Author: TSA Press

Over
the
years,
Donald
Trump
has
accused
Barrack
Obama
of
many
things.

Trump
accused
Obama
of
not
having
been
born
in
the
United
States
and
thus
not
having
been
eligible
for
the
presidency.

Nonsense,
of
course.

Trump
accused
Obama
of
spying
on
Trump’s
2016
campaign
and
wiretapping
Trump
Tower.

Nonsense,
of
course.

Trump
accused
Obama
of
having
rigged
the
2016
and
2020
presidential
elections.

Nonsense,
of
course.

And
now
Trump’s
accusing
Obama
of
“treason”
and
having
conducted
a
“years-long
coup.”

I’m
sure
this
accusation
is
right. This
is
not
a
distraction
from
the
fact
that
Trump’s
name
appears
repeatedly
in
the
Jeffrey
Epstein
files
and
that
Trump
would
like
America
to
be
talking
about
anything
other
than
Epstein.  

No,
no,
no. Now,
for
the
first
time
in
his
life,
Trump’s
correct: Obama
committed
treason. Trump
would
never
lie
about
that,
and Trump
says that
Obama’s
a
traitor: “He’s
guilty.
It’s
not
a
question.
This
was
treason.
It’s
time
to
go
after
people.”

Hmmm. “Go
after
people.” Going
after
people
for
treason
sure
sounds
like
criminal
prosecutions
to
me.

So
let’s
think
about
what
Trump,
and
others
in
his
administration,
said
repeatedly
about
whether
the
government
could
“go
after”
a
former
president
of
the
United
States
when
the
Supreme
Court
was
considering
the
possibility
of
presidential
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution.

Trump’s
lawyer,
John
Sauer,
now
the
solicitor
general
of
the
United
States, insisted that “Without
presidential
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution,
there
can
be
no
presidency
as
we
know
it.”

Whoa!
Obama
sure
needs
immunity. Without
immunity,
there’d
be
“no
presidency.” That
sounds
mighty
bad.

Before
the
Supreme
Court, Trump
argued that
he
had absolute
immunity
for
all
acts
unless
Trump
had
been
convicted
after
an
impeachment
trial. The
Supreme
Court
rejected
that
absurdity,
characterizing
it
as
endorsing
a
“far
broader
immunity
than
the
limited
one”
the
court
“recognized”
today. 

But
they
accepted
another
of
Trump’s
arguments. According
to the
Supreme
Court:

Trump
argued
that
all
of
the
indictment’s
allegations
fell
within
the
core
of
his
official
duties.
[Citation
omitted.] And
he
contended
that
a
president
has
absolute
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution
for
actions
performed
within
the
outer
perimeter
of
his
official
responsibilities,
to
ensure
that
he
can
undertake
the
especially
sensitive
duties
of
his
office
with
bold
and
unhesitating
action.

Trump
won.

Trump
sure
knew
that
he
had
won. Without
the
Supreme
Court’s
ruling,
he
might
have
faced
a
long
time
in
prison. That’ll
get
your
attention. In
fact,
after
Trump’s
State
of
the
Union
address,
he
made
a
point
of
shaking
Chief
Justice
John Roberts’
hand,
patting
him
on
the
shoulder,
and saying, “Thank
you
again.
Thank
you
again.
Won’t
forget
it.”

“Won’t
forget
it.”

When
it
comes
to
Obama,
Trump
seems
to
have
forgotten
presidential
immunity
pretty
quickly.

Trump
is
again
accusing
Obama
of
misdeeds. Although
all
of
the
other
accusations
were
fiction,
Trump
wants
you
to
believe
that
this
accusation
is
right.

And
Trump
wants
Obama
to
be
prosecuted
for
his
supposed
misconduct,
despite
Trump’s
knowledge
that
former
presidents
are
immune
from
prosecution
for
this
sort
of
thing.

The
Epstein
files
certainly
must
say
(or
imply)
some
devastating
misconduct
by
Trump.

I
can
hardly
wait.

Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup, here.

Hello
from
Maine.
This
week
I’m
writing
you
from
Rockport,
Maine,
where
I’m
attending
the Conference
of
Chief
Justices
(CCJ)
Annual
Meeting.
Much
of
the
conversation
has
focused
on
reforms
to
legal
education,
so
even
though
*technically*
I
am
here
as
a
plus-one
(my
husband
is
a
former
president
of
the
CCJ
which
is
how
we
received
an
invitation),
I
feel
right
at
home
and
I’ve
been
learning
a
LOT.
As
a
bonus,
I
got
the
chance
to
catch
up
with
my
wonderful
former
Dean
at
Michigan
State
University
College
of
Law, Joan
Howarth (UNLV),
who
spoke
about
her
work
on
bar
exam
reforms
(for
more
on
that,
check
out
her
book Shaping
the
Bar:
the
Future
of
Attorney
Licensing).

In
addition
to
your
regular
list
of
legal
ethics
headlines
below,
this
week
I
want
to
highlight
a
piece
by Etienne
C.
Toussaint (South
Carolina)
in Current
Affairs: “How
Ta-Nehisi
Coates
Helped
Me
See
Palestine.” Here’s
a
brief
excerpt:

Eleven
years
ago,
I
stood
smiling
before
the
Dome
of
the
Rock
in
Jerusalem,
posing
with
other
Christian
tourists
as
cameras
clicked
around
us,
eager
to
capture
proof
of
our
spiritual
devotion.
We
were
on
a
pilgrimage
designed
to
draw
us
closer
to
the
sacred.
Yet
just
beyond
the
frame
of
our
photos,
checkpoints
loomed,
armed
soldiers
patrolled
the
streets,
and
Palestinian
life
endured
under
occupation.
We
cropped
those
inconvenient
truths
out,
not
only
from
our
photos
but
from
our
consciousness,
desperate
to
preserve
the
purity
of
our
religious
experience.
At
the
time,
we
believed
we
were
innocent
pilgrims.
But
I
now
understand
that
our
sense
of
innocence
masked
a
deeper
truth.
We
were
complicit.

That
memory,
along
with
my
struggle
to
face
my
own
complicity,
has
clarified
how
easily
faith
can
become
a
veil
that
obscures
our
proximity
to
violence.
It
has
made
me
think
about
how
often,
throughout
history,
ordinary
people
have
borne
witness
to
brutality
not
with
resistance,
but
with
silence—or
worse,
with
a
smile.
I
used
to
wonder
how
someone
could
stand
beneath
a
lynched
Black
man—dangling
legs
grazing
the
tops
of
grease-slicked
hair,
wide-eyed
children
staring
in
bewilderment
nearby—and
pose
for
the
camera.
What
kind
of
world
cultivates
such
moral
decay
that
families
could
discover
joy
in
the
public
spectacle
of
Black
bodies
swinging
in
the
southern
breeze?

Then
I
read
“The
Gigantic
Dream,”
the
final
chapter
of
Ta-Nehisi
Coates’s
latest
book, The
Message.
In
it,
Coates
reflects
on
his
visit
to
the
West
Bank
and
explores
the
parallels
between
American
racial
apartheid
and
the
Israeli
occupation
of
Palestine.
His
vivid
observations—of
segregated
roads,
militarized
borders,
and
the
quiet
complicity
of
onlookers—made
me
feel
something
I
couldn’t
ignore.
As
shame
washed
over
me
like
cold
February
rain—slow,
steady,
and
sobering—I
began
to
recognize
in
those
silent
onlookers
a
part
of
myself.
The
person
I
had
long
condemned
for
their
inaction,
their
silence
in
the
face
of
white
supremacy
and
racial
terror,
their
ease
in
the
shadow
of
death,
lived
in
me
too.

Read
more here.

And
now
for
your
headlines,
once
again
too
many
to
limit
at
ten.

#1 “A
DOJ
Whistleblower
Speaks
Out.” From The
Daily
Podcast
(New
York
Times):
“An
explosive
whistle-blower
report
claims
that
the
Justice
Department
is
asking
government
lawyers
to
lie
to
the
courts,
and
that
this
has
forced
career
officials
to
choose
between
upholding
the
Constitution
and
pledging
loyalty
to
the
president. Rachel
Abrams speaks
to
the
whistleblower Erez
Reuveni about
his
career
in
the
Justice
Department
and
his
complaint
saying
he
was
fired
for
telling
the
truth.”
Listen here.
(It’s
just
under
an
hour,
and
well-worth
your
time.)

#2 “Big
Law
Firms
Bowed
to
Trump.
A
Corps
of
‘Little
Guys’
Jumped
in
to
Fight
Him.” From
the New
York
Times:
“President
Trump’s executive
orders
seeking
to
punish
big
law
firms
have
led
some
of
them
to
acquiesce
to
him
and
left
others
reluctant
to
take
on
pro
bono
cases
that
could
put
them
at
odds
with
the
administration.
But
as
opponents
of
the
White
House’s
policies
organized
to
fight
Mr.
Trump
in
court
on
a
vast
range
of
actions
and
policies,
they
quickly
found
that
they
did
not
need
to
rely
on
Big
Law.
Instead,
an
army
of
solo
practitioners,
former
government
litigators
and
small
law
firms
stepped
up
to
volunteer
their
time
to
challenge
the
administration’s
agenda.
‘I
don’t
know
if
the
administration
knew
how
many
little
guys
are
out
there,’
said Michael
H.
Ansell, a
solo
practitioner
in
Morristown,
N.J.,
who
earlier
this
year
joined
the Pro
Bono
Litigation
Corps,
newly
launched
by Lawyers
for
Good
Government,
a
legal
nonprofit.
He
answered
the
nonprofit’s
plea
for
lawyers
willing
to
give
at
least
20
hours
a
week
to
an
upcoming
case.
More
than
80
volunteered.”
Read
more here (gift
link).

#3 “A
Slightly
Less
Sorry
State
of
Disclosure.” From
the Fix
the
Court:
“Once
again
Fix
the
Court
has
rated
the
judicial
financial
disclosures
in
the
50
states
based
on
how
long
it
took
us
to
get
them
—
we
requested
the
2023
and
2024
reports
of
each
state’s
chief
justice
—
and
the
amount
of
content
useful
for
oversight
therein.
The report we’re
releasing
today,
termed
‘A
Slightly
Less
Sorry
State
of
Disclosure,’
reflects
the
changes
in New
Jersey, Colorado and Hawaii as
well
as
proposed
improvements
in Michigan and Vermont,
both
of
which
may
be
adding
new
disclosure
categories
to
their
forms
in
the
near
future.
(The
database
with
links
to
all
the
disclosures
is here.)”
Read
more here.

#4 “Disinformation
is
Driving
the
Rule
of
Law
Crisis.” From
the International
Academy
of
Trial
Lawyers :
“This
week, Joe
Tucker sits
down
with Karen
Burgess of
Burgess
Law
in
Austin,
Texas,
to
discuss
how
disinformation
is
fueling
the
global
Rule
of
Law
crisis.
Together,
they
examine
the
increasing
influence
of
state
actors
in
driving
disinformation
campaigns,
the
rise
of
deepfakes
and
AI-generated
content,
and
how
social
media
algorithms
are
accelerating
the
dissemination
of
false
narratives
that
erode
trust
in
courts,
elections,
and
democratic
institutions.”
Watch here.

#5 “DOJ
Appeals
Ruling
for
Jenner
&
Block
in
Trump
Big
Law
Battle.” From Bloomberg
Law:
“The
Trump
administration’s
court
battle
with Andrew
Weissmann’s former
law
firm
is
moving
to
a
DC
appeals
court.
The
Justice
Department
on
Monday
asked
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
to
review
a
federal
judge’s
order
that
struck
down President
Trump’s directive
against
Jenner
&
Block,
according
to
a
notice
of
appeal
filed
by
Justice
Department
lawyer Richard
Lawson.
Trump’s
directive
against
Jenner
&
Block
cited
the
firm’s
previous
employment
of Andrew
Weissmann,
a
former
partner
who
worked
on
special
counsel Robert
Mueller’s investigation
of
alleged
Russian
interference
in
the
2016
presidential
election. Judge
John
D.
Bates
of
the
US
District
Court for
the
District
of
Columbia
found
Trump’s
March
25
order
against
the
firm
violated
its
First
Amendment
rights
by
retaliating
against
Jenner
for
its
work
in
court
and
ties
to
lawyers
the
president
perceives
as
enemies.”
Read
more here.

#6 “Ethics
Appeal
Over
Columbia
Letter
Nixed
As
Judge
Joins
USDA.” From Law360:
“In
its
first
decision
of
2025,
the
Judicial
Conference’s
conduct
committee
on
Tuesday
dismissed
a
challenge
to
the
Seventh
Circuit
Judicial
Council’s
decision
to
toss
ethics
claims
against
a
U.S.
Court
of
International
Trade
judge
who
threatened
not
to
hire
law
clerks
from
Columbia
University
over
the
school’s
handling
of
Israel
protests.”
Read
more here.

#7 “New
Bill
Aims
to
Protect
State
Judges
as
Threats
Surge
400%.” From
the Georgia
Sun:
“A
bipartisan
bill
introduced
by Reps.
Lucy
McBath and Michael
McCaul would
create
the
first-ever
threat
monitoring
center
for
30,000
state
and
local
judges
who
currently
lack
federal
protection.”
Read
more here.

#8 “DOJ
Fires
Newly
Appointed
US
Attorney
in
NJ
After
Judges
Vote
Against
Keeping
Alina
Habba
in
Role.” From CNN:
“The
Department
of
Justice
quickly
fired
the
newly
named
US
attorney
in
New
Jersey
on
Tuesday
after
federal
judges
in
the
state
declined
to
extend Alina
Habba’s interim
appointment. Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi’s announcement
came
after
the
district
court
voted
to
elevate Desiree
Leigh
Grace,
New
Jersey’s
first
assistant
US
attorney,
to
replace
the
Trump
ally.”
Read
more here.

#9 “Judge
Scraps
Opinion
After
Lawyer
Flags
Made-Up
Quotes.” From Bloomberg
Law:
“A
New
Jersey
US
district
court
judge
withdrew
his
decision
in
a
biopharma
securities
case
Wednesday
after
lawyers
complained
that
his
opinion
contained
numerous
errors,
including
made-up
quotes
and
misstated
case
outcomes. Judge
Julien
Xavier
Neals
of
the
US
District
Court
for
the
District
of
New
Jersey on
June
30
denied
CorMedix
Inc.’s
request
to
dismiss
a
lawsuit
by
shareholders.
‘That
opinion
and
order
were
entered
in
error,’
according
to
a
notice
the
court
posted
in
the
case
docket
on
Wednesday.
‘A
subsequent
opinion
and
order
will
follow.’”
Read
more here.

#10 “Ohio
to
Review
ABA
Accreditation
for
Lawyers
as
Political
Pressures
Mount.” From Reuters:
“Ohio
on
Thursday
became
the
third
U.S.
state
to
reconsider
rules
requiring
attorneys
to
attend
an American
Bar
Association-accredited
law
school
to
be
admitted
to
practice,
after
the
Trump
administration
threatened
to
revoke
the
ABA’s
status
as
the
federal
government’s
designated
accreditor
of
law
schools
due
to
its
diversity
and
inclusion
efforts.
The Supreme
Court
of
Ohio said
it
has
convened
an
advisory
committee
to
review
its
law
school
accreditation
process,
citing
a
need
to
ensure
‘excellence
and
innovation.’
Texas
and
Florida
have
launched
similar
reviews.”
Read
more here.

#11
“Stefanik
Ethics
Complaint
Against
D.C.
Judge
Is
Tossed.” From Bloomberg
Law:
“A
Washington
federal
judge
who
lamented
the
impact
of
the
‘big
lies’
on
Capitol
rioters
facing
criminal
charges
didn’t
breach
judicial
ethics
rules,
a
federal
judicial
council
has
found.
The
judicial
council
for
the US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Tenth
Circuit dismissed a
complaint
by Rep.
Elise
Stefanik
(R-N.Y.) against Judge
Beryl
Howell
of
the
US
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
related
to
a
speech
the
judge
delivered
at
a
white
collar
defense
attorney
event
in
November
2023.
Howell
said
during
the
speech
that
she
and
her
colleagues
‘regularly
see
the
impact
of
big
lies’
at
sentencing
hearings
for
participants
in
the
Jan.
6,
2021
riot
at
the
US
Capitol.
She
also
described
‘a
very
surprising
and
downright
troubling
moment
where
the
importance
of
facts
is
dismissed,
or
ignored.’
Howell
didn’t
mention
former President
Donald
Trump by
name
during
her
remarks. Chief
Judge
Jerome
A.
Holmes
of
the
Tenth
Circuit held
in
a
decision
posted
Monday
that
the
judge’s
comments
‘do
not
reasonably
appear
to
reflect
adversely
on
impartiality,
nor
could
they
lead
to
disqualification.’
Her
perspective
is
‘consistent’
with
those
raised
by
her
and
other
judges
‘on
the
record
in
numerous
cases
they
presided
over
prior
to
the
event
at
issue,’
he
wrote.
Holmes
also
noted
that
Howell
gave
her
speech
at
a
‘law-related
event,
not
a
political
function,’
and
didn’t
name
any
modern
politicians.”
Read
more here.

#12
“Immigration
Courts
Hiding
the
Names
of
ICE
Lawyers
Goes
Against
Centuries
of
Precedent
and
Legal
Ethics
Requiring
Transparency
in
Courts.” From Cassandra
Burke
Robertson (Case
Western)
in The
Conversation:
“Something
unusual
is
happening
in
U.S.
immigration
courts.
Government
lawyers
are refusing
to
give
their
names
during
public
hearings.
In
June
2025, Immigration
Judge
ShaSha
Xu in
New
York
City reportedly
told lawyers
in
her
courtroom:
‘We’re
not
really
doing
names
publicly.’
Only
the
government
lawyers’
names
were
hidden
–
the
immigrants’
attorneys
had
to
give
their
names
as
usual.
Xu
cited
privacy
concerns,
saying,
‘Things
lately
have
changed.’
…
This
secrecy
violates
a
fundamental
principle
that
has
protected
Americans
for
centuries: open
courts.
Here’s
how
those
courts
operate
and
why
the
principle
governing
them
matters.”
Read
more here.

#13
“DOJ
Faces
Credibility
Questions
as
it
Investigates
Jeffrey
Epstein.” From
NPR:
“As
the
Department
of
Justice
continues
its
investigation
into
disgraced
financier
and
convicted
sex
offender Jeffrey
Epstein,
some
are
raising
questions
about
its
credibility
under
the
current
administration.
… [Todd]
Blanche’s direct
involvement
raises
a
key
question.
His
boss, Attorney
General
Pam
Bondi,
herself
a
former
Trump
lawyer,
reportedly
told
the
president
in
May
that
his
name
appeared
in
the
Epstein
files,
in
a
breach
of
the
attorney
general’s
independence.
Would
Blanche
similarly
tip
off
Trump? Stephen
Gillers is
a
legal
ethics
expert
at
the
NYU
School
of
Law
and
says
it’s
safe
to
assume
Blanche
will
debrief
Trump.
He
also
believes
the
Justice
Department
should
assign
a
career
prosecutor
to
question
Maxwell,
who
likely
has
her
own
motivations
at
play.”
Read
more here.

#14 “Ex-Bank
Robber
and
Georgetown
Law
Professor
Found
Guilty
of
Assaulting
Wife.” From
the ABA
Journal:
“A
former
bank
robber
who
became
a
professor
at
the
Georgetown
University
Law
Center
has
been
convicted
of
multiple
criminal
charges
related
to
a
domestic
violence
incident
involving
his
wife.
A
superior
court
jury
found Shon
Hopwood,
50,
of
the
District
of
Columbia
guilty
of
three
counts
of
simple
assault,
five
counts
of
contempt
and
two
counts
of
obstructing
justice,
the
U.S.
attorney’s
office
for
the
District
of
Columbia
announced
Friday.
‘A
D.C.
jury
is
demanding
accountability
from
the
batterer
who
not
only
beat
his
wife
but
was
on
the
faculty
of
Georgetown
Law
teaching
criminal
law,’
said Interim
U.S.
Attorney
Jeanine
Ferris
Pirro in
a
statement.
‘This
D.C.
jury
wasn’t
afraid
to
demand
accountability
no
matter
who
the
defendant
is.’
Hopwood
is
well
known
for
the
story
of
how
he
turned
his
life
around
after
becoming
a
skilled
jailhouse
lawyer
while
in
prison
for
bank
robbery.
He
went
to
the
University
of
Washington
School
of
Law
and
clerked
for
a
federal
appeals
judge
before
becoming
a
law
professor.”
Read
more here.

#15
“Remote
Court
Appearance
Pilot
Program
Launched.” From
the Hometown
Register:
“The Illinois
Supreme
Court’s
Commission
on
Access
to
Justice (ATJ
Commission),
partnering
with
the Second
Judicial
Circuit
of
Illinois and Land
of
Lincoln
Legal
Aid,
Inc.,
announced
the
launch
of
a
two-year
pilot
program
on
remote
court
appearances
in
southern
counties
of
Illinois.”
Read
more here.

Did
you
miss
the
150+
job
postings
from
previous
Roundups?
Find
them
all here.

Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
Roundups?
Find
them
all here.

• 
  News
  tips?
  Announcements?
  Events? A
  job
  to
  post? Reading
  recommendations? Email [email protected] –
  but
  be
  sure
  to
  subscribe
  first,
  otherwise
  the
  email
  won’t
  be
  delivered.

Renee
Knake
Jefferson
holds
the
endowed
Doherty
Chair
in
Legal
Ethics
and
is
a
Professor
of
Law
at
the
University
of
Houston.
Check
out
more
of
her
writing
at
the Legal
Ethics
Roundup.
Find
her
on
X
(formerly
Twitter)
at @reneeknake or
Bluesky
at legalethics.bsky.social. 

How
can
you
measure
a
law
school’s
worth,
aside
from
the
employment
statistics
of
its
graduates?
Another
telling
sign
of
its
success
may
be
its
selectivity.

The
latest
Princeton
Review
law
school
rankings
are
out,
and
today,
we’ll
focus
on
yet
another
incredibly
important
ranking
for
those
who
are
trying
to
get
into
law
school
in
the
first
place:
The
law
schools
that
are
the
toughest
to
get
into.

Which
law
schools
do
you
think
came
out
on
top
of
this
list?

First,
we’ll
begin
with
the
methodology
Princeton
Review
used
to
determine
which
law
schools
are
the
toughest
to
get
into.
This
ranking
was
based
on
school-reported
data,
including
the
median
LSAT
scores
and
undergraduate
GPAs
of
entering
1L
students,
the
percent
of
applicants
accepted,
and
the
percent
of
accepted
applicants
who
later
enrolled.

According
to Princeton
Review,
these
are
the
law
schools
that
are
the
most
difficult
to
get
into:

1. Yale
   University
   Law
   School
   (no
   change)
2. Harvard
   University
   Law
   School
   (no
   change)
3. Stanford
   University
   School
   of
   Law
   (no
   change)
4. Columbia
   University
   School
   of
   Law
   (ranked
   #9
   last
   year)
5. University
   of
   Pennsylvania
   Law
   School
   (ranked
   #10
   last
   year)
6. University
   of
   Chicago
   Law
   School
   (unranked
   last
   year)
7. University
   of
   Virginia
   School
   of
   Law
   (ranked
   #4
   last
   year)
8. University
   of
   Michigan
   Law
   School
   (ranked
   #6
   last
   year)
9. Northwestern
   University
   Pritzker
   School
   of
   Law
   (unranked
   last
   year)
10. New
    York
    University
    School
    of
    Law
    (ranked
    #5
    last
    year)

It’s
not
at
all
shocking
that
some
of
the
best
law
schools
in
the
nation
are
listed
here,
but
what is shocking
is
their
order
and
the
law
schools
that
were
left
out
entirely
—
like
Duke,
for
example,
which
is
a
Top
6
school
according
to
U.S.
News
and
the
No.
1
school
overall
according
to Above
the
Law,
but
is
nowhere
to
be
found
on
the
Princeton
Review
list
for
toughest
to
get
into.

Did
your
law
school
make
the
cut?
If
it
did,
do
you
think
it
was
ranked
fairly?
If
it
didn’t
make
the
list
for
being
toughest
to
get
into,
do
you
agree
with
that
assessment?
Please email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
your
thoughts.

Best
Law
Schools
2025 [Princeton
Review]

Toughest
to
Get
Into
2025 [Princeton
Review]

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

Following
the
Senate’s
recent
confirmation
of
Terry
Cole
as
administrator
of
the
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
(DEA),
more
than
200
organizations
have
sent
a

letter
urging
him
to
take
action
to
preserve
access
to
the
remote
prescribing
of
controlled
substances.

The
organizations
include
the
Alliance
for
Connected
Care,
the
American
Telemedicine
Association,
the
American
Psychiatric
Association,
Amazon,
Bicycle
Health,
Teladoc
and
more.

Flexibilities
that
allowed
for
the
prescribing
of
controlled
substances
via
telehealth
were
put
in
place
during
the
Covid-19
pandemic
to
expand
access
to
care.
After
being
extended
several
times,
the
flexibilities
are
now
set
to
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year. 

As
the
deadline
approaches,
the
organizations
in
the
letter
urged
the
DEA
to
engage
with
experts
and
stakeholders
on
policies
that
would
“continue
access
to
telehealth
while
preventing
diversion.”
They
also
called
for
a
plan
to
be
put
in
place
by
the
fall
that
would
“prevent
millions
of
Americans
from
losing
access
to
their
medical
treatments
in
December
of
2025.”

They
noted
that
telehealth
has
been
extremely
beneficial
for
Americans,
especially
for
those
in
more
remote
areas.

“For
example,
as
of
December
2023,
more
than
half
(169
million)
of
the
U.S.
population
lives
in
a
Mental
Health
Professional
Shortage
Area
(HPSA)
and
broader
access
to
telehealth
has
been
crucial
in
creating
new
access
to
care
for
these
individuals,”
they
said.
“Overly
broad
restrictions
will
lead
to
harsh
consequences
for
many
Americans
relying
on
telehealth
to
access
health
services.” 

During
the
Biden
administration,
several
policy
changes
regarding
the
remote
prescribing
of
controlled
substances
were
introduced,
but
they
faced
strong
opposition
from
the
telehealth
industry. 

For
example,
in
the
final
days
of
the
Biden
administration,
the
DEA

released
several
new
telehealth
rules,
including
one
that
would
create
a
special
registration
process
to
allow
a
clinician
to
prescribe
medications
through
telemedicine
visits
without
an
in-person
evaluation.
However,
the
rule
had
significant
restrictions
that
had
telehealth
advocates
up
in
arms,
such
as
requiring
physicians
to
be
located
in
the
same
state
as
the
patient
when
prescribing
certain
medications.
Advocates
previously
told
MedCity
News
that
the
rule
interferes
with
the
clinician’s
job
and
creates
barriers
for
patients.

In
the
letter,
the
organizations
added
that
the
DEA
should
hold
a
meeting
or
forum
with
experts
in
the
field
to
create
a
long-term
policy
for
the
remote
prescribing
of
controlled
substances.

“Past
efforts
which
did
not
fully
engage
stakeholders
and
Congress
had
unintended
consequences
–
such
as
the
creation
of
massive
significant
new
regulatory
burdens
on
the
health
care
systems,”
they
argued.

Photo:
elenabs,
Getty
Images

*
Jake
Tapper
holds
the
line
on
actual
facts
of
the
Epstein
prosecution.
[Huffington
Post]

*
New
York
is
for
Biglaw.
Mid-size
law,
not
as
much.
[New
York
Law
Journal]

*
Arnold
&
Porter
opens
new
office
in
Seattle.
[Bloomberg
Law]

*
Trump
finalizes
deal
with
Qatar
over
private
jet
“unconditional
gift.”
Still
shady
AF.
[CNN]

*
Awful
sign
of
the
times:
executions
are
up
in
2025.
[The
Hill]

*
Ghislaine
Maxwell’s
attorney
plays
coy
with
Congress.
[Politico]

Ranking
For
The
Sake
Of
Ranking:
The
Princeton
Review
found
a
plethora
of
ways
to
rank
law
schools
other
than
the
straightforward
ones.
King
&
Spalding
Upping
The
Pressure:
To
get
associates
back
in
the
office.
Do
AI
Bots
Dream
Of
Electric
Benchslaps?:
Butler
Snow
lawyers
earn
one
of
the
harshest
AI-related
sanctions
yet.
Librarians
To
The
Rescue:
Law
librarians
talk
shop
about
being
on
the
frontline
against
disinformation
and
figuring
out
how
to
deal
with
AI.
That
Trump
Pro
Bono
Will
Have
To
Wait:
A&O
Shearman
delays
some
start
dates.
Habba
Dabba
Do:
Alina
Habba
shouldn’t
be
the
U.S.
Attorney
for
New
Jersey,
but
she’s
not
letting
“statutes”
stop
her.
Take
A
Hike!:
Is
one
Biglaw
bonding
option.
We
Just
Can’t
Quit
You:
The
tale
of
the
Biglaw
Biter
has
legs
—
or
should
I
say
teeth.