*
Federal
judges
blame
Supreme
Court’s
shadow
docket
reversals
with
no
explanation
for
undermining
the
lower
courts
and
fostering
false
sense
of
bias,
fueling
sometimes
violent
attacks
against
the
judiciary.
Apparently
the
Chief
Justice’s
strategy
of
responding
to
critics
with
“shut
up
and
let
us
rule
you
like
gods”
hasn’t
really
gained
traction.
[NBC
News]
*
State
letting
students
become
take
on
criminal
defense
cases
after
only
one
year
of
law
school.
[Arizona
Capital
Times]
*
Livestreams
of
one
judge’s
courtroom
become
viral
sensation.
[ABA
Journal]
*
Jury
slaps
Google
with
$425
million
in
damages
over
unauthorized
data
collection.
[Law360]
*
Lobbyist
calls
Biglaw
surrender
deals
“smart”
because
“it’s
better
to
be
someone
who
can
work
with
the
government
than
someone
who
just
says
screw
you,”
which
is
the
precise
definition
of
the
swamp
that
was
supposed
to
be
drained.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Texas
brings
back
the
abortion
vigilante
law,
this
time
aimed
at
pills.
[Reuters]
*
Former
GC
says
she
was
fired
in
retaliation
for
reporting
sexual
assaults
and
antitrust
violations.
[Corporate
Counsel]
They’ve
Announced
Bonuses!:
Where
the
hell
is
everyone
else’s
announcements?
Former
Partner
Pleads
No
Contest
To
Domestic
Abuse
Charges:
Adam
P.
Beckerink
will
be
sentenced
on
October
20th.
Cardi
B
Wins
In
Court:
Let
that
be
a
lesson
to
anyone
else
that
sees
her
as
a
quick
come
up.
Unexpected
Law
School
Fauna:
Roaches
hit
University
of
Kentucky
College
of
Law.
The
Ring
Won’t
Be
The
Only
Big
Cost
Toward
The
Marriage:
Here’s
your
Taylor-Kelce
crash
course
on
the
marriage
penalty!
This
Term,
the
Supreme
Court
appears
poised
to
overturn
what’s
left
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act
in
a
dispute
over
which
state’s
congressional
districts?
Hint:
SCOTUS
heard
arguments
in
the
case
last
Term,
but
scheduled
it
for
a
rehearing,
specifically
asking
the
parties
in
brief
whether
Section
2
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act
is
unconstitutional
in
a
Constitution
that
requires
colorblindness.
Two
years
ago,
I
was
tired.
I
was
burned
out.
I
was
disillusioned
with
the
civil
litigation
system.
Those
of
you
who
are
longtime
readers
might
recall
that
I
also
no
longer
had
much
use
for
a
large
paycheck.
So
I
sent
out
a
bevy
of
applications
for
low-paying
positions
at
National
Parks
and
historic
sites
throughout
the
country.
I
figured
I
could
learn
something
different,
hopefully
make
a
few
new
friends,
and
not
hate
85%
of
the
people
I
encountered
every
day
(including
myself)
as
was
the
case
when
I
was
working
at
a
Biglaw
firm.
The
first
to
get
back
to
me
and
extend
a
job
offer
was
the
Charles
Lindbergh
House
and
Museum
(sorry
Crater
Lake,
couple
weeks
too
late,
maybe
another
time).
I
had
just
finished
reading
A.
Scott
Berg’s
Pulitzer
Prize-winning
Lindbergh
biography,
and
had
become
fascinated
with
the
groundbreaking
aviator.
In
case
you
need
a
little
history
refresher,
Charles
Lindbergh
was
the
first
person
to
fly
solo
nonstop
across
the
Atlantic.
This
was
a
big
deal
in
1927.
When
he
took
off
from
Roosevelt
Field
in
New
York,
this
confident
young
flyer
was
unknown
to
the
broader
world.
When
he
landed
33
1/2
hours
later
at
Le
Bourget
Aerodrome
outside
of
Paris,
he
was
the
most
famous
man
alive.
Others
weren’t
so
lucky
(or
so
skilled).
Half
a
dozen
men
were
killed
at
various
stages
in
their
attempts
to
complete
the
New
York
to
Paris
route
before
Lindbergh
succeeded.
He
had
courage.
Lindbergh
overcame
tragedy,
like
when
his
first
son
was
kidnapped
and
murdered
in
1934.
He
tried
to
help
people,
working
for
years
on
a
lifesaving
medical
device
and
passionately
advocating
for
environmental
causes.
He
always
found
ways
to
serve
his
country,
even
when
figures
as
powerful
as
Franklin
Delano
Roosevelt
stood
in
his
way.
Of
course,
FDR
only
felt
like
he
had
to
stand
in
Lindbergh’s
way
because
the
man
could
be
a
monster.
In
1938,
German
shitbird
Hermann
Göring
awarded
Lindbergh
a
medal
that
he
refused
to
return
even
after
the
depths
of
Nazi
depravity
became
apparent.
Lindbergh
was
always
too
close
to
fascism,
one
of
the
original
America
Firsters,
someone
who
unashamedly
referenced
the
“Jewish
problem.”
He
even
got
some
skin
in
the
eugenics
game
by
fathering
children
with
three
German
women,
unbeknownst
to
his
lovely
wife,
Anne.
Lindbergh
was
a
hero
and
a
villain.
He
was
good
and
evil.
Like
all
of
us,
only
on
a
grander
scale.
The
lessons
of
this
man’s
life
could
not
be
more
relevant
to
the
national
mess
we
now
find
ourselves
in,
and
I
got
to
help
explain
them
to
thousands
of
eager
visitors
to
the
Charles
Lindbergh
House
and
Museum.
We
made
sure
people
had
fun,
but
we
didn’t
ever
shy
away
from
the
controversial
aspects
of
Lindbergh’s
—
and
in
turn,
our
nation’s
—
past
either.
What’s
more
fun
than
swastika
medals
and
secret
German
mistresses
anyhow?
The
best
part:
my
coworkers.
Instead
of
courtrooms
filled
with
hatred,
I
had
an
oak
forest,
a
museum,
and
a
historic
home
filled
with
people
I
came
to
care
a
great
deal
about.
As
a
lawyer,
I
am
frequently
underwhelmed
with
the
quality
of
my
compatriots.
As
a
part-time
historian,
I
was
constantly
overwhelmed
with
pride
in
the
team
I
was
a
part
of.
If
you
want
proof
of
my
coworkers’
brilliance,
go
ahead
and
read
some
of
it
yourself.
As
of
the
end
of
August,
it’s
all
gone.
The
Charles
Lindbergh
House
and
Museum
has
been
permanently
shuttered,
the
staff
laid
off.
Just
not
in
the
budget
for
the
statewide
historical
society
that
ran
it,
we
were
told,
by
one
of
the
useless
executives
whose
six-figure
salary
could
have
easily
been
sacrificed
instead.
Charles
Lindbergh’s
former
home
will
gradually
rot
away,
the
rich
history
that
once
sprang
to
life
there
silenced.
People
will
start
to
forget
the
bravery
of
a
farm
boy
who
dreamed
of
crossing
oceans.
They
won’t
remember
how
he
was
seduced
by
antisemitism
and
America
First
nonsense.
People
won’t
be
inspired
to
take
bold
risks
of
their
own;
they
won’t
be
on
their
guard
about
making
the
same
mistakes
Lindbergh
did.
My
friends,
whose
every
movement,
every
word,
every
facial
expression
had
been
imbued
with
such
meaning
as
they
educated
and
enchanted
the
public,
will
have
nowhere
to
go
with
their
extensive
Lindbergh
knowledge.
It’s
now
locked
away
inside
them,
to
struggle
with,
alone.
It’s
not
the
end
of
the
world.
But
it’s
the
end
of
a
little
world
that
I
loved.
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].
It
is
impossible
to
know
if
this
pace
will
continue
in
the
second
half
of
the
year,
but
if
it
does,
then
2025
will
be
the
fourth
year
in
a
row
that
U.S.
law
firm
leasing
sets
an
annual
record.
—
an
excerpt
from
Cushman
&
Wakefield
Legal
Sector
Advisory
Group’s
Legal
Sector
Q2
Leasing
Trends
report,
which
revealed
that
law
firm
leasing
activity
saw
the
“strongest
start
to
a
year
on
record”
after
reaching
10
million
square
feet
during
the
first
half
of
2025.
David
Smith,
head
of
Americas
insights
at
Cushman
&
Wakefield’s
Global
Think
Tank,
went
on
to
say
that
“[t]he
momentum
continues
for
law
firms,”
with
firms
being
“very
office-centric”
thanks
to
new
attendance
mandates
that
place
lawyers
in
the
office
three-to-four
days
each
week.
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.
Leading
a
corporate
legal
team
today
is
equal
parts
challenge
and
opportunity.
Budgets
are
tighter,
regulations
are
multiplying,
and
business
partners
expect
answers
at
the
speed
of
Slack.
At
the
same
time,
the
toolbox
has
never
been
richer:
advanced
technology,
smarter
pricing
models,
and
a
new
generation
of
legal
operations
expertise.
The
real
question
for
legal
leadership
is
not
whether
to
modernize.
It
is
where
to
focus
first.
In
our
work
with
legal
departments
across
various
industries,
we
observe
a
consistent
pattern:
The
most
effective
leadership
teams
do
not
attempt
to
change
everything
at
once.
They
concentrate
on
a
handful
of
levers
that
deliver
outsized
results
and
reposition
Legal
from
a
reactive
support
function
to
a
proactive
business
driver.
The
Pricing
Lever:
Stop
Paying
for
Hours,
Start
Paying
for
Value
The
billable
hour
is
a
model
that
rewards
inefficiency.
Leadership
teams
that
adopt
value-based
pricing
(fixed
fees,
tiered
models,
outcome-based
pricing)
report
20
to
50
percent
savings
and
far
greater
predictability.
Just
as
important,
they
shift
relationships
with
law
firms
from
transactional
to
collaborative.
At
one
large
technology
company,
moving
more
than
half
of
their
outside
counsel
matters
to
fixed-fee
arrangements
eliminated
invoice
reviews
entirely
and
gave
their
GC
better
visibility
into
budget
forecasts.
Leadership
takeaway: Your
budget
should
purchase
results,
not
hours.
The
Automation
Lever:
Free
Lawyers
from
Low-Value
Work
Many
lawyers
spend
far
too
much
time
fielding
repetitive
requests.
The
smarter
move
is
workflow
automation
and
self-service.
Intake
portals,
contract
tools,
and
AI-powered
FAQs
can
reclaim
thousands
of
hours
each
year.
At
one
global
insurer,
an
AI
chatbot
now
handles
routine
entity
questions
and
has
freed
up
500
lawyer
hours
in
a
single
year.
Another
client
cut
email
traffic
in
half
by
routing
NDA
requests
through
a
simple
intake
form
in
Microsoft
365.
Leadership
takeaway: If
your
lawyers
are
still
answering
“Who
can
sign
an
NDA?”
today,
you
are
leaving
value
on
the
table.
The
Data
Lever:
Manage
Firms
with
Metrics,
Not
Gut
Vendor
management
used
to
mean
negotiating
rates.
Today
it
means
data.
Matter
tracking,
performance
scorecards,
and
spend
dashboards
allow
leaders
to
right-size
panels,
demand
accountability,
and
build
healthier
partnerships.
A
semiconductor
company
reduced
its
patent
counsel
panel
from
18
firms
to
four
and
trimmed
10
percent
of
its
spend
by
tying
assignments
to
performance
data.
The
firms
that
remained
are
now
more
engaged
and
better
aligned
with
client
expectations.
Leadership
takeaway: If
you
can’t
measure
it,
you
can’t
manage
it.
That
includes
your
law
firms.
The
Alignment
Lever:
Drive
the
Business
While
Protecting
the
Enterprise
Modern
legal
leadership
is
about
more
than
managing
risk.
It
is
about
accelerating
business
without
compromising
safety.
Streamlined
contracting
can
increase
deal
velocity,
but
only
if
it
is
paired
with
policies,
playbooks,
and
governance
frameworks
that
keep
the
enterprise
protected.
One
healthcare
client
reduced
deal
cycle
time
by
25
percent
while
keeping
compliance
risk
flat.
They
succeeded
by
combining
automation
with
clear
approval
thresholds
and
a
risk
triage
process.
That
balance
is
alignment
in
action.
Leadership
takeaway: Success
is
measured
by
both
speed
and
guardrails.
Nail
that
balance,
and
Legal
earns
its
seat
as
a
strategic
partner.
The
AI
Lever:
Think
Pilot,
Not
Panacea
Generative
AI
is
everywhere,
but
the
strongest
legal
teams
resist
the
hype.
They
start
small,
pilot
AI
in
contained
areas
such
as
contract
review
or
FAQs,
measure
results,
and
expand
carefully.
Done
right,
AI
becomes
a
force
multiplier
instead
of
a
distraction.
One
financial
services
company
launched
a
16-user
AI
pilot
that
delivered
a
multimillion-dollar
ROI
in
its
first
year.
The
lesson
was
simple:
small,
targeted
experiments
can
build
the
case
for
larger
adoption
while
managing
risk.
Leadership
takeaway: Do
not
wait
for
a
perfect
AI
roadmap.
Begin
with
one
practical,
measurable
use
case.
Legal
leadership
today
is
not
about
doing
everything
at
once.
It
is
about
building
the
readiness
to
pull
the
right
lever
at
the
right
moment.
Some
teams
may
start
by
focusing
on
pricing
to
achieve
budget
predictability.
Others
may
begin
with
automation
to
relieve
overworked
lawyers.
Still
others
may
prioritize
alignment,
tightening
the
link
between
legal
strategy
and
business
objectives.
What
matters
most
is
not
the
order,
but
the
preparation.
Leadership
teams
that
invest
in
readiness,
with
clarity
of
goals,
alignment
on
priorities,
and
an
openness
to
change,
are
the
ones
that
turn
levers
into
lasting
results.
Stephanie
Corey is
the
co-founder
and
CEO
of
UpLevel
Ops.
She
also
serves
as
the
Global
Chair
of LINK
x
L
Suite—a
premier
community
of
General
Counsel
and
Legal
Operations
leaders
united
to
transform
the
legal
industry
through
collaboration,
innovation,
and
strategic
insight. Stephanie co-founded LINK
(Legal
Innovators
Network),
a
legal
ops
organization
exclusively
for
experienced
in-house
professionals,
and
previously
founded
the Corporate
Legal
Operations
Consortium
(CLOC),
where
she
served
as
an
executive
board
member.
She
is
a
recognized
leader
in
legal
operations
and
a
frequent
advisor
to
corporate
legal
departments
on
scaling
operational
excellence. Please
feel
free
to connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
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.
The
Department
of
Justice
is
having
a
rough
time
getting
those
trumped
up
charges
(pun
intended)
from
the
fed’s
takeover
of
D.C.
to
stick.
Plus,
a
lawyer
is
getting
slammed
for
trying
to
use
opposing
counsel’s
premature
baby
as
leverage.
And
infamous
law
professor
Amy
Wax
has
her
legal
case
against
University
of
Pennsylvania
thrown
out
of
court,
but
it’s
unlikely to
be
the
end
of
her
antics.
Thanks
to
Biglaw’s
bountiful
compensation,
the
legal
profession
has
long
been
known
for
its
flashy
salaries,
but
even
with
their
generous
paychecks,
some
associates
are
living much larger
than
others
—
and
it’s
all
because
of
where
they
live.
The
National
Jurist
recently
decided
to
dig
into
the
data
to
determine
which
cities,
when
adjusted
for
cost
of
living,
“strike
the
right
balance
between
compensation
and
affordability”
for
law
school
graduates.
Here’s
their
methodology:
To
identify
the
top
cities
for
law
firm
jobs,
we
used
mean
salary
data
from
the
National
Association
for
Law
Placement’s
Class
of
2023
report
and
adjusted
it
for
cost-of-living
differences
across
the
country.
So,
which
cities
are
the
best
for
law
firm
associates
based
on
this
calculation?
Where
can
they
get
the
best
combination
of
high
compensation
with
a
low
cost
of
living?
Without
further
ado,
these
are
the
10
cities
where
associates
can
stretch
their
salaries
the
furthest
(adjusted
salaries
noted):
And
what
about
the
worst
cities
for
associates
in
terms
of
making
their
money
work
for
them?
Here’s
more
from
the
National
Jurist:
The
best
cities
for
new
grads
aren’t
always
the
flashiest
—
they’re
places
where
salaries
stretch
further,
debt
becomes
more
manageable,
and
young
lawyers
can
build
careers
without
sacrificing
lifestyle.
It
may
be
time
for
lawyers
to
say
sayonara
to
big
East
and
West
Coast
cities
and
move
to
Texas
to
truly
enjoy
their
salaries.
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.
Amy
Coney
Barrett
has
written
a
book.
She’s
the
latest
in
a
long
line
of
Supreme
Court
justices
supplementing
their
public
service
salary
with
millions
of
dollars
—
reportedly
a
$2
million
advance
worth,
to
be
precise
—
despite
her
meager
record
as
a
milquetoast
functionary
for
a
reactionary
project
that
she
doesn’t
seem
to
understand.
And
that
seems
to
be
the
identity
Barrett
wants
to
cultivate.
Diving
into
a
copy
of
the
manuscript,
CNN’s
Joan
Biskupic
pulls
out
a
series
of
passages
where
Barrett
tries
to
drape
herself
in
the
role
of
a
powerless
cog
in
the
judicial
process.
Whether
she’s
being
honest
with
herself
or
this
is
just
a
bit
is
up
for
debate,
but
the
memoir
sections
reveal
Barrett
is
certainly
not
the
proto-David
Souter
that
liberals
imagined
her
to
be
over
the
summer.
Take,
for
instance,
her
thoughts
on
Dobbs,
the
case
that
put
her
on
the
Court
to
the
extent
she’s
only
there
because
Republicans
wanted
a
woman
to
replace
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
when
the
time
came
to
strike
down
Roe:
Barrett
writes
that
the
“complicated
moral
debate”
about
abortion
distinguishes
it
from
other
rights
more
traditionally
recognized
as
fundamental
that
enjoy
broad
public
support,
including
“the
rights
to
marry,
have
sex,
procreate,
use
contraception.”
Who
wants
to
break
the
news
to
her
about
the
nation’s
traditional
“broad
public
support”
for
the
right
to
marry
and
use
contraceptives?
We
don’t
know
from
the
snippets
in
the
CNN
story
if
Barrett
goes
on
to
provide
any
evidence
for
this
claim,
but
based
on
her
record
writing
opinions,
we’ll
safely
assume
she
does
not.
If
she
did,
she
would
have
to
deal
with
the
fact
that
abortion
was
MORE
BROADLY
POPULAR
when
she
voted
to
strike
it
down
(62%-36%
approval)
than
interracial
marriage
was
in
1967.
A
mere
5%
of
whites
TOTAL
supported
interracial
marriage
in
the
decade
before
the
Loving
decision.
In
fact,
interracial
marriage
didn’t
enjoy
majority
support
in
the
United
States
until
the
LATE
1990s.
Of
course,
Barrett
doesn’t
really
care
about
a
constitutional
right
being
“deeply
rooted
in
US
history.”
That’s
all
puffery
from
an
intellectually
bankrupt
movement.
If
“the
rights
to
marry,
have
sex,
procreate,
use
contraception”
remain
constitutionally
protected,
it
will
be
because
they’re
convenient
for
her
personal
political
mission…
for
now.
There’s
no
coherent
argument
for
upholding
these
rights
if
she
honestly
believes
that
constitutional
rights
are
truly
contingent
upon
popular
support.
When
Alito
strikes
down
Roe
and
make
asides
about
coming
for
marriage
equality
next,
it’s
at
least
honest.
So
what’s
Barrett
even
trying
to
accomplish
with
this
passage?
Everyone
who
has
ever
interacted
with
a
Federalist
Society
chapter
knows
exactly
what
she’s
going
for.
Every
Federalist
Society
happy
hour
has
at
least
one
student
who
gets
off
on
telling
people
that
they
aren’t
really
in
favor
of
mass
suffering,
they
just
care
so
much
about
judicial
restraint.
They’ll
take
every
opportunity
to
sigh
about
“hard
cases”
and
claim
their
“personal
sympathies”
lie
elsewhere,
and
then
cast
the
deciding
vote
to
crush
people
anyway.
As
though
it’s
the
height
of
nobility
to
gloss
over
cruelty
with
bargain
brand
stoicism.
Apparently,
Barrett
wants
to
cast
herself
in
this
lazy,
tired
role
as
the
reluctant
executioner.
These
are
the
kids
who
go
out
of
their
way
to
separate
themselves
from
the
Alito
trolls
planning
“Upside
Down
Flag
Day”
(catered
by
Chick-fil-a),
hoping
to
convince
the
rest
of
the
class
that
—
deep
down
—
they
care
about
women’s
rights
too,
it’s
just
that
the
courts
aren’t
the
proper
vehicle
to
protect
them.
Maybe,
if
the
rest
of
the
students
are
gullible
enough
to
buy
that,
the
reluctant
conservative
can
still
go
to
all
the
parties!
It’s
legal
philosophy
as
self-flagellation
cosplay.
It’s
all
bullshit
of
course.
If
these
people
sincerely
believed
that
they’re
just
against
involving
the
courts
in
an
issue
properly
left
to
Congress,
they’d
go
home
and
vote
for
Bernie
Sanders
or
something.
But
they
don’t.
They
strike
down
voting
rights
and
turn
around
to
vote
for
legislators
pushing
voter
suppression
laws.
It’s
all
a
con.
After
the Dobbs ruling
was issued
in
June
2022 and
Barrett
was
on
a
family
vacation,
a
brother-in-law
arrived
with
a
copy
of
the
decision,
saying
he
was
following
the
justice’s
mantra
to
“read
the
opinion.”
“Dobbs
did
not
top
the
list
of
things
I
wanted
to
talk
about
on
vacation,”
Barrett
writes,
referring
to
court
tensions
on
the
case,
an
investigation
over
a
leaked
draft,
security
threats,
and
protests
at
her
house.
Still,
she
says,
she
hugged
him.
Oh
no!
I’m
sure
Chief
Justice
Warren
always
dreaded
having
to
explain
the
“tough
choices”
involved
in
all
those
civil
rights
cases.
Justices
actually
love
talking
about
this
stuff,
especially
if
they
can
cast
themselves
as
the
heroes
of
their
own
fight
for
justice.
Sam
Alito
and
Clarence
Thomas
plan
whole
vacations
to
talk
about
their
opinions
with
the
highest
bidders!
In
preparing
a
memoir,
it’s
not
just
what
the
author
writes,
but
also
what
stories
they
choose
to
include
in
the
book.
This
anecdote
about
her
brother-in-law
doesn’t
add
much,
but
she
felt
compelled
to
include
it
to
demonstrate…
what?
That
she
is
–
at
least
occasionally
–
self-aware
enough
that
she’s
making
up
indefensible
bullshit
that
she
squirms
when
talking
to
her
own
family
about
what
she’s
doing
to
the
country?
On
the
subject
of
conveying
meaning
through
editorial
choices,
one
thing
I’ve
always
appreciated
about
Joan
Biskupic’s
writing
is
how
she
can
deliver
very
pointed
criticism
even
within
CNN’s
stricter
journalistic
guidelines.
She
can’t
point
out
—
like
some
outlets
can
—
that
Barrett’s
infamous
“read
the
opinion”
remark
is
condescending
nonsense
that
even
the
justice
can’t
possibly
believe.
But
Biskupic
can
juxtapose
the
brother-in-law
story
by
immediately
cutting
to
a
reminder
that
Barrett
is
neck
deep
in
the
Supreme
Court’s
shadow
docket
shenanigans.
“As
long
as
litigants
continue
filing
emergency
applications,
the
Court
must
continue
deciding
them,”
Barrett
writes,
minimizing
the
justices’
control
of
the
situation.
Except
one
way
—
indeed,
the
proper
way
based
on
hundreds
of
years
of
Anglo-American
jurisprudence
—
is
to
resolve
the
petitions
by
maintaining
the
status
quo
in
advance
of
trial.
The
Supreme
Court
could
respond
to
emergency
petitions
seeking
a
stay
on
arbitrarily
and
capriciously
blowing
up
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
worth
of
government
research,
setting
back
projects
that
could
take
years
to
fully
restaff,
by…
granting
the
stay.
Instead,
and
without
explanation,
the
majority
has
greenlit
the
administration’s
violations
of
decades
worth
of
administrative
law
while
Barrett
shrugs
and
declared
“what
else
could
we
do?”
Though,
in
Barrett’s
defense,
maybe
she’s
better
off
not
explaining
her
opinions.
She
recently
attempted
to
counter
a
Justice
Jackson
dissent,
resulting
in
a
pouting
concurrence
that
would’ve
failed
1L
legal
writing
at
every
law
school
in
the
land.
“We
will
not
dwell
on
Justice
Jackson’s
argument…”
she
wrote
before
a
conclusory
and
unsupported
claim
of
“nuh
uh”
in
legalese.
As
a
rhetorical
strategy,
“we
will
not
dwell”
simultaneously
poisons
the
well
and
preemptively
lowers
expectations
for
her
own
attempted
response.
A
more
direct
translation
was
“I
cannot
defend
the
majority’s
opinion
so
don’t
expect
to
see
any
supporting
evidence
here,
but,
like,
seriously,
Jackson’s
crazy
and
I
refuse
to
dignify
her
arguments
with
a
response.”
But
it
was
reluctant
executioner
rearing
her
head
again,
as
the
crux
of
her
lament
was
that
Jackson
suggested
courts
have
the
power
to
protect
rights
—
and
courts
simply
aren’t
the
right
actor
to
do
anything.
At
least
until
there’s
a
Democratic
president.
But
for
now,
Barrett
has
a
brand
to
sell
and
that
brand
is
FedSoc’s
sad
Hamlet:
reluctant,
powerless,
oh-so-burdened.
She
wants
you
to
know
that
she’s
not
a
troll
taking
aim
at
every
key
precedent
of
the
last
70
years
from
Griswold
to
Brown
—
she’s
going
to
do
it
anyway,
but
she
wants
you
to
know
she’ll
feel
really
bad
about
it.
She’s
just
the
handmaiden
of
cruelty.
But
she’s
not
reluctant.
She’s
not
helpless.
She’s
just
as
much
of
a
troll,
but
she
still
wants
to
be
invited
to
your
party.
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 or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
If
a
law
school
had
to
descend
into
a
Kafkaesque
experience,
you’d
expect
The
Trial
or
Before
the
Law,
not
Metamorphosis.
In
the
grand
tradition
of
American
legal
education,
where
asbestos
and
lead
paint
commingle
with
pizza
parties
and
regret,
the
University
of
Kentucky
College
of
Law
has
introduced
fresh
nightmare
fuel
for
law
students:
cockroach
infestation!
Not
metaphorical
roaches
like
the
Federalist
Society
kids,
but
the
actual
six-legged,
antennae-wiggling
variety
staging
their
own
moot
court
inside
the
walls.
According
to
a
memo
from
the
Senior
Assistant
Dean
of
Community
Engagement
(and
pest
control
czar,
apparently),
the
bugs
have
returned
to,
or
even
exceeded
“historical
levels.”
This
likely
won’t
make
it
into
next
year’s
recruiting
brochure.
This
isn’t
some
isolated
incident
of
a
stray
critter
scuttling
across
the
floor.
We’re
talking
so
many
bugs
that
the
school
had
to
set
up
a
roach
log,
adding
a
bureaucratic
dimension
to
the
terror.
The
goal
of
this
insect
surveillance
state
is
to
keep
Orkin
apprised
of
the
incursion
as
it
slowly
overwhelms
the
humans
in
this
slow
motion
Starship
Troopers.
We
were
initially
able
to
call
in
every
sighting
to
request
Orkin,
UK’s
pest
control
contractor,
to
respond.
Orkin
was
responding
several
times
a
week,
sometimes
daily,
for
us.
Orkin
is
no
longer
to
able
to
come
at
that
frequency…
That’s
the
beginning
of
a
horror
movie.
Thankfully,
the
sentence
concludes
by
explaining
that
Orkin
will
replace
its
monthly
preventative
treatments
with
weekly
visits,
but
for
anyone
following
the
bouncing
ball,
this
memo
certainly
led
the
reader
to
believe
the
venerable
Orkin
Man
had
gone
full
Private
Hudson
screaming
“GAME
OVER,
MAN!
GAME
OVER!”
as
his
truck
slowly
yet
methodically
beeped
in
reverse
out
of
the
parking
lot.
And
let’s
pause
here
to
appreciate
that
the
law
school
foresaw
this.
The
dean’s
email
notes
they
were
“told
to
expect
their
return”
after
the
2019
rebuild,
like
a
Victorian
ghost,
haunting
the
halls
of
Kentucky
ever
since
she
failed
Torts.
As
an
aside,
Kentucky
law
professor
Richard
Underwood
writes
about
Southern
murder
ballads…
so
if
there
is
an
apparition
roaming
the
halls,
he
would
know.
Still,
imagine
cutting
the
ribbon
on
your
shiny
multimillion-dollar
building
and
announcing:
“Yes,
it
comes
with
Wi-Fi,
smartboards,
and
a
prophecy
that
that
the
bugs
shall
rise
again!”
While
the
cockroaches
attempt
to
take
the
building
by
adverse
possession,
students
and
faculty
are
advised
to
vigilantly
populate
the
roach
log.
Or
maybe
that’s
not
the
best
name…
This
log
identifies
the
rooms
and
areas
where
the
roaches,
along
with
any
other
bugs
(e.g.,
ants),
have
been
reported.
