
the
silly
app
that
also
doubles
as
a
massive
news
and
information
platform
market.

TikTok
Digs
In
to
Fight
US
Ban
With
170
Million
Users
at
Stake
[Bloomberg
Law]

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Despite

the
cringy
sloganeering
Nancy
Pelosi
is
lying
at
us
with,
reasonable
people
understand
that
Congress
is
trying
to
get
rid
of
TikTok.
And
after
a
majority
vote
in
favor
of
the
ban
at
the
house,
it’s
looking
like
Congress
may
actually
pull
together
enough
to
put
the
squeeze
on
the
dance
app.
It’s
all
in
the
name
of
“protecting
the
American
public,”
I
just
wish
they
had
that
same
energy
for
student
loans
debt
or
healthcare
for
all
or
any
of
the
stuff
that
people
are
actually
requesting.
If
it
also
passes
in
the
Senate,
it
is
unlikely
the
fight
ends
there
—
that
will
just
motivate
ByteDance
to
take
the
squabble
to
court.
From

Bloomberg
Law:

Once
again,
the
US
government
is
aiming
to
shut
down
TikTok
unless
it’s
divested
from
Beijing-based
ByteDance.
But
the
company
has
made
clear
it
has
no
intention
of
selling.
Indeed,
TikTok’s
management
vowed
in
an
internal
memo
to
staff
“we
will
move
to
the
courts
for
a
legal
challenge”
if
the
bill
winding
its
way
through
Congress
is
signed
into
law.

That
sets
the
stage
for
a
watershed
legal
battle
between
the
US
government
and
the
offspring
of
a
$240
billion
startup
that’s
come
to
define
China’s
growing
technological
muscle.
The
outcome
could
define
the
business
landscape
for
Chinese
companies
like
Tencent
Holdings
Ltd.
and
PDD
Holdings
Inc.’s
Temu
with
growing
US
ambitions.
And
it’s
a
test
of
how
Beijing
will
respond
to
growing
pressure
on
homegrown
champions
from
ByteDance
to
Huawei
Technologies
Co.
The
proposed
bill
in
fact
deliberately
calls
out
the
potential
to
circumscribe
apps
from
countries
that
count
as
foreign
adversaries.

Might
be
hard
for
most
to
stomach
this
much
drama
over
an
app
on
teenagers’
phones,
but
them’s
the
facts.
Billions
of
dollars
are
at
stake
and
it’s
not
just
for
for
ByteDance.
The
outcome
of
this
case
could
set
precedent
for
how
massively
popular
foreign
apps
are
regulated
in
the
country
for
years
to
come,
not
to
mention
open
a
massive
power
vacuum
for
the
silly
app
that
also
doubles
as
a
massive
news
and
information
platform
market.

TikTok
Digs
In
to
Fight
US
Ban
With
170
Million
Users
at
Stake
[Bloomberg
Law]

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Despite

the
cringy
sloganeering
Nancy
Pelosi
is
lying
at
us
with,
reasonable
people
understand
that
Congress
is
trying
to
get
rid
of
TikTok.
And
after
a
majority
vote
in
favor
of
the
ban
at
the
house,
it’s
looking
like
Congress
may
actually
pull
together
enough
to
put
the
squeeze
on
the
dance
app.
It’s
all
in
the
name
of
“protecting
the
American
public,”
I
just
wish
they
had
that
same
energy
for
student
loans
debt
or
healthcare
for
all
or
any
of
the
stuff
that
people
are
actually
requesting.
If
it
also
passes
in
the
Senate,
it
is
unlikely
the
fight
ends
there
—
that
will
just
motivate
ByteDance
to
take
the
squabble
to
court.
From

Bloomberg
Law:

Once
again,
the
US
government
is
aiming
to
shut
down
TikTok
unless
it’s
divested
from
Beijing-based
ByteDance.
But
the
company
has
made
clear
it
has
no
intention
of
selling.
Indeed,
TikTok’s
management
vowed
in
an
internal
memo
to
staff
“we
will
move
to
the
courts
for
a
legal
challenge”
if
the
bill
winding
its
way
through
Congress
is
signed
into
law.

That
sets
the
stage
for
a
watershed
legal
battle
between
the
US
government
and
the
offspring
of
a
$240
billion
startup
that’s
come
to
define
China’s
growing
technological
muscle.
The
outcome
could
define
the
business
landscape
for
Chinese
companies
like
Tencent
Holdings
Ltd.
and
PDD
Holdings
Inc.’s
Temu
with
growing
US
ambitions.
And
it’s
a
test
of
how
Beijing
will
respond
to
growing
pressure
on
homegrown
champions
from
ByteDance
to
Huawei
Technologies
Co.
The
proposed
bill
in
fact
deliberately
calls
out
the
potential
to
circumscribe
apps
from
countries
that
count
as
foreign
adversaries.

Might
be
hard
for
most
to
stomach
this
much
drama
over
an
app
on
teenagers’
phones,
but
them’s
the
facts.
Billions
of
dollars
are
at
stake
and
it’s
not
just
for
for
ByteDance.
The
outcome
of
this
case
could
set
precedent
for
how
massively
popular
foreign
apps
are
regulated
in
the
country
for
years
to
come,
not
to
mention
open
a
massive
power
vacuum
for
the
silly
app
that
also
doubles
as
a
massive
news
and
information
platform
market.

TikTok
Digs
In
to
Fight
US
Ban
With
170
Million
Users
at
Stake
[Bloomberg
Law]

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

When
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
was
first
nominated
to
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
then-Georgetown
instructor
posted
about
the
nominee
(at
that
point
between
Jackson
and
Leondra
Kruger)
as
“lesser
black
women.”
It
wasn’t
exactly
unexpected.

When
Sonia
Sotomayor
was
nominated,
Chicago
law
professor
Todd
Henderson
called
her
“a
second-class
intellect”
only
nominated
for
her
“Latinaness,”
even
though
he’s
the
tier
of
intellect
that
writes

fan
fiction
about
Elon
Musk’s
legal
genius

so
off
base
that
even
Musk
retreated
from
his
nonsense
stand
almost
immediately
afterward.

The
point
is,
these
ostensibly
qualified
conservatives
stumble
all
over
themselves
not
just
to
downplay
a
Democratic
nominee’s
accomplishments
or
qualifications,
but
to
draw
a
direct
line
to
their
ethnicity
as
the
source
of
their
shortcomings.
And
the
shortcoming
is
never,
“I
have
grave
doubts
about
their
dormant
commerce
clause
jurisprudence,”
it’s
that
they’re
“lesser”
and
“second-class.”
They
never
construct
any
specific,
coherent
critique
beyond
“minorities
and
women
are
dumb
and
undeserving.”
Or
at
least

some
women
and
minorities
are.
When
Amy
Coney
Barrett
took
half
the
record
Jackson
had
and
parlayed
it
to
the
Supreme
Court,
these
guys
didn’t
seem
to
have
any
issues.

It’s
all
about
building
a
narrative
to
give
succor
to
even
more
odious
voices
to
let
their
—
inevitably
Confederate
—
flags
fly.

The
text
pretty
much
sums
up
the
first
video.
The
second
clip,
on
the
other
hand,
is
truly
wild
to
behold.

After
the
first
video
went
viral,
Vaughn
took
to
the
air
to
“apologize.”

Anyone
that
knows
me
personally
knows
that
I
don’t
have
a
racist
bone
in
my
body.
But
a
lot
of
people
don’t
know
me
personally,
do
they?
So
they
go
by
what
I
say.
And
if
you’re
just
going
by
what
I
said
that
night,
you
have
every
right
to
be
offended.

Sure,
if
you’re
going
to
judge
me
by
my
actual
behavior
this
looks
bad,
but…

Thank
you
for
letting
me
learn
from
this
experience,
and
I
WILL
learn
from
this
experience.

Aw,
well
that’s
nice.
What
exactly
did
he
learn
from
the
experience?

I
still
think
she’s
a
dummy.
I
still
think
she
talks
monkey
talk.
I
still
think
that
she’s
ignorant,
dumb,
and
should
not
be
wearing
a
robe.
And
should
be
living
in
the
jungle
as
Judge
Jumanji,
okay.
But
her
physical
appearance…
off
limits.

He’s
not
learned
from
the
experience,
you
guys.
He
thinks
the
problem
was
the
“lips”
line.
Which
was
not
NOT
the
problem!
But
he
might
need
to
take
a
more
expansive
view
of
what
what
he
said
because
he
might
still
have
some
racism
hanging
out
in
the
marrow.

But
the
important
takeaway
is
that
every
one
of
these
jerkoffs
take
their
cues
from
guys
like
Shapiro
and
Henderson.
Because
if
the
law
professors
get
away
with
“lesser
black
women,”
what’s
stopping
them
from
reaching
for
the
racist
framing
and
pushing
it
to
the
limit.
To
borrow
from
the
apocryphal
Churchill
(or
George
Bernard
Shaw
or
Twain)

story
about
prostitution,
we’ve
already
established
what
the
conservative
legal
movement
believes,
now
we’re
just
quibbling
over
how
loudly
they
say
it.

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 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.

When
you
tell
people
outside
of
the
legal
profession
that
you
(functionally)
interview
for
the
Biglaw
job
you’re
going
to
take
after
law
school
graduation
after
only
completing
1/3
of
law
school,
they
think
it’s
wild.
Like
how
do
firms
know
how
good
you’ll
be
as
a
lawyer
if
you
haven’t
even
completed
the
majority
of
your
legal
training?
How
do
you
know
what
job
you
want
two
years
in
the
future?
Sure,
we’ve
all
been
indoctrinated
into
the
system
such
that
it
no
longer
seems
weird,
but
it
is
a
bizarre
system.

And
yet,
it’s
getting
even
worse.

The
on-campus
interview
process
—
which
placed
initial
interviews
for
summer
associateships
that
beget
post-graduation
employment
offers
in
the
weeks
before
2L
year
or
the
early
part
of
the
semester
—
is
no
longer
the
hotness
for
Biglaw
firms.
In
an
effort
to
have
first
dibs
on
the
best
and
brightest,
law
schools
are
taking
direct
applications
from
1Ls
as
early
as
April.
And,
as

reported
by
Bloomberg
Law,
the
direct
application
process
is
very
popular
at
some
Biglaw
firms:

“This
direct
hire
process
will
likely
be
filling
about
50%
of
our
class,
at
least,”
said
Nicole
Wanzer,
director
of
attorney
recruiting
at
Morrison
Foerster.
“Were
we
to
wait
for
traditional
OCI
and
lean
only
on
traditional
OCI,
we
feel
like
we
would
be
missing
out
on
some
of
the
talent
that’s
getting
picked
up
earlier
in
the
process.”

The
shift
has
had
a
snowball
effect.
Weil
Gotshal
&
Manges
has
already opened
applications
for
its
2025
summer
program,
allowing
first-year
law
students
to
apply
directly—a
process
dubbed
“pre-OCI”.
Other
prominent
players
such
as
Jones
Day,
Milbank
LLP,
Paul
Hastings,
and
Davis
Polk
&
Wardwell
open
up
their
direct
applications
as
early
as
mid-April
for
jobs
that
start
the
summer
after
the
second
year
of
school
is
completed.
MoFo
is
launching
its
own
advanced
consideration
application
system
for
first-year
students
this
year,
which
opens
May
1.

And
in
response,
law
schools
are

moving
up
their
OCI
to
the
beginning
of
the
summer.

So
what
happened
to
derail
the
import
—
and
established
timeframe
—
of
OCI?
Back
in
2018,
the
National
Association
for
Law
Placement

ditched
their
rules
which
dictated
how
and
when
firms
could
contact
candidates.
We
called
it
“organized
chaos”
when
announced.
With
the
benefit
of
hindsight,
NALP’s
executive
director
Nikia
Gray
calls
it
“the
free
market
system.”
But
in
reality,
it
seems
like
a
lot
closer
to
a
shitshow.

Students
in
particular
are
losing
out
in
the
new
system.
Putting
the
stress
of
the
summer
associate
interview
process
before
they’ve
completed
their
first
full
year
just
sucks.
Especially
when
you
consider
some
of
the
other
developments
that
came
once
NALP
noped
out
—
like

exploding
offers
that
slash
the
amount
of
time
law
students
can
evaluate
a
firm
or
interview
with
their
competitors.

And
firms
are
increasingly
concerned
that
they
have
less
information
with
which
to
judge
potential
associates.

Morrison
Foerster
is
considering
adding
new
assessments
or
writing
exercises
to
its
interview
process
to
help
gauge
applicants,
Wanzer
said.

“With
the
speed
of
the
process,
it’s
definitely
exacerbated
the
challenge
to
make
sure
that
the
talent
you’re
seeing—and,
more
so,
the
offers
that
you’re
extending—are
to
people
who
are
going
to
succeed,”
she
said.

Maybe
we
just
should
have
kept
the
old
system
before
Biglaw
devolved
into
a
prisoner’s
dilemma.
But
what
do
I
know.

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

@Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

It
is
usually
fair
game
for
governments
to
regulate
or
criminalize
the
things
that
people
do.
If
you
get
caught
drinking
alcohol
in
public,
there
might
be
some
reasonable
consequences.
Things
get
a
lot
more
sticky
when
you
regulate
what
people
are
—
locking
someone
up
because
they
are
an
alcoholic
gets
you
into
some
status
territory
that,
according
to

Robinson
v.
California,
is
anathema
to
the
Constitution.
The
fine
line
between
punishing
behavior
and
punishing
status
is
coming
to
a
head
in
a
Supreme
Court
case
that
will
set
rules
for
where,
and
if,
homeless
people
can
sleep
outside.
The
justices
aren’t
holding
any
punches
with
their
questions
either.
From

Reuters:

The
justices
heard
arguments
in
an
appeal
by
Grants
Pass,
Oregon
of
a
lower
court’s
ruling
that
enforcing
the
city’s
anti-camping
ordinances
against
homeless
people
when
there
is
no
shelter
space
available
violates
the
U.S.
Constitution’s
Eighth
Amendment
prohibition
on
cruel
and
unusual
punishments.
…
“Where
do
we
put
them
if
every
city,
every
village,
every
town
lacks
compassion
and
passes
a
law
identical
to
this?
Where
are
they
supposed
to
sleep?
Are
they
supposed
to
kill
themselves,
not
sleeping?”
liberal
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
asked
Theane
Evangelis,
a
lawyer
for
Grants
Pass.

“This
is
a
complicated
policy
question,”
Evangelis
responded.

Sotomayor
interrupted
her,
asking,
“What’s
so
complicated
about
letting
someone,
somewhere,
sleep
with
a
blanket
in
the
outside
if
they
have
nowhere
to
sleep?”

Did
you
get
the
feeling
that
Evangelis’s
response
to
Sotomayor’s
question
was
a
calculated
sidestepping
of
a
common
sense
ethical
problem
presented
by
Oregon’s

anti-homeless
anti-camping
ordinances?
Because
“What
else
are
they
supposed
to
do,
kill
themselves?”
might
be
a
rhetorical
question
for
us,
but
a
sizable
number
of
our
neighbors
up
north
are
open
to
suicide
as
a
way
to
deal
with
the
homelessness
problem:

Kagan’s
take
on
the
issue
seems
similar,
as
she
stated
that
Oregon’s
ordinance
appears
to
criminalize
a
status.
Roberts’s
language
is
couched
in
status
framing
as
well:

“You
can
remove
the
homeless
status
in
an
instant
if
you
move
to
a
shelter,
or
situations
otherwise
change.
And,
of
course,
it
can
moved
the
other
way
as
well,
if
you’re
kicked
out
of
the
shelter
or
whatever,”
Roberts
added.

Discussing
the
case
with
this
framing
is
worlds
better
than
if
the
justices
led
with
goofy
questions
like
“Well,
if
people
—
anyone
really,
doesn’t
matter
if
they’re
rich
or
not
—
start
sleeping
in
parks,
who
is
going
to
pick
up
the
mess?
Think
about
our
parks!”
…which
is
the
exact
direction
Oregon
went
in
response:

Evangelis
asked
the
justices
to
overturn
the
lower
court’s
ruling,
which
she
called
a
“failed
experiment
which
has
fueled
the
spread
of
encampments
while
harming
those
it
purports
to
protect.”

Roberts
asked
Evangelis
what
would
happen
in
Grants
Pass
if
its
ordinances
remain
blocked.

“The
city’s
hands
will
be
tied.
It
will
be
forced
to
surrender
its
public
spaces,
as
it
(already)
has
been,”
Evangelis
said.

I
don’t
know,
prioritizing
parts
of
parks
over
living
breathing
human
beings
being
able
to
get
some
shut
eye
seems
cruel
to
me,
and
that’s
before
you
factor
in
how
many
members
of
the
homeless
population
in
Oregon
are
children
and
teenagers:

How
is
it
not
cruel
to

not
let
some
teenager
who
has
nowhere
else
to
go
catch
some
Zs
in
a
park?
That’s
a
threshold
question
that
can’t
be
simply
answered
with
“this
is
a
complicated
policy
question.”

US
Supreme
Court
Scrutinizes
Anti-Camping
Laws
Used
Against
The
Homeless
[Reuters]

Earlier:

SCOTUS
To
Hear
Case
On
Constitutionality
Of
Functionally
Banning
Homeless
People
From
Being
In
Public

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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Use
your
common
sense.
We’re
New
Yorkers.
It’s
why
we’re
here.

If
you
do
that,
there
will
be
a
very
swift
not
guilty
verdict.

—
Todd
Blanche,
attorney
to
Donald
Trump,
in
an
attempt
to
appeal
to
the
jury
while

wrapping
up
his
opening
statement
in
the
former
president’s
hush-money
trial.

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

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.