Author: TSA Press

When
legal
headlines
talk
about
AI,
it’s
usually
all
hype
or
all
fear.
Either
we’re
replacing
lawyers
with
robots
or
bracing
for
doomsday.

But
back
on
Earth,
where
work
still
has
to
get
done,
AI
is
a
business
decision,
not
an
existential
dilemma.
An
important
decision
that
legal
departments,
especially
lean
ones,
need
to
make
with
clarity,
not
chaos.

Enter
the
Hanna
Center:
a
nonprofit
that
treated
AI
not
as
a
headline
but
as
a
workflow
challenge.
With
process
optimization
as
their
goal,
they
went
beyond
simply
testing
a
new
tool
and
built
a
repeatable,
resilient
system
that
made
their
limited
resources
go
further.
In
2025,
that
approach
evolved
into
a
full-scale
rollout
of
ChatGPT
Enterprise
accounts
for
50
staff
across
departments,
a
practical
experiment
in
how
AI
can
add
measurable
value
to
mission-driven
work.
Their
story
shows
how
structured
operational
thinking
can
turn
experimentation
into
meaningful,
measurable
progress.

Start
with
the
Why

Our
engagement
with
the
Hanna
Center
began
with
a
straightforward
challenge:
too
much
manual
work
for
a
small
team,
the
kind
that
drains
hours
and
focus
from
higher-impact
priorities.
Rather
than
chasing
the
next
shiny
tool,
we
zeroed
in
on
what
mattered
most:
value.
Together,
we
mapped
where
time
was
being
lost,
what
tasks
could
be
safely
offloaded,
and
how
to
safeguard
both
their
people
and
their
mission.

That
shift
in
focus
changed
everything.
By
grounding
the
project
in
a
real
operational
problem
instead
of
an
abstract
idea
of
“innovation,”
we
created
the
space
to
measure
outcomes
that
actually
mattered.
Hanna’s
goal
wasn’t
a
headline;
it
was
lasting
efficiency.

That
efficiency
began
with
a
workflow
audit
that
identified
nine
clear
use
cases,
each
ranked
by
complexity
to
create
a
roadmap
for
phased
adoption.
The
early
pilots
targeted
the
simplest
but
highest-friction
tasks.
As
these
proved
successful,
more
complex
efforts
followed,
and
the
program
was
rolled
out
more
broadly
across
the
organization.

When
ChatGPT
was
launched
to
all
50
staff
members,
we
worked
with
them
to
structure
the
rollout
for
measurable
impact.
It
was
a
mixed-methods
evaluation
that
included
surveying
27
users
and
conducting
seven
focus
groups.
The
results
showed
that
staff
saved
an
average
of
4.13
hours
per
week,
totaling
roughly
$22,767
in
monthly
value
across
departments.

Beyond
time
savings,
teams
reported
greater
autonomy,
faster
report
turnaround,
and
reduced
reliance
on
outside
consultants.
The
project
also
sparked
creative
thinking
and
enthusiasm,
generating
over
50
ideas
for
future
AI
use
cases.
That
same
value-first
approach
defines
our
every
engagement.
Whether
we’re
partnering
with
a
large
enterprise
or
a
small
nonprofit,
our
strategy
starts
with
what
the
team
needs
to
work
better.
Flashy
solutions
come
and
go.
Practical
ones
endure.

Pilot
Small,
Build
Smart

Hanna’s
rollout
built
on
that
same
clarity
of
purpose.
It
started
small
with
a
focused
pilot
to
automate
time-consuming,
overly
manual
tasks
that
were
slowing
the
organization
down.
The
project
was
scoped
intentionally,
with
cross-functional
alignment
from
the
start,
and
treated
like
a
test
kitchen:
structured,
transparent,
and
open
to
feedback.

The
initial
pilots
focused
on
high-value,
low-risk
workflows,
projects
where
AI
could
immediately
reduce
administrative
burden
without
disrupting
sensitive
processes.
Early
examples
included
automating
data
extraction
from
ancillary
services
invoices
and
high
school
transcripts,
simplifying
the
creation
of
program
manuals,
and
using
ChatGPT
to
draft
trauma-informed
care
(TIC)
policy
updates.
These
early
wins
built
staff
confidence
and
freed
up
time
for
deeper
strategic
work.

From
there,
the
team
expanded
into
moderate-complexity
use
cases,
including
building
automated
dashboards,
generating
impact
reports
that
combined
survey
data
and
narrative
insights,
and
drafting
curriculum
content
for
the
Hanna
Institute.
By
ranking
use
cases
by
complexity,
Hanna
avoided
overreach
and
ensured
that
each
new
deployment
was
built
on
proven
success.

Staff
testimonials
from
the
evaluation
captured
the
impact
in
human
terms.
One
grants
team
member
said,
“It
would
have
taken
me
a
good
20
to
30
minutes,
and
I
have
it
in
five,”
and
another
noted
that
reports
that
once
took
“three
to
four
hours
of
focused
time”
could
now
be
completed
“within
an
hour
or
less.”
Across
departments,
staff
described
the
same
pattern:
spending
less
time
on
formatting
and
searching
and
more
time
on
judgment,
planning,
and
collaboration.

Each
iteration
refined
not
just
the
technology
but
the
process
itself.
As
the
pilot
matured,
core
operational
principles
such
as
risk
management,
change
readiness,
and
metrics
kept
it
grounded.
Every
improvement
was
documented,
every
win
validated,
and
every
new
workflow
designed
to
be
repeatable,
not
one-off.

That
discipline
paid
off.
By
the
time
Hanna’s
ChatGPT
Enterprise
program
reached
full
adoption,
it
had
become
a
living
example
of
operations
transformation
in
motion:
start
small,
prove
value,
scale
with
intention.

Turning
Experimentation
into
Impact

By
mid-2025,
Hanna
Center’s
AI
adoption
had
gone
beyond
the
pilot
stage
and
had
become
a
model
for
practical,
mission-driven
transformation.
The
results
spoke
for
themselves:
measurable
time
and
cost
savings,
stronger
internal
capacity,
and
teams
empowered
to
solve
problems
independently.

For
leadership,
the
takeaway
was
clear:
when
you
treat
AI
as
an
operational
enhancement
rather
than
a
disruptive
overhaul,
adoption
sticks.
Staff
comfort
levels
averaged
4.1
out
of
5,
and
81%
of
users
cited
writing
and
editing
as
their
most
frequent
task.

For
every
organization
exploring
AI,
that’s
the
real
lesson:
progress
doesn’t
come
from
chasing
the
newest
tool,
but
from
applying
disciplined
operational
design
to
build
targeted,
simple
process
improvements
that
endure.

A
Thoughtful
Shift

This
takeaway
goes
beyond
technology
itself.
What
matters
most
is
the
mindset
behind
how
teams
choose
to
use
it.
Structured
operational
thinking
is,
at
its
core,
about
alignment:
connecting
how
work
gets
done
to
what
the
organization
is
trying
to
achieve.
Success
shows
up
in
time
saved,
smoother
processes,
and
stronger
trust
between
teams,
not
in
the
number
of
tools
deployed.

No
matter
the
project,
whether
it
is
automating
FAQs,
refining
workflows,
or
improving
coordination
across
departments,
the
same
principles
hold
true:
start
with
value,
test
intentionally,
communicate
openly,
and
design
for
real
use.

When
operations
lead
the
strategy,
AI
becomes
an
amplifier
for
good
work,
not
a
replacement
for
it.
Hanna
Center
showed
how
that
happens.
The
future
of
work
isn’t
defined
by
automation.
It’s
defined
by
how
we
use
technology
to
strengthen
the
organization,
one
deliberate
step
at
a
time.        

---

Brandi
Pack has
a
diverse
background
that
spans
the
legal,
hospitality,
education,
and
technology
industries.
Over
the
course
of
her
career,
she
has
excelled
in
various
strategic
business
operations
roles
at
Hewlett
Packard
Company,
Constellation
Brands,
and
Goodwill
Industries.
Brandi
has
a
successful
track
record
in
project
management,
training,
business
development,
legal
operations,
and
IT
services.
She
is
a
thought
leader
in
the
emerging
space
of
AI
in
the
workplace,
particularly
as
it
impacts
the
legal
landscape.

I
hate
to
say
it,
but
it’s
true:
Marketing
professionals
love
to
give
“one-size-fits-all”
advice.
We
spend
so
much
of
our
time
urging
the
“best
practices”
that
really
do
work
for
the
vast
majority
of
situations
(and
many
of
which
clients
in
other
industries
find
easy
to
forget)
that
we
sometimes
find
it
challenging
to
take
a
step
back
and
assess
the
specific
needs
of
businesses
that
may
have
concerns
that
do
not
apply
to
other
business
types.
We
can
particularly
run
into
this
problem
when
we
are
addressing
the
very
precise
needs
of
law
firms
when
it
comes
to
email
marketing.
Email
sequences
can
be
a
crucial
component
of
any
digital
marketing
strategy,
but
the
special
nature
of
an
attorney’s
obligations
toward
even
prospective
clients,
as
well
as
the
obviously
area-specific
expectations
associated
with
particular
types
of
law,
need
to
play
a
leading
role
in
ensuring
that
the
sequences
work
as
intended.

Friendly
Reminders:
The
Function
of
Email
Sequences
in
Law
Firm
Marketing

Sales
professionals
will
tell
you
that
following
up
with
past
or
prospective
clients
via
email
is
a
reliably
effective,
low-cost
strategy
for
staying
“top
of
mind,”
collecting
positive
reviews,
and
generating
ongoing
interest.
One
of
the
major
advantages
of
email
marketing
strategies
is
that
they
allow
you
to
increase
name
recognition
(i.e.,
brand
awareness)
by
giving
you
opportunities
to
appear
in
front
of
likely
customers
(or
clients)
even
at
times
when
they
may
not
be
actively
looking
for
the
type
of
services
your
firm
offers.

Just
as

SEO
helps
law
firms
to
appear
in
front
of
prospective
clients
when
they
are
already
looking
for
legal
information
or
legal
services,
email
marketing
helps
to
“close
the
gaps”
in
coverage
by
creating
the
background
awareness
that
puts
your
firm
in
position
to
be
the
first
one
individuals
think
of
when
they
decide
it
is
time
to
hire
an
attorney.
In
addition,
usually
the
reason
your
law
firm
has
email
addresses
will
be
because
their
owners
have
provided
them,
which
serves
as
a
strong
indication
that
the
individuals
in
this
list
of
contacts
already
have
some
interest
in
the
type
of
legal
services
your
firm
offers.

The
Name
Recognition
Value
of
Email
Sequences

Exact
numbers
vary
from
study
to
study,
but
research
in
marketing
psychology
has
overwhelmingly
shown
that
most
people
need
to
encounter
a
brand
multiple
times
before
they
will
recognize
the
name
or
logo
when
prompted.
They
need
to
be
presented
with
the
same
information
even
more
times
before
they
will
remember
the
brand
without
prompting.

This
essential
truth
about
human
memory
is
why,
in
every
election
cycle,
you
will
probably
see
political
signage
strung
along
the
roadways
displaying
no
information
beyond
the
candidate’s
name:
The
signs
don’t
tell
travelers
anything
about
a
candidate’s
policy
positions,
and
in
many
cases
they
may
not
even
identify
the
party
on
whose
ticket
the
candidate
is
running,
or
the
office
they
hope
to
fill.
The
campaign
managers
are
not
worried
about
the
absence
of
these
details,
because
interested
people
can
easily
find
that
information
elsewhere;
the
purpose
of
the
signs
is
simply
to
make
sure
voters
feel
a
sense
of
recognition
when
they
step
into
the
voting
booth
and
see
the
candidate’s
name.
The
repeated
inbox
appearances
created
by
an
email
sequence
operate
on
the
same
basic
principle.

Tailored
Messaging
Opportunities

Luckily
for

law
firm
marketing,
the
space
constraints
of
emails
are
much
more
forgiving
than
those
of
highway
signage
for
a
political
campaign.
The
fact
that
emails
can
contain
a
great
deal
of
information
with
no
increase
in
costs
makes
them
an
especially
attractive
vehicle
for
client
outreach.
Beyond
the
name
recognition
benefits
of
showing
up
in
a
potential
client’s
inbox
on
a
recurring
basis,
a
well-structured
email
sequence
can
help
to
build
trust
and
foster
client
relationships.
Of
course,
all
email
sequences
are
not
created
equal!
Tailoring
your
strategies
to
your
target
audience
and
your
area
of
practice
is
crucial
to
maximizing
the
potential
of
an
email
sequence.

Tailoring
Strategy:
Consider
the
Lead
Source

The
“lead
source”
for
any
email
address
is
just
the
mechanism
by
which
your
law
firm
obtained
that
information.
Common
options
are
contact
forms
posted
to
your
law
firm’s
website
or
social
media
accounts
(ideally
these
should
be
separate
contact
forms,
with
distinctive
URLs;
to
track
lead
generation
effectively,
you
want
to
avoid
linking
social
media
posts
to
the
contact
form
posted
directly
on
your
public-facing
website)
and
the
referrals
some
law
firms
are
set
up
to
receive
through
third-party
websites
like
Avvo
or
FindLaw.

Using
the
Technology:
Leveraging
CRMs
for
Audience
Segmentation

Many
CRM
(customer
relationship
management)
systems
record
lead
source
automatically
as
part
of
the
intake
workflow,
so
you
may
be
already
tracking
this
information,
even
if
you
are
not
actively
using
it
on
a
regular
basis.
If
not,
make
it
a
priority
to
set
up
a
standardized
method
for
ensuring
that
your
team
always
notes
where
each
new
lead/customer
contact
comes
from
as
the
information
is
entered
into
whichever
system
your
law
firm
uses
for
managing
contacts
(if
you
can
automate
this
part
of
the
process,
so
much
the
better!).

Segmentation
for
Customization

Many
people
intuitively
recognize
that
lead
source
is
valuable
information
for
evaluating
where
your
queries
are
coming
from
and
which
platforms
are
giving
you
the
highest
conversion
rates.
Less
obviously,
lead
generation
tracking
is
also
very
useful
for
helping
you
to
effectively
“segment”
audiences
(in
this
case,
lists
of
email
recipients)
so
that
you
can
send
email
sequences
that
are
customized
based
on
the
path
the
prospective
client
followed
to
provide
you
with
their
contact
information.

“Segmentation”
is
a
term
you
will
see
used
frequently
in
relation
to
mass
emails,
but
for
customizing
email
sequences
based
on
lead
source
what
you
will
want
to
do
is
set
up
an
audience
“segment”
for
each
lead
source.
You
could
stop
there,
and
set
up
an
automation
that
triggers
a
specific
email
sequence
for
each
new
contact
based
on
the
segment
to
which
the
contact
belongs;
ideally,
however,
you
will
want
to
further
differentiate
within
segments,
whenever
your
lead
generation
model
relays
information
about
the
contact’s
areas
of
interest.

Factors
To
Consider
in
Tailoring
Email
Sequences
by
Lead
Source

As
you
think
about
the
role
of
lead
source
in
conditioning
the
structure
of
your
email
sequence,
there
are
a
few
factors
you
can
consider
to
help
shape
your
decisions.
Any
email
sequence
will
also
need
to
be
structured
with
your
law
firm’s
specific
practice
area(s)
in
mind,
but
using
lead
source
as
a
tool
for
tailoring
the
most
appropriate
messaging
for
a
specific
contact
can
significantly
enhance
your
ability
to
connect
with
potential
clients.

Past
Clients:
Email
Sequences
to
Solicit
Feedback
and
Reviews

Past
clients
may
be
a
great
target
for
generating
future
business
in
some
cases.
Depending
on
the
type
of
law
you
practice,
however,
getting
repeat
business
from
former
clients
may
not
be
realistic;
business
clients
may
need
help
with
contracts
several
times
per
year,
but
if
you
are
managing
a
personal
injury
firm,
you
probably
hope
that
most
of
your
clients
do
not
find
themselves
needing
your
services
on
a
regular
rotation.
With
this
caveat
in
mind,
one
type
of
email
sequence
you
can
count
on
to
be
relevant
to
past
clients
is
a
request
for
feedback
and
a
prompt
to
review.
Consider
scheduling
3-4
emails
in
this
sequence,
with
increasing
periods
of
time
between
emails.

Social
Media:
Email
Sequences
To
Deliver
Value

Contacts
who
provide
their
email
addresses
after
clicking
the
link
in
a
social
media
post
are
often
motivated
by
the
promise
of
additional
“content.”
The
content
will
of
course
depend
on
what
your
law
firm
has
developed
and
offered,
but
many
digital
marketing
agencies
will
recommend
posting
short
videos
and
“carousel”
posts
comprised
of
sequenced
infographics
as
lead
generation
materials,
usually
with
a
CTA
(call
to
action)
inviting
anyone
who
pauses
in
scrolling
to
take
a
closer
look
at
the
post
to
sign
up
for
free
tutorials,
guides,
or
other
resources.
That
format
will
often
mean
that
the
first
message
in
an
email
sequence
directed
at
contacts
from
social
media
needs
to
deliver
the
free
item
promised
in
the
post.
If
your
firm
offers
more
than
one
free
resource
via
social
media,
consider
setting
up
an
automation
that
will
select
the
subsequent
messages
in
an
email
sequence
based
on
the
specific
resource
a
contact
has
requested.

Keep
in
mind
that
contacts
who
provide
their
emails
in
response
to
a
social
media
prompt
tend
to
be
interested
in
informative
and
educational
content;
frequently
they
are
providing
their
contact
information
because
they
are
hoping
for
more
materials
that
are
similar
to
the
post
that
initially
caught
their
interest.
For
law
firms’
marketing
strategy,
this
means
that
email
sequences
directed
at
contacts
from
social
media
lead
generation
can
often
capitalize
on
the
topics
covered
in
the
lead-generating
posts.
Consider
setting
up
automations
at
two,
four,
and
six
weeks
after
initial
contact
inviting
each
recipient
to
view
a
related
post,
schedule
a
discovery
consultation,
and
sign
up
for
a
newsletter
(which
would
keep
the
contact
receiving
regular
emails).

Website
Contact
Form

Emails
addresses
entered
in
the
contact
form(s)
on
your
law
firm
website
indicate
an
especially
high
level
of
interest
(what
marketing
professionals
sometimes
call
“high-intent”
actions).
Often
you
will
be
wanting
to
follow
up
with
these
contacts
right
away;
sometimes
the
information
collected
by
your
contact
form
can
structure
the
form
that
follow-up
takes.
Consider
designing
your
contact
form
with
a
dropdown
menu
that
allows
site
visitors
to
indicate
their
level
of
intent
and
urgency,
for
instance
“just
learning”
vs.
“need
legal
advice.”
You
could
also
add
a
checkbox
inviting
visitors
to
indicate
that
they
would
like
a
callback
within
a
set
time
period
(e.g.,
24-48
hours).

If
you
are
soliciting
any
type
of
written
description
of
their
reason
for
reaching
out,
make
sure
that
you
practice
good
digital
security
in
protecting
that
information
(you
will
likely
also
want
to
set
your
contact
form
up
to
include
disclaimers
and
advise
against
entering
any
identifying
details).
That
said,
information
written
by
site
visitors
themselves
can
sometimes
be
difficult
for
CRM
automations
to
parse
accurately,
but
it
can
also
be
a
rich
source
of
information
for
tailoring
both
initial
follow-up
messages
and
the
email
sequences
that
follow.
Correlate
topical
interest
with
level
of
urgency
to
structure
email
sequences
that
align
with
the
information
site
visitors
have
provided
you;
try
immediate
contact
for
high-urgency
form
submissions,
and
emphasize
building
trust
with
authoritative,
topically
relevant
content
over
a
more
extended
sequence
for
“just
learning”
submissions.

Points
To
Remember

There
is
no
one
“right”
number
of
messages
to
include
in
an
email
sequence,
any
more
than
there
is
a
perfect
frequency
at
which
to
send
them.
The
crucial
thing
for
law
firms
to
remember
is
that
messaging
that
speaks
directly
to
the
concerns
and
interests
a
contact
has
already
expressed
will
always
be
in
a
better
position
to
build
trust
and
cement
reputation
than
a
“cookie-cutter”
message
that
could
apply
to
any
member
of
the
general
public.
Structuring
high-quality
email
sequences
that
deliver
high
conversion
rates
and
set
your
law
firm’s
office
phone
ringing
is
often
going
to
be
less
about
the
number
of
emails
and
the
schedule
on
which
you
send
them,
and
more
about
the
understanding
of
prospective
clients’
concerns
that
each
email
in
a
sequence
conveys.
Pay
attention
to
how
your
contacts
are
reaching
you
and
providing
their
information,
and
demonstrate
your
law
firm’s
value
by
responding
with
emails
that
show
topical
knowledge
and
situational
awareness.

---

Annette
Choti,
Esq.
is
the
founder
of Law
Quill,
a
legal
digital
marketing
agency
that
helps
growth-minded
law
firms
increase
their
online
visibility
and
convert
more
clients.
She
is
also
the
author
of
“Click
Magnet:
The
Ultimate
Digital
Marketing
Guide
for
Law
Firms”
and
Click
Magnet
Academy.
Annette
used
to
do
professional
comedy,
which
is
not
so
far
from
the
law
if
we
are
all
being
honest. 

It
was
just
last
month
that
Brett
Kavanaugh
gave
his
explanation
for
why
it
was perfectly
okay
for
Homeland
Security
goons
to
profile
brown
people and
detain
them
based
on
nothing
more
than
the
color
of
their
skin.
While
his
cowardly
colleagues
in
the
majority
on
that
shadow
docket
decision
refused
to
explain
their
thinking,
Kavanaugh
actually
wrote
a
concurrence
that
was
so
out
of
touch
with
reality
as
to
be
embarrassing.
But
at
least
it
was
an
explanation.

The
key
bit
from
him
that
has
stood
out
is
this:

Importantly,
reasonable
suspicion
means
only
that
immigration
officers
may
briefly
stop
the
individual
and
inquire
about
immigration
status. If
the
person
is
a
U.
S.
citizen
or
otherwise
lawfully
in
the
United
States,
that
individual
will
be
free
to
go
after
the
brief
encounter.
Only
if
the
person
is
illegally
in
the
United
States
may
the
stop
lead
to
further
immigration
proceedings.

It’s
this
weird,
privileged,
out-of-touch
statement
that
if
ICE
or
CBP
stop
you
for
being
brown,
they’ll
let
you
go
as
soon
as
you
show
them
that
you’re
an
American
citizen.
Of
course,
we
knew
at
the
time
that
wasn’t
true.
Hell,
there
were
details
that
Kavanaugh
ignored
in
that
very
lawsuit,
which
Justice
Sotomayor
called
out
in
her
dissent.
But
literally
in
this
very
lawsuit
was
the
documentation
of
how
it
wasn’t
so
simple:

To
give
just
one
example, Plaintiff
Jason
Brian
Gavidia
is
a
U.S.
citizen
who
was
born
and
raised
in
East
Los
Angeles and
identifies
as
Latino.
On
the
afternoon
of
June
12,
he
stepped
onto
the
sidewalk
outside
of
a
tow
yard
in
Montebello,
California,
where
he
saw
agents
carrying
handguns
and
military-style
rifles.
One
agent
ordered
him
to
“Stop
right
there”
while
another
“ran
towards
[him].” The
agents
repeatedly
asked
Gavidia
whether
he
is
American—and
they
repeatedly
ignored
his
answer:
“I
am
an
American.” The
agents
asked
Gavidia
what
hospital
he
was
born
in—and
he
explained
that
he
did
not
know
which
hospital.
“The
agents
forcefully
pushed
[Gavidia]
up
against
the
metal
gated
fence,
put
[his]
hands
behind
[his]
back,
and
twisted
[his]
arm.”
An
agent
asked
again,
“What
hospital
were
you
born
in?”
Gavidia
again
explained
that
he
did
not
know
which
hospital
and
said
“East
L.A.” He
then
told
the
agents
he
could
show
them
his
Real
ID.
The
agents
took
Gavidia’s
ID
and
his
phone
and
kept
his
phone
for
20
minutes.
They
never
returned
his
ID.

Drexel
law
professor Anil
Kalhan
quickly
dubbed these
bullshit
pretextual
stops
of
US
citizens
as
“Kavanaugh
stops”
and
the
name
has
stuck.

While
there
is
an
effort
to challenge
these
further
in
court,
for
now
the
goon
squad
known
as
ICE
is
unleashed
even
more
than
usual.
We
now
know
that there
are
at
least
170
US
citizens who
have
been
held
by
immigration
officials,
and
there
are
probably
even
more
not
yet
accounted
for.

It
feels
like
every
day
we
hear
about
another
few:

https://embed.bsky.app/embed/did:plc:bz3idwc6jcvidvyb476l2cqk/app.bsky.feed.post/3m47aacheo22c?id=44700577306563627&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.techdirt.com%252F2025%252F10%252F29%252Fthe-kavanaugh-stops-legacy-50-days-170-detained-citizens-zero-answers%252F

These
Kavanaugh
stops
are
a
stain
on
the
American
concept
of
civil
liberties
and
due
process,
and
they
should
be
a
stain
on
Brett
Kavanaugh’s
legacy.
Legal
journalist
Chris
Geidner
just
ran
a
piece
on 50
days
of
Kavanaugh
stops,
and
what
a
shameful
moment
this
is
of
American
bigotry.

Geidner
has
directly
submitted
questions
to
Kavanaugh
to
see
how
he
feels
about
all
of
these
Kavanaugh
stops
that
show
his
claim
of
“brief
encounters”
with
law
enforcement
were
bullshit:

I
asked
Justice
Kavanaugh
on
October
14,
“Do
you
have
any
comment
on
the
ICE
stop
of
Maria
Greeley,
a
U.S.
citizen,
who
was
reportedly
stopped,
ziptied,
and
told
she
didn’t
‘look
like’
a
‘Greeley’
despite
being
a
U.S.
citizen?“

On
both
occasions,
I
also
asked
Kavanaugh
whether
he
still
thinks
he
was
correct
when
he
wrote
that
these
stops
are
“typically
brief”
and
that
all
of
this
is
fine
because
“individuals
may
promptly
go
free
after
making
clear
to
the
immigration
officers
that
they
are
U.
S.
citizens
or
otherwise
legally
in
the
United
States.”

Finally,
I
asked
Kavanaugh
if
he
was
aware
of
the
“Kavanaugh
stop”
terminology
and
whether
he
had
any
comment
on
it.

[….]

So,
I
asked
Justice
Kavanaugh
on
October
16,
“Do
you
have
any
comment
on
the
Pro
Publica
report
that
found
‘more
than
50
Americans
who
were
held
after
[immigration]
agents
questioned
their
citizenship’
during
2025.
‘They
were
almost
all
Latino,’
per
the
report.“

In
addition
to
the
other
questions
previously
raised,
I
also
asked
Kavanaugh
whether
“the
possibility
of
after-the-fact
‘excessive
force’
claims”
is
“a
sufficient
answer
to
this
ongoing,
regularly
occurring
problem?”

Did
you
guess
what
happened?
Of
course
you
did!

I
have
not
received
a
response
from
him
or
his
chambers.

You
can
already
see
the
horrific
legacy
that
is
forming
around
the
concept
of
Kavanaugh
stops.
This
is
a
legacy
that
doesn’t
go
away
easily.
It’s
like the
Dred
Scott
decision,
the Korematsu
decision,
or Buck
v.
Bell.
Supreme
Court
decisions
that
nearly
everyone
now
looks
back
on
in
horror.

These
are
all
horrible,
hateful
decisions
by
out-of-touch
bigots,
who
can’t
even
fathom
a
world
in
which
those
less
fortunate
themselves
even
matter,
and
thus
their
rights
and
dignity
are
barely
given
a
second
thought.

The
Supreme
Court
still
has
a
chance
to
fix
this,
since
Kavanaugh
stops
were
only
defined
by
Justice
Kavanaugh
in
a
shadow
docket
concurrence.
While
those
other
cases
all
took
decades
for
everyone
to
realize
how
fucked
up
they
were,
this
one
we
can
see
in
real
time
what
a
stain
it
is
for
anyone
who
believes
that
America
respects
basic
civil
liberties
like
due
process
and
concepts
like
probable
cause.

But,
for
now
at
least,
that
stain
should
stick
to
Brett
Kavanaugh.
He’s
justified
this.
He’s
insisted
these
kinds
of
stops
are
no
big
deal,
even
as
there
was
evidence
then,
and
even
with
more
mounting
evidence
now,
that
immigration
officials
don’t
give
a
shit
if
you
are
an
American
citizen.
If
you’re
darker
skinned,
they
can
treat
you
like
shit,
lock
you
up,
beat
you
up,
ignore
your
protestations
and
even
evidence
of
American
citizenship.

It
is
a
deep,
dark
stain
on
America
as
a
supposed
land
of
freedom,
and
it
should
be
tied
up
with
Brett
Kavanaugh’s
legacy
forever.

The
Kavanaugh
Stop’s
Legacy:
50
Days,
170+
Detained
Citizens,
Zero
Answers

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Study:
AI
Models
Trained
On
Clickbait
Slop
Result
In
AI
‘Brain
Rot,’
‘Hostility’

As
Social
Media
Restrictions
Spread,
Is
The
Internet
Entering
Its
Victorian
Era?

Trump
FCC
Votes
To
Make
It
Easier
For
Your
Broadband
ISP
To
Rip
You
Off

Halloween
is
always
a
terrific
time
for
members
of
the
legal
community
—
especially
law
students
—
who
are
able
to
celebrate
the
holiday’s
festivities
with
costumes
of
note.
As
usual,
we
want
to
see
your
creativity
in
action.

For
the
sixteenth
year
in
a
row,
we
here
at
Above
the
Law
are
soliciting
legally
themed
costumes
for
our
annual
Halloween
contest.
We’re
continually
impressed
with
how
creative
lawyers
and
law
students
can
be
when
they
take
their
noses
out
of
their
books.

Here
are
some
of
the
winning
looks
from
the
past
few
years
of
the
contest:
the Donald
J.
Trump
College
of
Law (2016), Brett
Kavanaugh’s
calendar
and
his
beer (2018), Ruth
Baby
Ginsburg (2020),
and Warhol’s
Soup
Law (2023).

Please email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
your
pictures
and
then
we’ll
vote
on
the
winner
of
our
annual
competition.
Please
send
us
your
submissions
as
soon
as
you
can.
We’re
all
looking
forward
to
judging
you!

---

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.

Numerous
efforts
have
been
made
at
the
federal
level
to
crack
down
on
the
opaque
business
practices
of
pharmacy
benefit
managers,
from
a

lawsuit
by
the
Federal
Trade
Commission
to

bills
in
Congress.
But
no
definitive
action
has
been
taken
yet.

In
the
absence
of
federal
progress,
states
are
stepping
in
to
fill
the
gap.
Just
recently,
California
Governor
Gavin
Newsom

signed
a
law
(SB
41)
that
will
regulate
PBMs.
It
has
several
provisions,
including
banning
spread
pricing.
This
is
when
a
PBM
charges
a
health
plan
more
for
a
drug
than
it
pays
the
pharmacy
and
keeps
the
difference
as
profit. 

“I
am
pleased
to
sign
SB
41,
a
bill
that
will
lower
health
care
costs
for
all
Californians.
This
bill
…
represents
the
most
aggressive
effort
in
the
country
to
lower
prescription
drug
costs.
California
continues
to
lead
the
way
in
lowering
costs,
increasing
transparency,
and
ensuring
that
the
savings
are
passed
on
to
payers
and
consumers,”
Newsom
said
in
a
statement.

PBMs
have
come
under
a
lot
of
scrutiny
recently
due
to
their
vertical
integration
with
insurers
and
practices
that
inflate
drug
prices.
The
top
three
PBMs
—
CVS
Caremark,
Cigna’s
Express
Scripts
and
UnitedHealth
Group’s
Optum
Rx
—
control
about
80%
of
the
prescription
drug
market.

Recently,
Arkansas
passed
a
law
that
would

ban
PBMs
from
owning
pharmacies.
Although
advocates
applauded
this
law,
a
federal
judge

blocked
it
from
being
enacted,
arguing
that
it
violates
the
Commerce
Clause.
This
says
that
states
cannot
pass
laws
that
unfairly
hurt
or
discriminate
against
businesses
from
other
states.
Arkansas
has
appealed
this
decision,
and
some
advocates
are
still
hopeful
the
law
will
stand.

Several

other
states
have
also
taken
steps
to
rein
in
PBMs.

• Massachusetts
  enacted
  a
  law
  in
  January
  that
  requires
  PBMs
  to
  submit
  detailed
  rebate
  and
  pricing
  data
  and
  obtain
  a
  state
  license.
• Missouri
  passed
  a
  law
  in
  March
  that
  bans
  PBMs
  and
  insurers
  from
  refusing
  to
  pay
  providers
  for
  physician-administered
  drugs
  and
  requires
  fair
  reimbursement
  based
  on
  contractually-specified
  rates.
• North
  Dakota
  amended
  a
  law
  in
  March
  that
  requires
  PBMs
  to
  receive
  a
  license
  from
  the
  state
  commissioner’s
  office
  instead
  of
  a
  certificate
  of
  authority.
• Utah
  enacted
  a
  law
  in
  March
  that
  requires
  PBMs
  to
  offer
  plan
  designs
  that
  pass
  manufacturer
  rebates
  directly
  to
  enrollees
  and
  bans
  spread
  pricing.

While
states
are
moving
prescription
drug
pricing
reform
along,
at
least
one
expert
still
hopes
to
see
federal
support.

“We’re
seeing
plans
do
their
own
thing.
We’re
seeing
a
lot
of
disruptive
PBMs
out
in
the
market.
We’re
slowly
seeing
the
states
taking
actions.
It
would
really
be
great
to
see
the
federal
government
advocating
for
this
as
well,”
declared
Kathy
Chang,
head
of
trade
relations
at
Blue
Shield
of
California,
a
nonprofit
health
insurance
company
covering
about
6
million
Californians. 

The
California
law

The
new
PBM
law
in
California
has
several
key
provisions. 

• It
  bans
  spread
  pricing.
• It
  ensures
  all
  rebates
  being
  negotiated
  with
  the
  manufacturer
  are
  passed
  on
  to
  the
  patient.
• It
  requires
  PBMs
  to
  be
  licensed
  by
  the
  Department
  of
  Managed
  Health
  Care.
• It
  prohibits
  PBMs
  from
  steering
  patients
  to
  their
  own
  pharmacies
  and
  away
  from
  non-affiliated
  pharmacies.
• It
  requires
  a
  pass-through
  pricing
  model,
  in
  which
  PBMs
  can
  only
  be
  paid
  a
  clear,
  flat
  fee
  for
  their
  services
  —
  not
  a
  fee
  that
  changes
  based
  on
  the
  list
  price
  of
  drugs
  or
  rebates.

“If
you
break
it
down
in
plain
and
simple
English,
it
really
ends
the
hidden
fees
and
ensures
that
everybody
in
the
state
of
California
is
able
to
see
the
fair
and
true
price
at
the
pharmacy
counter
so
they
can
make
informed
decisions
on
what
is
best
for
their
health,
but
most
importantly,
their
wallet,”
Chang
said.
“It’s
a
huge
step
in
reforming
PBM
practice,
and
it
brings
a
genuine
price
transparency
to
the
system
that
really
was
not
available
for
quite
some
time.”

The
National
Community
Pharmacists
Association
(NCPA)
is
in
favor
of
several
of
the
provisions.
This
includes
requiring
PBMs
to
be
licensed
by
the
Department
of
Managed
Health
Care
(which
brings
more
state
oversight)
and
preventing
PBMs
from
steering
patients
to
their
own
pharmacies
versus
non-affiliated
independent
pharmacies.

A
recent

report
by
the
FTC
found
that
the
big
three
PBMs
are
directing
patients
to
their
affiliated
pharmacies
over
independent
pharmacies.
For
example,
CVS
Caremark
may
steer
patients
to
a
local
CVS
pharmacy.

NCPA’s
director
of
state
government
affairs,
Joel
Kurzman,
said
California’s
law
is
a
“great
first
start”
and
will
have
a
“meaningful
impact.”
However,
there
is
additional
reform
the
organization
hopes
to
see,
including
requiring
PBMs
to
reimburse
pharmacies
in
the
commercial
market
at
the
rate
of
National
Average
Drug
Acquisition
Cost
plus
a
professional
dispensing
fee.
This
was
initially
included
at
some
point
in
the
legislative
process,
but
was
eventually
removed
from
SB
41.

Unsurprisingly,
a
lobbying
group
for
PBMs
came
out
against
California’s
law.

“It
is
a
failure
of
the
Newsom
administration
to
fall
for
Big
Pharma’s
ploy
to
blame
their
high
list
prices
on
others
and
to
undermine
the
very
mechanisms
that
actually
lower
prescription
drug
costs,”
the
Pharmaceutical
Care
Management
Association
said
in
a
statement.
“Nothing
in
SB
41
will
lower
drug
costs
for
Californians.
In
fact,
the
legislation
will
increase
drug
costs
for
everyone
in
California.”

Federal
action
needed

When
asked
what
she
hopes
Congress
and
other
states
take
away
from
California’s
new
law,
Chang
pointed
to
the
need
for
broader
drug
pricing
reform.
State
and
federal
policy
is
necessary
to
make
a
difference
in
this
space,
but
health
plans
can
also
take
action,
she
said.
In
January,
Blue
Shield
of
California
launched
its
new

pharmacy
management
model,
in
which
it
teamed
up
with
five
different
companies
—
Amazon
Pharmacy,
Cost
Plus
Drugs,
Abarca,
Prime
Therapeutics
and
CVS
Caremark
—
for
its
prescription
drug
benefit.
Previously,
CVS
Caremark
was
its
sole
pharmacy
benefit
manager.

An
executive
at
a
health
tech
company
focused
on
prescription
drugs
also
argued
that
national
reform
is
needed.

“We’ll
see
more
states
experiment,
…
but
drug
pricing
crosses
state
lines
—
so
long-term
stability
will
require
federal
harmonization.
The
focus
should
be
consistency,
not
50
different
definitions
of
transparency.
We
also
need
to
move
from
static
regulation
to
dynamic
pricing
transparency
—
using
AI-driven
platforms
that
route
prescriptions
based
on
cost
and
coverage
in
real
time,”
said
Jeff
Park,
president
of
Waltz
Health.

In
the
meantime,
Congress
and
other
states
have
something
to
learn
from
California’s
law,
Kurzman
said.
This
law
took
about
two
years
to
come
through
and
went
through
several
iterations.

“I
like
to
think
that
everyone
everywhere
can
appreciate
the
resilience
that
was
shown
in
California.
…
The
message,
I
think,
can
be
of
resilience,
that
you
can
get
back
up
and
restrategize,
rework,
keep
the
conversations
going,
keep
educating,
and
you
can
eventually
progress,”
he
said.

Photo:
megaflopp,
Getty
Images

*
Judge
Nichols
heaps
praise
on
DOJ
lawyers
suspended
for

acknowledging
the
January
6
riot.
[Reuters]

*
Next
big
executive
power
showdown?
National
monuments.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Government
tells
Supreme
Court
that
overturning
tariffs
would
jeopardize
all
the
trade
deals
they
wouldn’t
need
it
they
didn’t
have
tariffs.
[Law360]

*
Clients
turning
to
firms
for
AI
training.
No
way
this
ends
in
disaster.
[Legaltech
News]

*
The
only
entity
that
tried
to
steal
an
election
in
2024
was
the
North
Carolina
Supreme
Court.
This
article
gets
at
the
root
cause
of
that
rot.
[ProPublica]

*
We’re
yet
again
debating
the
dumbest
policy
question
ever:
permanent
daylight
saving.
[The
Hill]

*
Happy
Halloween…
with
some
classic
lawyer
jokes.
[Banzhaf]