Author: TSA Press

The
news
that
Kirkland
had
to
teach
its
lawyers
how
to

stop
being
mean
to
the
private
equity
industry
is
incredibly
funny.
We’re
not
saying
Kirkland
is
getting
a
bad
rap
here,
but
when
did
corporate
clients
become
such
fragile
snowflakes?
The
Federalist
Society’s
annual
meeting
brought
together
the
leading
minds
of
the
Trump
legal
movement
to
call
for
a
“war”
to

impeach
the
federal
judges
—
many
of
them
longtime
conservatives
themselves
—
for
not
appropriately
facilitating
the
administration.
And
the
DOJ
completes
its
Sandwich
Tosser
humiliation
that
started
by
failing
at
the
grand
jury
by
now

failing
to
secure
even
a
misdemeanor
conviction.

“Our
short
answer
is
that
Trump
judges
continue
to
dominate
the
Biden
judges,”
write
professors
Stephen
Choi
and
Mitu
Gulati
in
a
new

preliminary
draft
article
posted
yesterday.
As
a
provocative
tagline,
it
accomplished
its
task,
getting
pulled
into
social
media
posts
viewed
by
tens
of
thousands.
It’s
also
fitting
that
the
piece
got
boiled
down
to
its
most
bold,
yet
ultimately
vapid
claim,
since
their
methodology
for
determining
peak
judicial
performance
rewards
judges
for
being
wrong
both
often
and
loudly.

This
paper
follows
an
earlier
work
comparing
Trump’s
first-term
judges
to
Bush
and
Obama
judges
based
on
“productivity,
quality
and
independence,”
and
concluding
that
Trump’s
nominees
“performed
as
well,
if
not
better.”
But
every
attention-seeking
spectacle
invites
its
own
sequel
to
up
to
the
stakes.
With
the
benefit
of
a
few
more
years
of
Biden
judges,
the
authors
returned
to
the
subject
with
a
more
audacious
pull
quote.
Instead
of
“as
well,
if
not
better,”
this
time
the
Trump
judges
“dominate”
Biden’s.

It’s
a

Jordan
vs.
LeBron
level
argument
elevated
to
academia.
The
authors
admit
the
paper
is
intended
merely
to
“get
a
conversation
going
about
judicial
performance
based
on
objective
data
as
opposed
to
more
subjective
assertions
about
judicial
quality,”
a
display
of
modesty
violently
at
odds
with
the
decision
to
use
a
word
like
“dominate.”
But
sometimes
you’ve
got
to
channel
your
inner
Stephen
A.
Smith
to
get
traction.

To
measure
productivity,
we
start
with
the
total
number
of
reported
opinions
by
a
judge:
the
sum
of
majority,
concurring,
and
dissenting
opinions.

Judges
aren’t
paid
by
the
word.
The
only
opinion
that
needs
to
be
written
is
the
majority
opinion.
Dissents
—
and
definitely
concurrences
—
are
gratuitous.
“Writing
a
dissent
or
concurrence
is
voluntary
and
takes
extra
effort,”
the
authors
note,
mistaking
“effort”
with
“productive
effort.”
Unnecessary
work
isn’t
a
measure
of
“productivity,”
it’s
a
measure
of
a
busybody.

If
we
measured
productivity
as
a
matter
of
accomplishing
the
job
itself
faster
and
more
efficiently,
judges
churning
out
separate
concurrences
and
dissents
likely

slow
down
the
process
of
clearing
the
docket,
both
by
(a)
wasting
limited
time
and
resources
producing
opinions
that
don’t
matter
instead
of
their
assigned
majority
opinions,
and
(b)
by
forcing
the
majority
to
waste
time
and
resources
rebutting
those
separate
opinions
that
could
be
used
on
another
matter.
That’s
not
to
suggest
dissents
and
concurrences
are
a
universal
wastes
of
time,
but
suggesting
that
judges
are
more
“productive”
simply
by
writing
more
opinions
is
like
rewarding
the
player
who
took
the
most
shots
even
if
every
one
missed.

Unlike
trial
judges
working
alone,
there’s
not
an
obvious,
public-facing
metric
for
appellate
productivity.
Figuring
out
which
chambers
drags
down
every
matter
requires
inside
gossip
that
scholarly
studies
will
never
sufficiently
collect.
There
are
some
retired
judges
out
there
who
could
probably
tell
us
all
exactly
which
circuit
judges
are
“productive,”
but
they’re
not
talking.

It’s
not
hard
to
grasp
why
Trump
judges
excel
under
a
measure
of
pure
volume,

consequence
to
the
actual
decision
be
damned.
The
Federalist
Society
(note
that
FedSoc
will
say
it’s
just
a
humble
academic
club
and
that
it’s
a
coincidence
that
the
organized
Trump
legal
operation
and
its
own
members
form
a
perfect
circle
of
a
Venn
Diagram)
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
avoiding
another
Justice
David
Souter.
The
vetting
operation
is
detailed
and
runs
on
a
written
record.
A
careerist
Trump
judge
has
every
incentive
to
write
a
separate
opinion
on

everything
to
keep
their
tenure
portfolio
padded
in
case
the
Supreme
Court
opens
up.
Democrats
don’t
pick
judges
this
way
and
Bush
judges
are
now
too
old
to
get
called
up
to
the
majors.

Our
measure
of
judicial
influence
focuses
on
the
number
of
outside
circuit
case
citations
a
judge’s
authored
majority
opinion
receives.

Behold
the
self-licking
ice
cream
cone
of
conservative
validation.
Some
opinions
receive
cross-circuit
nods
because
they’re
cases
of
first
impression
or
examples
of
sterling
reasoning,
but
a
lot
of
them
show
up
because
“I’m
citing
my
buddy’s
opinion
because
we’re
both
trying
to
overrule
the
Clean
Air
Act.”

In
fact,
the
paper
notes
that
the
top
authors
for
outside
citations
both
wrote
gun
rights
opinions
—
the
overall
most
outside
cited
opinion
being

Rahimi
—
and
that
“[p]erhaps
it’s
not
the
judge
per
se
but
instead
the
random
chance
of
getting
assigned
to
write
an
opinion
on
such
a
hot-button
topic
that
drives
the
large
outside
circuit
citations.”
The
authors
are
on
to
something
here,
but
don’t
go
far
enough.
Circuits
don’t
need
to
look
beyond
their
borders
to
resolve
uncontroversial
issues.
That’s
where
circuit
splits
happen,
and
panels
will
flag
those
cases
when
adding
their
voices
to
one
side
or
the
other
of
that
split.

And,
not
to
get
too
philosophical,
but
a
“hot-button
topic”
can
be
self-fulfilling.
When
one
circuit
—
let’s
just
pick
a
number
at
random…
say,
the
Fifth
—
decides
to
turn
itself
into
a
constitutional
hot
take
generator,
it
manufactures
controversy.

Rahimi
got
a
lot
of
attention
because
it
was
so
uniquely
batshit
that
even
this
Supreme
Court
couldn’t
get
on
board.

The
model
for
an
influential
judge,
per
the
statistical
method
employed
by
the
authors,
would
be
Judge
Posner’s
1998-2000
run.
During
that
period,
Judge
Posner
was
“2.6
standard
deviations
above
the
mean
active
judge”
by
this
measure.
But
while
I’ll
subjectively
say
Judge
Posner’s
“judicial
performance”
was
several
more
standards
of
deviation
better
than
any
of
the
Trump
appellate
cohort,
this
influence
measure
isn’t
a
good
basis
for
that.

Because
this
measure
rewards
controversy,
higher
“influence”
will
always
benefit
judges
challenging
orthodoxy.
Judge
Posner
championed
viewing
the
law
through
a
then-novel
economic
lens.
The
Trump
judges
in
this
study
champion
viewing
the
law
through
a
presently
novel
“whatever
Trump
wants”
lens.
In
both
cases,
they’re
getting
cited
more
for
bucking
the
system.
This
measure
of
influence
captures
judges
writing
from
outside
the
established
legal
norms.
But
it’s
a
value
neutral
measure
because
it
doesn’t
matter
if
they’re
producing
law
and
economics
or
batshit.

If
anything,
all
we’ve
learned
here
is
that
Biden
judges
are
NOT
producing
opinions
hoping
to
advance
new
critical
race
theory
readings
of
ERISA,
but
are
mostly
straightforward
practitioners
guided
by
orthodox
interpretations
of
established
precedent.

Again,
we
don’t
actually
want
judges
to
be
influential
for
the
sake
of
being
influential
—
we
want
them
to
quickly
and
correctly
decide
cases.
Biden
judges
tend
to
be
in
line
with
existing
precedent?
Cool
story,
but
it
doesn’t
say
anything
about
their
performance.

The
paper’s
definition
of
independence
is
complicated
and
derived
through
multiple
equations,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day…
who
cares?
If
they’re
standing
up
to
injustice,
that’s
great.
If
they’re
obstinately
bloviating
against
established
law
for
their
own
ego,
that’s
not.
There’s
no
objective
measure
capable
of
capturing
that
distinction.

In
the
end,
the
measure
we
get
from
the
paper
is
the
same
productivity
problem
—
rewarding
dissents
and
concurrences
—
compounded
because
it
gives
extra
weight
to
dissents
and
concurrences
that
go
“against”
other
Republican
judges.
So
a
judge
wanting
to
force
in
their
own
“me
too”
concurrence
to
stay
on
Leonard
Leo’s
nice
list
gets
an
independence
boost
for
what’s
basically
the
judicial
equivalent
of
“I
have
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question.”

Which,
again,
says
nothing
about
whether
or
not
the
judge
is
doing
a
good
job

as
a
judge.
The
data
collected
in
the
paper
is
interesting.
There
are
reasons
why
it
might
be
interesting
to
know
who
is
writing
more
and
who
is
getting
cited
more.
But
neither
has
more
than
a
passing
connection
to
“judicial
performance.”
Someone
once
told
me
that
the
best
way
to
evaluate
a
methodology
is
to
forget
the
ideal
case
that
it
could
measure
and
instead
consider
what
it
would
look
like
to
game
it.
Applying
that
advice,
what
would
a
judge
do
if
they
wanted
to
be
crowned
a
high
judicial
performer
by
this
test?
Write
separately
in
every
case
and
make
sure
every
majority
opinion
is
tailored
toward
circuit
conflict.

This
study
is
what
happens
when
you
apply
quantitative
metrics
to
qualitative
judgments
without
thinking
about
what
you’re
actually
measuring.
For
example,
the
authors
said
they
intended
to
“get
a
conversation
going”
and
quantitatively
they
have
succeeded
in
creating
one.
Qualitatively,
they
have
created
a
stupid
one.

Last
week,
a
lawsuit
against
Blank
Rome
finance
partner

James
Cretella
was
filed
by
his
former
firm,
Otterbourg
P.C.,
for
breach
of
contract,
breach
of
fiduciary
duty,
fraudulent
concealment,
and
unjust
enrichment.
The
allegations
in
the
suit
are
a
roller
coaster
ride
that
swings
between
the
banal
and
sensational.
For
example,
Otterbourg
alleges
Cretella
didn’t
disclose
his
impending
departure
until
after
he’d
collected
a
seven-figure
bonus
and
that
he
solicited
clients
to
join
him
at
his
new
firm.
From
the
complaint:
“He
accepted
[the
bonus]
knowing
full
well
he
was
leaving
and
that
he
had
perpetuated
a
scheme
to
try
to
hobble
the
Firm
and
bolster
a
competitor
while
conspiring
with
another
exiting
partner
and
concealing
material
facts
that
would
have
changed
the
Board’s
decision
to
give
him
a
bonus.”

Which
are
interesting,
if
somewhat
expected,
allegations
following
a
partner’s
lateral
move.
These
things
don’t
typically
come
to
litigation,
but
they’re
certainly
known
pain
points.
But
then
there
are
the
escort
allegations.

According
to
the
complaint,
Cretella
met
up
with
an
escort
and
other
women
while
traveling
on
firm
business.
During
a
forensic
examination
of
Cretella’s
firm-issued
and
firm-paid
phone,
it
was
revealed
that
he
allegedly
engaged
in
“highly
inappropriate
and
potentially
unlawful
personal
conduct
that
Cretella
engaged
in
during
Firm-funded
travel,”
that
included
texts
messages
with
an
“upscale
dominatrix”
known
as
“Goddess
Kat.”

Then
there’s
the
cyberstalking
allegations.
There’s
a

separate
federal
suit
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Connecticut
by
Otterbourg’s
chairman,
Richard
L.
Stehl,
and
its
president,
Richard
G.
Haddad,
over
those
claims,
and
Cretella
has
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss.
The
Otterbourg
firm
leaders
allege
Cretella
engaged
in
repeated
“unauthorized
surveillance”
of
their
personal
lives.
As

reported
by
Law.com:

“Forensic
evidence
shows
that
over
a
period
of
years,
Cretella
repeatedly
accessed
private,
non-client
files
belonging
to
both
men
without
their
permission
or
legitimate
purpose,”
the
most
recent
suit
states.
“These
were
not
stray
clicks
or
accidental
views.
The
data
shows
hundreds
of
deliberate
intrusions
–
often
in
the
dead
of
night
–
targeting
files
that
…
had
nothing
to
do
with
firm
business.”

Some
of
this
sensitive
information
allegedly
included
home
security
system
codes
and
login
credentials
for
live
camera
feeds
inside
and
outside
the
Stehl
family
residence,
personal
tax
returns
and
Social
Security
password
files,
privileged
legal
communications
relating
to
“deeply
personal
family
matters,”
including
divorce
proceedings
and
custody
arrangements
involving
grandchildren,
confidential
medical
records,
private
financial
statements,
as
well
as
“intimate
personal
details,”
including
children’s
employment
documents
and
home
renovation
plans.

Now
those
are
more
lurid
allegations.

But
in
Cretella’s
motion
to
dismiss
the
federal
action,
he
alleges
the
personal
information
was
saved
on
the
firm’s
computer
system
and
accessed
through
a
preview
function
after
performing
searches.
“Although
plaintiffs
try
to
hide
behind
irrelevant
allegations
about
how
Otterbourg’s
computer
system
was
intended
to
operate,
the
complaint
confirms
a
simple
fact
fatal
to
plaintiffs’
standing:
Using
firm-provided
credentials,
Cretella
and
other
attorneys
searched
the
firm’s
computer
network
and
viewed
the
results
of
those
searches,
which
allegedly
included
files
plaintiffs
saved
to
the
firm-wide
network.
The
only
plausible
conclusion
is
that
plaintiffs
failed
to
take
any
measures
to
prevent
their
files
from
being
accessed
through
routine,
firmwide
network
searches.”

And
Cretella

isn’t
the
only
Otterbourg
partner
who
recently
lateraled
to
Blank
Rome.
And
wouldn’t
you
know
it,
there’s
also
an
Otterbourg

complaint
filed
against
that
attorney,
Ikhwan
A.
Rafeek.
That
lawsuit
also
alleges
access
to
private
files
of
Stehl
that
Rafeek
“repeatedly
and
systematically”
viewed
when
he
“deliberately
exploited”
a
computer
system
vulnerability.
The
suit
also
alleges
Rafeek
improperly
solicited
clients
in
anticipation
of
his
lateral
move
at
events
paid
for
by
Otterbourg.

Rafeek
hit
back
at
the
allegations
against
him
in

a
motion
to
dismiss,
saying
the
complaint
was
“baseless”
with
“bogus
claims”
in
an
“attempt
to
punish
Rafeek
vindictively”
because
he
left
the
firm.

The
sour
grapes
defense
is
echoed
in
Cretella’s
filings
in
the
federal
case.
In
an
affidavit
in
that
case,
he
wrote,
“Facts
and
circumstances
convince
me
that
my
decision
to
leave
Otterbourg,
and
not
any
grand
privacy-related
injury
that
plaintiffs
now
claim,
brought
on
this
lawsuit.”

You
can
read
the
recent
complaint
against
Cretella
below.

---

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].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Law
students
with
disabilities
do
so
much
on
their
own—preparing
for
class,
contributing
to
discussions,
joining
and
leading
student
organizations
and
other
activities
at
the
highest
levels.
But
they
are
missing
necessary
institutional
support.
Law
schools
should
meet
them
at
least
halfway,
providing
them
with
the
structural
tools
they
need
to
thrive.

—

Meera
E.
Deo,
director
of
the
Law
School
Survey
of
Student
Engagement,
which
is
part
of
the
Center
for
Postsecondary
Research
at
Indiana
University,
in
comments
given
to
the

ABA
Journal,
concerning
the
results
of
2025
survey,
billed
as
the
“first
comprehensive
look
at

disability
among
law
students,”
which
revealed
that
20%
of
law
students
have
a
disability
of
some
kind,
ranging
from
mental
health
conditions
to
physical
disabilities.
Students
with
disabilities
reported
that
they
often
feel
unsupported
in
their
legal
studies.

---

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

Criminal
law
in
America
stands
at
the
heart
of
the
justice
system,
offering
law
students
a
front-row
seat
to
the
tension
between
accountability
and
fairness.
Whether
aspiring
to
become
prosecutors
seeking
justice
for
victims
or
defense
attorneys
safeguarding
the
rights
of
the
accused,
students
drawn
to
this
field
quickly
learn
that
every
case
tests
the
balance
between
power
and
principle.
Some
law
schools
are
leading
the
way,
equipping
future
lawyers
with
real-world
experience
and
a
strong
sense
of
purpose.

The National
Jurist’s
preLaw
magazine recently
released
its
ranking
of
the
best
law
schools
for
criminal
law
on
its
Criminal
Law
Honor
Roll,
highlighting
schools
for
the
strength
of
their
programs.
Here’s
the
methodology
that
was
used:

preLaw
magazine
grades
law
schools
based
on
the
breadth
of
their
curricular
offerings.
The
scores
are
figured
as
follows:
30%
for
a
concentration,
24%
for
a
clinic,
12%
for
a
center,
12%
for
an
externship,
9%
for
a
journal,
8%
for
a
student
group,
5%
for
a
certificate
and
added
value
for
additional
offerings.

Without
further
ado,
according
to
preLaw
magazine,
these
are
the
law
schools
that
earned
A+
grades
for
their
criminal
law
programs
(listed
in
alphabetical
order):

• Brooklyn
  Law
  School
• Case
  Western
  Reserve
  University
• LMU
  Loyola
  Law
  School
• Northwestern
  Law
• Oklahoma
  City
  University
• Rutgers
  Law
• UC
  Berkeley
• UC
  Law
  SF
• University
  of
  Minnesota
• University
  of
  Texas
• Western
  State
  College
  of
  Law

Click here to
see
the
rest
of
the
Honor
Roll.

Congratulations
to
all
of
the
law
schools
that
made
the
cut
for
this
important
ranking.

Top
law
schools
for
criminal
law
[preLaw
magazine
/
National
Jurist]

---

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

Fealty
doesn’t
mean
much
without
proof.
Maybe
that’s
why
LSU
is
spending
all
the
time
and
money
to
“investigate”
and
litigate
the
absolute
nothingburger
of
a
law
professor
talking
shit
off
the
cuff
in
his
own
classroom.
To
recap,
Ken
Levy
is
a
law
professor
at
Louisiana
State
University
who
got
ratted
on
by
one
of
his
students
for
dropping
two
F-bombs
—
one
about
the
state
governor
and
the
other
about
President
Trump.
People
have
been
forgiven
for
much
greater
sins.
JD
Vance
went
on
a
mini
tirade
about
our
Commander-in-Dementia
Screenings
being
a

Hitler-esque
idiot
and
he’s
Vice
President,
for
god’s
sake.
But
instead
of
telling
the
student
to
keep
their
nose
in
their
notes
instead
of
the
professor’s
business,
the
school
punished
Levy
by
suspending
him
from
teaching.
Court
rulings
have
been

hot
potato-ing
from
Levy
to
LSU’s
favor
for
a
while
now:
the
most
recent
development
is
in
the
school’s
favor.

The
Advocate
has
coverage:

LSU
is
free
to
continue
pursuing
potential
job
action,
including
termination,
against
law
professor
Ken
Levy,
who
was
suspended
from
the
classroom
after
making
comments
about
President
Donald
Trump
and
Gov.
Jeff
Landry
in
front
of
students.
…
“Prof.
Levy’s
removal
from
the
classroom
was
an
interim
decision
made
by
LSU
President
(William)
Tate
that
did
not
disturb
Prof.
Levy’s
tenure
rights,
employment,
or
pay,”
the
panel
concluded.

Hey
man,
I
don’t
know
how
not
letting
the
guy
teach
his
class

isn’t
disturbing
his
employment,
but
they’re
the
ones
in
robes,
not
me.
Would
it
work
the
other
way?
Could
the
teachers
at
LSU
remove
themselves
and
similarly
not
disturb
their
employment
expectations?

Levy’s
lawyer
complained
that
the
panel
seemed
to
skirt
the
most
obvious
issue
with
the
school’s
retaliation:
what
does
this
mean
for
free
speech?
I
know
that
Trump
bragged
about
putting
an
end
to
free
speech
because
it
was
an
inconvenience,
but
do
public
institutions
really
have
carte
blanche
authority
to
kick
out
professors
for
sharing
their
(pretty
innocuous)
political
opinions?
And
if
tenured
professors
are
on
this
tight
of
a
leash,
what
protections
are
there
for
the
schools’
students?

As
important
as
the
liberty
litmus
testing
questions
are,
the
most
practical
concern
should
be
on
the
bottom
line.
Why
the
hell
is
the
school
funneling
money
to
fight
this?
Is
it
just
to
virtue
signal
to
Trump?
Harvard
pushed
back
against
the
administration
and
had
to
go
to
court
to
get
the

billions
in
federal
funding
that
was
already
earmarked
for
them.
Maybe
going
after
Levy
is
a
high-profile
display
of
them
obeying
in
advance.
Whatever
gets
the
coffers
padded.

LSU
Can
Potentially
Fire
Law
Professor
For
Trump,
Landry
Comments,
Court
Decides
[The
Advocate]

Earlier:

The
LSU
Law
School
Professor
Free
Speech
Hot
Potato
Saga
Continues

---

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.

Every
year
I
come
out
with
a
list,
in
no
particular
order,
of
the
best
nonfiction
books
I’ve
read
in
the
preceding
12
months
(I
will
provide
links
at
the
end
to
previous
years’
lists)
along
with
short
descriptions
of
what
I
liked
about
each.
This
year
I
couldn’t
narrow
it
down
to
15,
so
you
get
20
recommendations.
Call
it
literary
inflation.

Also,
after
last
year’s
list
was
published,
I
got
an
email
from
a
reader
who
decried
that
I
had
so
few
titles
by
female
authors
on
my
list
(fair
enough).
This
time
I
made
a
special
effort
to
include
a
majority
of
books
written
by
women.

One
last
thing
before
we
get
to
it:
I’ll
note
that
almost
all
the
links
go
to
Amazon
because
that
is
still
the
easiest
place
to
get
information
about
and
to
ultimately
purchase
most
books.
I
do
encourage
you
to
go
to
your
local
independent
bookstore
instead
if
you’re
able
to.

Alright
then,
here
we
go:

Arctic
Dreams
by
Barry
Lopez

It
holds
up.
Much
of
the
Arctic
has
been
lost
since
this
book
was
written,
but
you
can
still
experience
something
of
its
wonders.

Not
the
End
of
the
World:
How
We
Can
Be
the
First
Generation
to
Build
a
Sustainable
Planet
by
Hannah
Ritchie

Yet,
we
are
not
doomed.
Most
of
us
could
use
a
reminder
of
that,
as
well
as
some
practical
advice
on
how
to
make
the
future
less
awful
than
it
otherwise
might
be.

The
Last
Stand
of
the
Raven
Clan:
A
Story
of
Imperial
Ambition,
Native
Resistance
and
How
the
Tlingit-Russian
War
Shaped
a
Continent
by
Gerald
Easter
and
Mara
Vorhees

Russia
wasn’t
any
better
at
invading
foreign
countries
220-some
years
ago
than
it
is
today.
Maybe
they
should
give
it
up.
Although
it
does
result
in
some
satisfying
reads.

For
All
the
Tea
in
China:
How
England
Stole
the
World’s
Favorite
Drink
and
Changed
History
by
Sarah
Rose

Is
there
anything
the
British
didn’t
steal?
That
being
said,
you
can’t
help
but
admire
the
tenacity
of
the
chief
protagonist.

The
Drunken
Botanist:
The
Plants
that
Create
the
World’s
Great
Drinks
by
Amy
Stewart

After
all
that
imperialism,
you’re
probably
going
to
need
something
a
little
stronger
than
tea.
You
might
as
well
drink
in
this
handsome
volume
while
you’re
at
it.
Get
boozing!

Anatomy
of
a
Rose:
Exploring
The
Secret
Life
of
Flowers
by
Sharman
Apt
Russell

Botany
isn’t
all
about
booze.
It’s
only
mostly
about
booze.
Anyhow,
this
book
is
an
accessible
and
beautifully
written
entry
into
the
science
behind
flowers.

The
Sirens’
Call:
How
Attention
Became
the
World’s
Most
Endangered
Resource
by
Chris
Hayes

You
are,
at
this
very
moment,
reading
an
article
about
books
you
might
want
to
read.
So
you
are
probably
not
one
of
the
people
most
in
need
of
this
particular
book.
You
will
nonetheless
enjoy
it,
and
will
find
yourself
nodding
along.

Who
Is
Government?:
The
Untold
Story
of
Public
Service
by
Michael
Lewis,
Casey
Cep,
Dave
Eggers,
John
Lanchester,
Geraldine
Brooks,
Sarah
Vowell,
and
W.
Kamau
Bell

As
I
write
this,
we
are
in
the
longest
federal
government
shutdown
in
history.
“DOGE
Impact”
has
been
cited
as
the
leading
reason
for
job
cuts
so
far
this
year.
Federal
workers
have
been
devalued
and
demonized.
Here
you
will
find
many
stark
examples
of
why
that
is
unfair,
unwise,
and
wrong.

Abundance
by
Ezra
Klein
and
Derek
Thompson

The
only
thing
worse
than
Trump
is
the
mindless
army
of
sycophants
catering
to
his
every
whim.
Even
so,
today’s
Democrats
need
to
remember
how
their
predecessors
actually
got
things
done
if
they
are
ever
going
to
successfully
banish
fascism
back
to
the
annals
of
history.
Do
not
miss
this
bold
vision
for
the
future
of
politics
and
progress.

A
Woman
of
No
Importance:
The
Untold
Story
of
the
American
Spy
Who
Helped
Win
World
War
II
by
Sonia
Purnell

Virginia
Hall
was
among
the
most
competent
clandestine
fighters
of
fascism
in
WWII
despite
(or
maybe
because
of)
being
someone
who’d
be
criticized
as
a
DEI
hire
today.
It’s
an
unforgettable
real-life
spy
thriller
full
of
lessons
that
we
still
haven’t
learned.

The
Daughters
of
Kobani:
A
Story
of
Rebellion,
Courage,
and
Justice
by
Gayle
Tzemach
Lemmon

Maybe
fighting
out
in
the
open
is
more
your
thing.
For
any
lover
of
freedom,
the
women
profiled
herein
are
an
inspiration.

Yellow
Bird:
Oil,
Murder,
and
a
Woman’s
Search
for
Justice
in
Indian
Country
by
Sierra
Crane
Murdoch

Not
a
feel-good
story,
albeit
an
important
one.
You
know
what?
Maybe
don’t
read
this
on
a
rainy
day.

Traffic:
Why
We
Drive
the
Way
We
Do
(and
What
It
Says
About
Us)
by
Tom
Vanderbilt

I
acquired
a
copy
of
this
book
years
ago
and
put
off
reading
it,
not
because
it
didn’t
look
great,
but
in
the
hope
that
it
would
become
obsolete
with
the
arrival
of
the
self-driving
future.
Yeah,
not
a
chance
on
that
one.
Just
as
relevant
today
as
it
was
when
it
was
written,
and
set
to
be
relevant
indefinitely,
you
will
get
a
better
grasp
on
all
the
things
we
get
wrong
about
driving,
not
to
mention
human
nature.

Vanishing
Treasures:
A
Bestiary
of
Extraordinary
Endangered
Creatures
by
Katherine
Rundell

Perhaps
you’d
like
to
read
about
some
of
the
animals
we
are
killing.
It
is
a
testament
to
Rundell’s
writing
that
this
book
is
a
delight,
considering
its
subject
matter.

Tenacious
Beasts:
Wildlife
Recoveries
That
Change
How
We
Think
about
Animals
by
Christopher
J.
Preston

This
title
pairs
perfectly
with
the
previous
one.
Again,
the
planet
is
not
doomed,
people
just
need
to
get
off
their
asses
and
do
something
about
the
real
problems
in
the
world.

A
Love
Affair
with
Birds:
The
Life
of
Thomas
Sadler
Roberts
by
Sue
Leaf

Don’t
overlook
these
great
little
biographies
that
abound
in
the
literary
world.
The
stakes
are
just
right
in
this
overview
of
the
life
of
the
“father
of
Minnesota
ornithology.”
You
really
do
not
need
or
want
to
always
be
reading
about
a
head
of
state
or
whatever
to
gain
real
insight
into
the
past
and
into
people,
then
and
now.

Bonk:
The
Curious
Coupling
of
Science
and
Sex
by
Mary
Roach

If
you’re
in
the
mood,
you
will
be
entertained.
Roach’s
approach
is
not
always
for
me,
though
this
book
is
my
favorite
of
hers
that
I’ve
read
thus
far.

Cuba:
An
American
History
by
Ada
Ferrer

Ah,
Cuba.
Made
me
feel
like
I
was
back
in
Havana,
smoldering
stogie
clenched
firmly
between
my
teeth.

Everything
Lost
Is
Found
Again:
Four
Seasons
in
Lesotho
by
Will
McGrath

Lesotho
has
been
in
the
news
a
few
times
recently
as
a
result
of
Donald
Trump
making
fun
of
its
obscurity
and/or
slapping
a
huge
unreasonable
tariff
on
it.
The
president’s
nonsense
aside,
McGrath
has
produced
here
a
moving,
hilarious,
tragic,
and
ultimately
enlightening
chronicle
of
his
(McGrath’s)
time
there.

Unmask
Alice:
LSD,
Satanic
Panic,
and
the
Imposter
Behind
the
World’s
Most
Notorious
Diaries
by
Rick
Emerson

“Unmask
Alice”
was
given
to
me
by
a
dear
friend
to
read
on
my
plane
ride
to
Europe
because
she
“need[ed]
someone
to
be
as
enraged
about
the
satanic
panic”
as
she
was.
It
did
not
disappoint.
Keep
an
eye
on
the
publisher,
BenBella
Books,
which
really
puts
out
some
exciting
stuff.

Finally,
just
in
case
you
need
75
more
nonfiction
recommendations,
here
are
links
to
the
previous
installments:

15
Best
Nonfiction
Books
To
Read
Yourself
Or
Give
As
Gifts,
None
Of
Them
Memoirs
Or
About
Politics

15
Best
General-Interest
Nonfiction
Books
You
Dare
Not
Overlook
For
Your
2024
Reading
List

15
Of
The
Best
General-Interest
Nonfiction
Books
To
Add
To
Your
Reading
List
In
2023
And
Beyond

15
More
Excellent
General-Interest
Nonfiction
Books
Read
During
The
Second
Year
Of
The
Pandemic

15
Best
General-Interest
Nonfiction
Books
Read
During
The
Worst
Year
Of
Everyone’s
Life

It
is
my
solemn
guarantee
that
if
you
spend
more
time
reading
nonfiction
than
you
do
on
social
media,
you
will
be
better
at
your
job,
you
will
feel
better
about
yourself,
and
people
of
all
genders
will
find
you
more
sexually
intriguing.
Go
out
there
and
take
that
to
the
bank.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].