I
don’t
know
if
the
administration
knew
how
many
little
guys
are
out
there….
We’re
the
last
line
of
defense,
it
seems.
—
Michael
H.
Ansell,
a
solo
practitioner
in
Morristown,
New
Jersey,
in
comments
given
to
the
New
York
Times,
on
his
efforts
to
fight
against
the
Trump
administration
through
the
Pro
Bono
Litigation
Corps,
a
new
project
recently
launched
by
legal
nonprofit
Lawyers
for
Good
Government.
The
Times
describes
the
Corps
as
“an
army
of
solo
practitioners,
former
government
litigators,
and
small
law
firms.”
Click
here
to
support
the
legal
resistance.
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.
The
president’s
personal
lawyer
Alina
Habba
is
once
again
the
acting
US
Attorney
for
New
Jersey.
It
appears
that
news
of
her
departure
was
greatly
exaggerated…
or
at
least
premature.
Habba
had
no
prosecutorial
experience
before
Trump
tapped
her
in
March
to
lead
the
US
Attorney’s
Office
in
her
home
state.
Her
greatest
claim
to
fame
was
losing
her
boss
$88
million
in
damages
in
the
E.
Jean
Carroll
defamation
cases
and
$364
million
in
civil
fraud
penalties.
Her
greatest
claim
to
infamy
was
the
$15,000
settlement
she
foisted
on
a
waitress
at
Trump’s
Bedminster
club
to
surrender
her
sexual
harassment
and
assault
claims
—
a
contract
which
flagrantly
violated
New
Jersey’s
Civil
Rights
Law.
Although
the
million
dollars
in
sanctions
for
filing
a
frivolous
RICO
suit
against
Hillary
Clinton
and
James
Comey
is
a
close
second.
But
no
matter!
She’s
loyal
enough
to
say
absolutely
any
batshit
thing
on
TV,
and
so
she’s
staying
put.
Until
last
week,
the
president
appears
not
to
have
cared
much
about
whether
Habba
remained
on
the
job.
He
nominated
her
for
a
120-day
interim
appointment
in
March,
and
couldn’t
be
bothered
to
put
her
name
forward
for
a
permanent
position
until
July
—
not
nearly
enough
time
for
her
to
get
confirmed
without
an
intensive
White
House
pressure
campaign
that
never
materialized.
But
his
desultory
efforts
kicked
into
high
gear
after
judges
on
the
US
District
Court
for
New
Jersey
dared
to
nominate
someone
else
for
the
position
under
28
USC
§
546
which
allows
the
court
to
fill
any
vacancy.
.@USAttyHabba
has
been
doing
a
great
job
in
making
NJ
safe
again.
Nonetheless,
politically
minded
judges
refused
to
allow
her
to
continue
in
her
position,
replacing
Alina
with
the
First
Assistant.
Accordingly,
the
First
Assistant
United
States
Attorney
in
New
Jersey
has
just…
—
Attorney
General
Pamela
Bondi
(@AGPamBondi)
July
22,
2025
The
district
judges
in
NJ
just
proved
this
was
never
about
law—it
was
about
politics.
They
forced
out
President
Trump’s
pick,
@USAttyHabba,
then
installed
her
deputy,
colluding
with
the
NJ
Senators
along
the
way.
It
won’t
work.
Pursuant
to
the
President’s
authority,
we
have…
https://t.co/2Jyphdhaum
The
allegation
was
preposterous
on
its
face.
The
judges
had
no
obligation
to
select
Habba.
They
were
perfectly
entitled
to
choose
any
lawyer
in
America.
In
the
event,
they
tapped
Habba’s
own
deputy,
Desiree
Grace,
a
nine-year
veteran
of
DOJ
who
is
a
Republican
to
boot.
And
Habba’s
short
tenure
has
hardly
been
a
tour
of
glory.
After
launching
a
failed
prosecution
of
Newark
Mayor
Ras
Baraka,
she
indicted
Representative
LaMonica
McIver
on
the
flimsiest
of
justifications.
She’s
even
making
threatening
noises
about
Governor
Phil
Murphy
and
the
state’s
Attorney
General
Matthew
Platkin.
When
she
said
on
a
podcast
that
she
hoped
to
“turn
New
Jersey
red,”
she
wasn’t
kidding.
Which
is
perhaps
why
morale
has
cratered
under
her
leadership,
with
16
current
and
former
staffers
running
to
the
New
York
Times
to
say
things
had
gone
to
shit
under
Habba’s
leadership.
All
of
which
are
pretty
good
reasons
to
put
a
career
official
in
there
to
right
the
ship
until
Trump
can
get
around
to
getting
someone
confirmed!
But
this
minor
act
of
judicial
independence
was
too
much
for
the
Trump
administration,
and
so
they
decided
to
put
Habba
in
the
office
by
hook
or
by
crook.
First
they
fired
Grace,
a
move
which
would
have
no
effect
on
the
judicial
appointment,
but
did
serve
to
punish
her
for
saying
she’d
accept
the
position.
Then
they
named
Habba
as
her
own
deputy,
as
they
just
did
in
the
Northern
District
of
New
York
with
John
Sarcone
III,
another
US
Attorney
they
couldn’t
be
bothered
to
confirm.
Then
they
pulled
her
pending
nomination
in
the
Senate,
to
get
around
the
Federal
Vacancies
Reform
Act’s
prohibition
on
a
nominee
serving
in
an
“acting”
role.
And
then
they
let
Habba,
the
first
assistant,
assume
the
post
of
acting
US
Attorney
when
the
position
became
“vacant”
by
the
expiration
of
her
own
interim
appointment
that
expired
yesterday.
Habba
handled
the
situation
with
her
usual
indignant
self-righteousness.
Donald
J.
Trump
is
the
47th
President.
Pam
Bondi
is
the
Attorney
General.
And
I
am
now
the
Acting
United
States
Attorney
for
the
District
of
New
Jersey.
I
don’t
cower
to
pressure.
I
don’t
answer
to
politics.
How
very
dare
anyone
question
the
right
of
a
person
with
no
qualifications
and
no
senate
confirmation
to
hold
office
indefinitely!
She
has
the
anointment
of
the
king
upon
her
forehead,
and
isn’t
that
ample
authority?
Tune
in
next
week
when
we
get
to
play
this
same
stupid
game
in
the
Central
District
of
California
with
Acting
US
Attorney
Bill
Essayli.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“Alina
Habba
Is
Named
Acting
U.S.
Attorney
in
New
Jersey;
Ms.
Habba’s
tenure
as
interim
U.S.
attorney
was
slated
to
end
this
week,
but
the
Trump
administration’s
appointment
will
allow
her
to
remain
the
top
law
enforcement
official
in
the
state”: Tracey
Tully
and
Jonah
E.
Bromwich
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.
“Chief
Justice
Roberts
Hides
in
Plain
Sight
as
His
Supreme
Court
Splits
at
the
Seams;
The
head
of
the
federal
judiciary
did
not
write
a
dissent
or
a
concurrence
in
the
entirety
of
the
high
court’s
term”: A.R.
Hoffman
of
The
New
York
Sun
has this
report.
“Even
If
Harvard
Wins
This
Court
Case,
the
Trump
Fight
Won’t
Go
Away;
Legal
analysts
say
the
school
presents
a
strong
case
but
the
president
is
already
threatening
to
appeal”: Jess
Bravin
and
Sara
Randazzo
of
The
Wall
Street
Journal
have this
report.
“Border
Wall
Case
May
Send
Rare
Constitutional
Test
to
High
Court;
Groups
see
nondelegation
doctrine
as
means
to
block
border
wall;
Recent
Supreme
Court
opinions
suggest
justices
could
wade
in”: Taylor
Mills
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.
“Judges
in
Maryland
Want
DOJ
Suit
Over
Deportation
Stays
Tossed”: Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.
“Big
Law
Firms
Bowed
to
Trump.
A
Corps
of
‘Little
Guys’
Jumped
in
to
Fight
Him.
Solo
practitioners,
former
government
litigators
and
small
law
offices
stepped
up
to
help
challenge
the
Trump
administration’s
agenda
in
court
after
the
White
House
sought
to
punish
many
big
firms.” Elizabeth
Williamson
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
There
are
many
different
and
exciting
ways
to
rank
law
firms.
How
prestigious
are
they?
How
much
money
are
they
making?
How
much
take-home
cash
do
partners
earn?
How
big
are
they?
Yes,
size
continues
to
matter
when
it
comes
to
Biglaw,
and
thankfully,
the
New
York
Law
Journal
recently
unleashed
its
annual NYLJ
100,
a
ranking
of
the
largest
law
firms
in
New
York
covering
the
previous
calendar
year.
As
luck
would
have
it,
many
Biglaw
firms
increased
their
New
York
City
headcounts
in
2024,
and
as
usual
the
top
firms
in
the
city
netted
an
increase
in
attorneys
over
their
2023
numbers.
If
you’ve
ever
wondered
about
headcounts,
this
is
the
ranking
for
you.
In
total,
about
12,000
attorneys
were
working
in
the
New
York
offices
of
the
state’s
20
largest
law
firms
last
year.
In
fact,
almost
all
of
these
law
firms
saw
a headcount
increase
of
some
sort
—
highlighting
that
New
York
law
firms
are
still
in
growth
mode.
The
top
10
biggest
firms
(numbers
show
attorneys
in
New
York)
are
not
surprising.
Let’s
take
a
moment
to
gawk
at
Manhattan’s
Biglaw
behemoths:
1.
Kirkland
&
Ellis:
969
2.
Paul,
Weiss:
925
3.
Davis
Polk:
865
4.
Simpson
Thacher:
789
5.
Latham
&
Watkins:
770
6.
Debevoise
&
Plimpton:
667
7.
Skadden:
649
8.
Weil
Gotshal:
598
9.
Sullivan
&
Cromwell:
564
10.
Milbank:
504
10.
Fried
Frank:
504
Congratulations
once
again
to
Kirkland
for
employing
more
lawyers
in
New
York
than
any
other
firm.
This
firm
wins
the
award
for
putting
the
“big”
in
Biglaw
in
the
Big
Apple.
Head
to
the NYLJ if
you’re
curious
about
the
firms
ranked
11-100.
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.
In
this
episode
of
The
Jabot,
I interview
attorney
and
author
Audrey
Ingram,
who
shares
her
compelling
transition
from
a
law
career
to
writing.
Explore
Audrey’s
journey,
motherhood’s
role
in
her
life
choices,
and
get
a
glimpse
of
her
new
novel,
The
Summer
We
Ran,
about
first
loves
turned
political
rivals.
A
must-listen
for
aspiring
writers
and
anyone
seeking
inspiration
to
chase
their
dreams!
Highlights
Transition
from
Big
Law
to
Novel
Writing
Fulfillment
in
Motherhood
Navigating
Guilt
and
Finding
Balance
Inspiration
for
Debut
Novel
Elements
of
an
Ideal
Summer
Beach
Read
Creativity
and
Storytelling
Sources
Crafting
Imperfect
Characters
Integrating
Legal
Skills
in
Writing
Balancing
Creative
and
Business
Aspects
in
Writing
The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.
Happy
listening!
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].
The
firm
has
two
start
dates
for
the
class
of
2025,
and
insiders
at
the
firm
report
at
least
some
of
the
incoming
associates
had
their
start
date
pushed
back
to
January.
In
order
to
help
defray
the
financial
impact
of
missing
out
on
months
of
that
sweet,
sweet
Biglaw
paycheck,
the
firm
is
offering
a
salary
advance
—
not
a
stipend
—
to
those
impacted,
repayable
over
10
months.
Historically,
delays
in
the
associate
start
date
is
a
bellwether
for
austerity
measures
or
even
layoffs.
But
the
firm
is
just
a
year
out
from
the
merger
that
took
A&O
and
Shearman
and
created
A&O
Shearman,
a
process
that
involved
growing
pains,
so
perhaps
this
is
just
a
way
managing
their
talent.
Still,
a
real
bummer
for
those
anxious
to
get
started
on
their
legal
career.
If
your
firm
or
organization
is
delaying
the
start
date
for
associates,
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive.
You
can
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].
Are
you
searching
for
a
law
school
where
you
can
actually
have
a
social
life?
Of
course
you
are!
But
would
that
social
life
be
dampered
by
ultra-competitive
classmates?
These
are
questions
well
worth
asking
before
you
plop
down
a
deposit
to
reserve
your
seat
for
the
next
three
years
of
your
life.
As
our
readers
know,
the
latest
Princeton
Review
law
school
rankings
are
out,
and
today,
we’ll
focus
on
two
rankings
categories
for
which
student
feedback
matters
most:
the
law
schools
with
the
most
competitive
students
and
the
law
schools
with
the
best
quality
of
life.
Which
schools
do
you
think
made
these
lists?
We’ll
give
you
a
hint:
Not
a
single
T14
law
school
cracked
one
list,
but
the
other
is
chock
full
of
them.
Don’t
be
surprised
that
the
most
elite
law
schools
in
the
nation
are
nowhere
to
be
found
on
a
list
of
the
law
schools
with
the
most
competitive
students.
Students
at
those
schools
know
jobs
are
theirs
for
the
taking.
Many
of
the
schools
listed
here
may
be
filled
with
the
students
you
hear
urban
legends
about
—
the
ones
who
tear
vital
pages
out
of
library
books,
the
ones
who
tell
you
the
wrong
homework
assignments,
the
ones
who
won’t
let
you
join
their
study
groups.
That’s
the
kind
of
competition
we’re
talking
about.
For
this
category,
students
were
asked
the
number
of
hours
they
study
outside
of
class
each
day,
the
number
of
hours
they
think
their
fellow
students
study
outside
of
class
each
day,
and
the
degree
of
competitiveness
among
students
at
their
school.
Without
further
ado,
these
are
the
law
schools
with
the most
competitive
students,
per
Princeton
Review:
Baylor
University
School
of
Law
(no
change)
Ave
Maria
School
of
Law
(unranked
last
year)
Mississippi
College
School
of
Law
(ranked
#6
last
year)
University
of
Houston
Law
Center
(ranked
#10
last
year)
Florida
International
University
College
of
Law
(unranked
last
year)
University
of
Missouri-Kansas
City
School
of
Law
(unranked
last
year)
Elon
University
School
of
Law
(unranked
last
year)
Southern
University
Law
Center
(ranked
#3
last
year)
Faulkner
University
Thomas
Goode
Jones
School
of
Law
(ranked
#4
last
year)
Brigham
Young
University
J.
Reuben
Clark
Law
School
(ranked
#5
last
year)
Students
at
many
of
these
law
schools
may
be
crashing
out so
they
can
transfer
out,
or
in
the
alternative,
they
may
be
thinking
up
ways
to
somehow
get
an
edge
over
their
classmates
by
whatever
means
necessary.
Make
of
that
what
you
will.
Next
up,
we’ve
got
a
list
of
the
top
10
law
schools
that
offer
their
students
the
best
quality
of
life.
To
measure
this
category,
current
students
answered
survey
questions
based
on
the
strength
of
the
school’s
sense
of
community,
whether
differing
opinions
are
tolerated
in
the
classroom,
the
school’s
location,
the
fabulousity
of
students’
social
lives,
and
the
quality
of
the
school’s
research
resources
(library,
computer,
and
database
resources).
University
of
Virginia
School
of
Law
(ranked
#2
last
year)
University
of
California
Los
Angeles
School
of
Law
(ranked
#1
last
year)
University
of
Miami
School
of
Law
(unranked
last
year)
Florida
State
University
College
of
Law
(unranked
last
year)
Samford
University
Cumberland
School
of
Law
(ranked
#6
last
year)
University
of
Georgia
School
of
Law
(ranked
#4
last
year)
Duke
University
School
of
Law
(no
change)
University
of
Pennsylvania
Law
School
(ranked
#5
last
year)
Stanford
University
School
of
Law
(ranked
#8
last
year)
Vanderbilt
University
Law
School
(no
change)
Congratulations
to
UVA,
UCLA,
Duke,
Penn,
Stanford,
and
Vanderbilt
for
making
this
list.
This
just
goes
to
show
that
your
quality
of
life
can
be
fantastic,
even
if
by
all
other
accounts
you’re
thought
to
be
a
nerd.
If
your
school
didn’t
make
it,
we’re
sorry
about
your
lack
of
social
life.
Here’s
a
word
of
advice:
Try
filing
that
motion
to
party
again
next
year;
hopefully
it
won’t
be
dismissed.
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
most
competitive
or
having
the
best
quality
of
life,
do
you
agree
with
that
assessment?
Please email
us
or
text
us
(646-820-8477)
with
your
thoughts.
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.
The
Supreme
Court’s
shadow
docket
has
become
a
lawless
mess.
The
justices
are
issuing
extremely
consequential
rulings with
either
no
explanation
at
all,
or
with
barely
a
paragraph
of
reasoning.
No
full
briefing.
No
oral
arguments.
Just
vibes-based
constitutional
law
that
lower
courts
are
somehow
supposed
to
follow.
Now
the
Court
has
made
this
chaos
worse
by
essentially
telling
lower
courts
to
treat
these
half-baked
emergency
rulings
as
more
important
than
actual
binding
precedent.
If
you’re
a
district
court
judge,
what
do
you
do?
Follow
the
actual
binding
precedent,
or
guess
at
what
the
Supreme
Court’s
vibes-based
constitutional
law
might
mean?
Earlier
this
week,
we
wrote
about
a
district
court
judge
who
faced
this
impossible
situation.
She
was
bound
by
the
Supreme
Court’s
1935
precedent
in Humphrey’s
Executor,
which
clearly
states
that
Presidents
cannot
fire
the
heads
of
independent
agencies
like
FTC
Commissioners
(in
Humphrey’s
it’s literally about
the
firing
of
an
FTC
Commissioner).
That’s
still
good
law—the
Court
has
never
officially
overturned
it.
But
Trump
fired
FTC
commissioners
anyway,
creating
the
exact
same
legal
question
that
Humphrey’s
already
answered.
Recent
Supreme
Court
rulings
have
suggested
the
Court
might
be
willing
to
gut
independent
agencies,
but
without
actually
overturning
the
controlling
precedent.
The
judge
did
what
judges
are
supposed
to
do:
follow
binding
precedent
until
the
Supreme
Court
clearly
overrules
it.
Yesterday’s
ruling
in
a separate case
makes
this
impossible
situation
even
worse.
The
Supreme
Court
issued
another
barely-explained
shadow
docket
ruling
that
essentially
scolds
lower
courts
for
following
actual
precedent
instead
of
reading
the
tea
leaves
of
emergency
orders.
The
case,
Trump
v.
Boyle,
involves
Trump’s
firing
of
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission
(CPSC)
commissioners.
This
follows
a
similar
shadow
docket
ruling
in
May
about
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board
(NLRB)
and
Merit
Systems
Protection
Board
(MSPB).
In
all
these
cases,
lower
courts
applied
existing
law
and
ruled
that
the
President
lacks
the
power
to
fire
these
officials.
Rather
than
take
up
these
cases
properly
with
full
briefing
and
oral
arguments,
the
Supreme
Court
just
waves
its
hand
and
declares
that
agencies
like
the
CPSC
and
NLRB
“aren’t
really
independent”
because
some
of
their
functions
involve
executive
power.
Therefore,
Trump
can
fire
them.
There
might
be
reasonable
constitutional
arguments
for
this
position.
We’ll
never
know,
because
the
Court
is
making
these
determinations
without
bothering
to
hear
them.
The
May
ruling
essentially
said:
“We
haven’t
really
looked
into
this,
but
we’re
pretty
sure
we’d
side
with
Trump
if
we
did.”
It’s
constitutional
law
by
vibes,
and
it
leaves
lower
courts
in
an
impossible
position.
On
one
hand:
Humphrey’s
Executor,
a
clear
binding
precedent.
On
the
other:
Wilcox,
a
half-baked
shadow
docket
ruling
that
essentially
says
“trust
us,
we’d
probably
overturn
this
if
we
bothered
to
think
about
it.”
In
yesterday’s
CPSC
case, the
Court’s two-paragraph ruling is
openly
dismissive
of
lower
courts
trying
to
follow
actual
law.
The
tone
essentially
asks:
“Why
aren’t
you
treating
our
unexplained
emergency
order
as
more
important
than
binding
precedent?”
Although
our
interim
orders
are
not
conclusive
as
to
the
merits,
they
inform
how
a
court
should
exercise
its
equitable
discretion
in
like
cases.
The
stay
we
issued
in
Wilcox
reflected
“our
judgment
that
the
Government
faces
greater
risk
of
harm
from
an
order
allowing
a
removed
officer
to
continue
exercising
the
executive
power
than
a
wrongfully
removed
officer
faces
from
being
unable
to
perform
her
statutory
duty.”
Ibid.
(slip
op.,
at
1).
The
same
is
true
on
the
facts
presented
here,
where
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission
exercises
executive
power
in
a
similar
manner
as
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board,
and
the
case
does
not
otherwise
differ
from
Wilcox
in
any
pertinent
respect.
Even
Justice
Kavanaugh—who
clearly
wants
to
gut
independent
agencies—thinks
this
process
is
bonkers.
In
his
concurrence,
he
essentially
says:
“Look,
if
we’re
going
to
overturn
major
precedents,
maybe
we
should
actually,
you
know,
hear
arguments
about
it?”
When
an
emergency
application
turns
on
whether
this
Court
will
narrow
or
overrule
a
precedent,
and
there
is
at
least
a
fair
prospect
(not
certainty,
but
at
least
some
reasonable
prospect)
that
we
will
do
so,
the
better
practice
often
may
be
to
both
grant
a
stay
and
grant
certiorari
before
judgment.
Kavanaugh
gets
the
core
problem:
You
can’t
run
a
legal
system
on
winks
and
nudges.
Either
Humphrey’s
is
good
law
or
it
isn’t.
Either
Presidents
can
fire
independent
commissioners
or
they
can’t.
You
can’t
just
leave
everyone
guessing.
In
those
unusual
circumstances,
if
we
grant
a
stay
but
do
not
also
grant
certiorari
before
judgment,
we
may
leave
the
lower
courts
and
affected
parties
with
extended
uncertainty
and
confusion
about
the
status
of
the
precedent
in
question.
Moreover,
when
the
question
is
whether
to
narrow
or
overrule
one
of
this
Court’s
precedents
rather
than
how
to
resolve
an
open
or
disputed
question
of
federal
law,
further
percolation
in
the
lower
courts
is
not
particularly
useful
because
lower
courts
cannot
alter
or
overrule
this
Court’s
precedents.
In
that
situation,
the
downsides
of
delay
in
definitively
resolving
the
status
of
the
precedent
sometimes
tend
to
outweigh
the
benefits
of
further
lower-court
consideration.
He’s
absolutely
right.
The
Court
is
playing
hide
the
ball
with
constitutional
law,
creating
chaos
in
the
lower
courts
while
giving
Trump
a
free
pass
to
ignore
congressional
statutes.
Justice
Kagan’s
dissent
(joined
by
Sotomayor
and
Jackson)
cuts
to
the
constitutional
heart
of
the
problem:
this
approach
obliterates
separation
of
powers.
The
system
is
supposed
to
work
like
this:
Congress
writes
the
laws,
the
President
faithfully
executes
them,
and
the
judiciary
determines
whether
both
the
laws
and
the
President’s
actions
are
constitutional.
Here,
the
Court
is
effectively
eliminating
two
of
the
three
branches
(including
itself!).
Congress
deliberately
created
these
agencies
as
independent
to
insulate
them
from
political
pressure.
The
Court
is
saying
that
doesn’t
matter—the
President
can
ignore
what
Congress
wrote.
And
by
doing
this
through
unexplained
shadow
docket
rulings,
the
judiciary
is
sawing
off
its
own
constitutional
branch.
The
message
is
clear:
the
President
can
ignore
congressional
statutes,
and
we’ll
rubber-stamp
it
without
analysis,
explanation,
or
precedential
guidance.
That’s
not
separation
of
powers.
That’s
monarchy
with
judicial
blessing.
Here’s
Kagan:
In
Congress’s
view,
that
structure
would
better
enable
the
CPSC
to
achieve
its
mission—ensuring
the
safety
of
consumer
products,
from
toys
to
appliances—than
would
a
single-party
agency
under
the
full
control
of
a
single
President.
The
CPSC
has
thus
operated
as
an
independent
agency
for
many
decades,
as
the
NLRB
and
MSPB
also
did.
But
this
year,
on
its
emergency
docket,
the
majority
has
rescinded
that
status.
By
allowing
the
President
to
remove
Commissioners
for
no
reason
other
than
their
party
affiliation,
the
majority
has
negated
Congress’s
choice
of
agency
bipartisanship
and
independence.
More
damning
is
Kagan’s
critique
of
the
Court’s
circular
reasoning:
And
it
has
accomplished
those
ends
with
the
scantiest
of
explanations.
The
majority’s
sole
professed
basis
for
today’s
stay
order
is
its
prior
stay
order
in
Wilcox.
But
Wilcox
itself
was
minimally
(and,
as
I
have
previously
shown,
poorly)
explained.
See
605
U.
S.,
at–(KAGAN,
J.,
dissenting)
(slip
op.,
at
4–7).
It
contained
one
sentence
(ignored
today)
hinting
at
but
not
deciding
the
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits,
plus
two
more
respecting
the
“balance
[of]
the
equities.”
Id.,
at–(order)
(slip
op.,
at
1–2);
see
id.,
at __–
___
(KAGAN,
J.,
dissenting)
(slip
op.,
at
4–7).
So
only
another
under-reasoned
emergency
order
undergirds
today’s.
Next
time,
though,
the
majority
will
have
two
(if
still
under-reasoned)
orders
to
cite.
“Truly,
this
is
‘turtles
all
the
way
down.’”_
“Turtles
all
the
way
down”—that’s
what
constitutional
law
looks
like
when
the
Supreme
Court
abandons
its
responsibility
to
explain
its
reasoning.
Each
unexplained
shadow
docket
ruling
becomes
precedent
for
the
next
unexplained
shadow
docket
ruling,
creating
an
infinite
regression
of
constitutional
nonsense.
This
isn’t
just
bad
legal
process—it’s
the
systematic
destruction
of
constitutional
government.
Instead
of
three
coequal
branches
with
checks
and
balances,
we’re
getting
an
imperial
presidency,
a
neutered
Congress,
and
a
Supreme
Court
that
has
transformed
from
constitutional
interpreter
to
Trump’s
enabler.
The
Court’s
shadow
docket
has
become
the
constitutional
equivalent
of
“because
we
said
so.”
That’s
not
law.
That’s
authoritarianism
with
footnotes.
And
sometimes
even
the
footnotes
are
missing.
On
Thursday,
a
coalition
of
28
healthcare
organizations
sent
a
letter
to
leaders
in
Congress
calling
on
them
to
extend
the
Affordable
Care
Act
enhanced
premium
tax
credits,
which
are
set
to
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year.
The
letter
was
addressed
to
John
Thune,
Senate
majority
leader;
Chuck
Schumer,
Senate
minority
leader;
Mike
Johnson,
speaker
of
the
House;
and
Hakeem
Jeffries,
minority
leader
of
the
House.
The
letter
was
led
by
Keep
Americans
Covered
and
was
signed
by
healthcare
organizations
including
AHIP,
Blue
Cross
Blue
Shield
Association,
the
American
Medical
Association,
Kaiser
Permanente,
Families
USA
and
more.
The
enhanced
premium
tax
credits
were
introduced
in
2020
as
part
of
the
American
Rescue
Plan
Act
to
support
people
during
the
Covid-19
pandemic.
They
lowered
monthly
premiums
for
people
who
buy
coverage
on
the
state
and
federal
Marketplaces.
In
2022,
Congress
extended
the
enhanced
tax
credits
through
2025
through
the
Inflation
Reduction
Act.
If
Congress
now
allows
the
enhanced
tax
credits
to
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year,
“the
cost
of
health
insurance
will
explode,
with
typical
American
families
forced
to
pay
hundreds
or
thousands
of
dollars
more
each
month
to
keep
the
coverage
they
have,”
the
organizations
wrote.
“Expiration
of
the
tax
credit
will
create
a
cost-of-living
crisis
for
millions
of
American
families
in
2026.”
They
added
that
if
the
tax
credits
expire,
a
family
of
four
making
$64,000
would
experience
a
$2,600
increase
in
their
healthcare
premiums.
A
60-year-old
couple
making
$80,000
would
face
a
$17,500
increase
in
premiums.
“This
is
an
urgent
issue
that
affects
both
the
cost
of
living
and
patient
health,
and
it
requires
immediate
action.
Open
enrollment
for
next
year’s
coverage
begins
November
1—100
days
away,”
the
coalition
stated.
“By
October,
millions
of
Americans
will
be
‘window
shopping’
and
see
the
full
extent
of
these
soaring
premiums
for
2026.
And
already,
many
of
the
24
million
people
enrolled
in
the
individual
market
are
receiving
letters
informing
them
that
to
maintain
their
coverage
they
will
need
to
find
hundreds
or
thousands
of
dollars
in
already
stretched
family
budgets.”
They
added
that
the
crisis
“can
be
avoided”
and
urged
Congress
to
include
an
extension
of
the
enhanced
tax
credit
in
the
“next
bill
that
Congress
sends
to
the
president
for
his
signature.”
This
letter
follows
a
recent
analysis
published
by
KFF
and
the
Peterson
Center
on
Healthcare,
which
found
that
ACA
Marketplace
insurers
are
proposing
the
largest
premium
hikes
since
2018,
with
a
median
15%
increase
projected
for
2026.
This
is
partially
driven
by
the
expiration
of
the
enhanced
premium
tax
credits,
as
well
as
tariffs
on
drugs
and
medical
equipment,
the
analysis
noted.
*
Trump
withdraws
Habba’s
nomination
so
he
can
avoid
statute
the
prevents
nominee
from
serving
as
Acting
U.S.
Attorney…
even
though
the
statute
actually
says
she’s
blocked
from
holding
the
job
if
her
name
was
ever
submitted
for
nomination.
But
surely
the
devoted
textualists
on
the
Supreme
Court
will
hold
fast
to
the
law!
[NY
Times]
*
The
Supreme
Court
is
totally
going
to
overturn
NYT
v.
Sullivan
by
throwing
Candace
Owens
under
the
bus,
aren’t
they?
[CNN]
*
A
response
to
the
Barnett-Wurman
effort
to
rewrite
birthright
citizenship.
The
title
references
the
“Dunning
School”
which
is
not
about
the
Dunning-Kruger
effect
even
though
that’s
a
better
description
of
the
scholarship
being
critiqued.
[Cornell
Law
Review]
*
The
pigs
finally
caught
Chuck
E.
Cheese.
[People]
*
You
may
be
able
to
indict
a
ham
sandwich,
but
LA
grand
juries
will
not
indict
ICE
protestors.
[TPM]
*
January
6
prosecutors
sue
Pam
Bondi
over
retaliatory
dismissals.
[NBC
News]
*
The
firms
fighting
back
against
Trump
are
likely
using
their
profits
to
fund
the
battle.
[American
Lawyer]
Kathryn
