Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature
Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!
What
Disney
film
features
a
judge
as
the
primary
villain?
Hint:
Christopher
Lloyd
played
the
character
and
has
said
overtly
evil
characters,
like
this
one,
are
“fun
to
play.”
In
the
climax
of
the
film,
this
villain
is
revealed
to
have
previously
unknown
powers.
See the
answer
on
the
next
page.
Although
most
healthcare
organizations
are
strengthening
their
cybersecurity
efforts,
serious
vulnerabilities
still
persist,
according
to
research
released
this
week
by
Fortified
Health
Security,
a
healthcare
cybersecurity
vendor.
Healthcare
providers
have
made
significant
strides
over
the
past
five
years,
especially
when
it
comes
to
governance,
response
planning
and
risk
assessments,
pointed
out
Fortified
CEO
Dan
Dodson.
This
progress
was
spurred
by
major
data
breaches
and
increased
regulatory
attention,
which
have
pushed
boards
and
executives
to
take
cybersecurity
more
seriously,
he
said.
“They
realize
they
must
truly
be
prepared
for
the
worst
and
have
a
response
plan
integrated
into
their
business
continuity
plans,”
Dodson
stated.
“However,
with
this
progress,
it
is
also
important
to
acknowledge
that
our
adversaries
are
continually
evolving
their
attack
methods;
therefore,
we
must
continue
to
advance
our
cybersecurity
initiatives.”
For
instance,
most
providers
have
beefed
up
their
efforts
related
to
cybersecurity
risk
analysis,
but
that’s
not
enough
—
they
need
to
make
sure
they
act
on
what
they
find
in
those
assessments,
he
noted.
In
other
words,
it
needs
to
be
more
than
just
a
check-the-box
exercise.
In
most
cases,
providers’
security
gaps
exist
because
they
invested
in
advanced
tools
before
they
became
confident
in
the
basics
like
patching,
password
policies
and
access
controls,
Dodson
added.
Overall,
he
thinks
three
main
cybersecurity
challenges
stand
out
for
healthcare
providers.
The
first
is
AI.
Providers
are
eager
to
adopt
AI
tools,
but
they
often
lack
clear
governance
frameworks
to
effectively
manage
this
technology
and
its
data
exposure
risks,
Dodson
said.
“At
the
same
time,
the
bad
guys
are
already
using
AI
to
alter
their
attacks
on
healthcare,”
he
remarked.
Third
party
risk
management
is
also
a
key
area
on
which
providers
need
to
focus,
as
they
typically
rely
on
hundreds
of
service
and
technology
providers.
This
network
of
partners
is
essential,
but
it
also
creates
a
lot
of
risks.
A
weakness
in
one
vendor’s
system
can
compromise
an
entire
health
system,
and
providers
are
still
figuring
out
how
to
mitigate
this
threat,
Dodson
declared.
The
last
ongoing
cybersecurity
challenge
for
providers
is
simply
lack
of
adequate
funds.
“Some
healthcare
providers
understand
the
cybersecurity
fundamentals
but
still
struggle
to
get
the
appropriate
budget
to
manage
this
risk
effectively,”
Dodson
explained.
“Cybersecurity
competes
with
many
other
priorities,
and
some
organizations,
especially
smaller
or
rural
providers,
are
forced
to
make
complex
tradeoffs.
That
leaves
them
more
exposed,
even
when
they
have
the
right
intentions.”
Moving
forward,
Dodson
said
the
industry
doesn’t
have
time
to
wait
for
regulatory
clarity.
In
his
eyes,
progress
doesn’t
happen
by
playing
it
safe.
He
noted
that
the
most
resilient
organizations
are
those
that
decisively
pick
a
cybersecurity
framework,
like
HITRUST
or
NIST
and
quickly
begin
executing
it.
“Stop
waiting,
because
there
will
never
be
a
perfect
moment
or
situation
to
start.
It
has
to
start
now,”
Dodson
stated.
Photo:
boonchai
wedmakawand,
Getty
Images
In
the
heat
of
an
argument
—
whether
it’s
a
tense
negotiation
or
a
spirited
debate
among
colleagues
—
lawyers
often
feel
a
reflexive
pull
to
win
the
point.
We’re
trained
for
it.
Law
school
hones
our
ability
to
spot
laws
in
logic,
dismantle
weak
arguments,
and,
let’s
be
honest,
enjoy
the
intellectual
high
ground.
In
the
business
world,
especially
in
corporate
legal
departments
where
relationships,
influence,
and
outcomes
often
stretch
beyond
the
board
room,
there’s
a
crucial
distinction
many
of
in-house
lawyers
miss:
Do
you
want
to
beat
them?
Or
do
you
want
to
win?
This
was
the
subject
of
a
recent
LinkedIn
post
by
Joshua
Horenstein,
chief
human
resources
officer
and
chief
legal
officer
at
Innophos,
an
international
ingredients
manufacturer
with
over
1,500
employees
worldwide.
As
Joshua
points
out,
beating
and
winning
can
sound
like
similar
concepts,
but
they
are
actually
very
different.
Beating
someone
is
about
proving
you’re
right
and
the
other
person
is
wrong.
Winning
is
about
achieving
the
best
long-term
outcome.
It’s
a
distinction
that,
if
ignored,
can
derail
careers,
undermine
relationships,
and
erode
the
trust
needed
to
influence
the
business.
And
yet,
we
see
it
all
the
time.
When
in-house
lawyers
insist
on
beating
someone
into
submission
over
a
technicality
or
policy,
the
actual
business
objective
often
gets
lost
in
the
noise.
The
urge
to
beat
someone
in
the
moment
is
seductive.
It
feels
like
control.
It
feels
like
validation.
It
feels
like
being
the
smartest
person
in
the
room.
The
problem
is
beating
someone
rarely
gets
the
in-house
lawyer
what
is
needed
to
be
successful
–
influence,
trust,
and
the
power
to
shape
the
business
in
meaningful
ways
over
time.
Winning
The
Long
Game
So,
how
do
you
shift
from
a
“beat
them”
mindset
to
a
“win
the
long
game”
approach?
It
requires
a
conscious
pivot
from
short-term
validation
to
long-term
impact.
Here
are
three
strategies
Josh
uses
to
stay
grounded
when
the
temptation
to
win
the
argument
feels
overwhelming.
1.
Ask
Yourself:
Does
This
Really
Matter?
Lawyers
love
to
argue
every
point,
but
not
every
point
is
a
hill
worth
dying
on.
Before
escalating
an
issue
or
digging
in,
trying
pausing
and
asking:
What’s
the
real
business
impact
of
letting
this
go?
Is
this
a
material
risk,
or
is
it
more
about
me
proving
a
point?
Most
of
the
time,
personal
capital
is
better
spent
on
battles
that
move
the
business
forward,
not
on
scoring
points
that
feel
good,
but
burn
trust.
2.
Lead
With
Questions,
Not
Conclusions
When
you
feel
the
urge
to
correct
or
challenge,
flip
the
script.
Ask
questions
that
invite
dialogue
rather
than
deliver
judgment.
Instead
of,
“This
is
wrong,”
try:
“I
might
be
missing
something
here
—
can
you
walk
me
through
how
this
approach
would
address
X,
Y,
and
Z?”
Curiosity
keeps
people
in
the
conversation.
Criticism
shuts
it
down.
And
the
more
you
invite
people
to
think
critically
themselves,
the
less
you
need
to
do
it
for
them.
3.
Chase
results,
not
recognition
Some
in-house
lawyers
love
being
recognized
as
the
hero
who
saves
the
day.
If
you
chase
that
recognition,
you
will
often
find
yourself
alienating
the
very
people
whose
support
you
need.
The
people
who
actually
win?
They
focus
on
delivering
outcomes.
They
bring
people
along
with
them.
They
create
space
for
others
to
contribute.
And
ironically,
those
are
the
people
who
end
up
with
the
influence
and
recognition
they
weren’t
chasing
it
in
the
first
place.
Don’t
Be
That
Lawyer
We
all
know
those
in-house
lawyers
who
wins
argument,
but
loses
relationships.
They
get
the
clause
in
the
contract
but
lose
the
chance
to
be
part
of
the
bigger
deal.
They
win
the
policy
debate
but
they
get
sidelined
when
the
next
issue
arises.
Don’t
be
that
lawyer.
The
next
time
you
feel
the
pull
to
prove
you
are
right,
ask
yourself
this:
Am
I
trying
to
beat
them?
Or
am
I
trying
to
win?
The
best
lawyers
I
know
choose
to
win
and
they
do
it
by
playing
the
long
game.
Lisa
Lang
is
an
accomplished
in-house
lawyer
and
thought
leader
dedicated
to
empowering
fellow
legal
professionals. She
offers
insights
and
resources
tailored
for
in-house
counsel
through
her
website
and
blog,
Why
This,
Not
That™
(www.lawyerlisalang.com).
Lisa
actively
engages
with
the
legal
community
via
LinkedIn,
sharing
her
expertise
and
fostering
meaningful
connections.
You
can
reach
her
at
[email protected],
connect
on
LinkedIn
(https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawyerlisalang/).
Joshua
Horenstein
has
an
extensive
background
in
executive
leadership
and
HR/legal/facilities/regulatory
management. He
is
Senior
Vice
President,
Chief
Legal
Officer
and
Chief
Human
Resources
Officer
at
Innophos
Holdings,
Inc.,
an
international
specialty
ingredient
and
chemical
manufacturer.
At
Innophos,
Josh
is
responsible
for
all
human
resources,
legal,
corporate
facilities
and
regulatory
matters
worldwide
for
the
company.
Prior
to
joining
Innophos,
Josh
practiced
law
at
several
leading
law
firms
in
the
Philadelphia
metro
area
and
was
Vice
President
and
Chief
Legal
Officer
at
Rock
Your
Phone,
Inc.
Famed
parking
garage
lawyer
Alina
Habba
spent
her
tenure
as
the
quasi-U.S.
Attorney
for
New
Jersey
stoking
Epstein
file
rumors
and
pushing
political
prosecutions
against
Democrats
inspecting
ICE
facilities.
Now,
mercifully,
that
tenure
should
be
coming
to
a
close.
Habba
sprung
from
her
cage
on
Highway
9
to
assume
the
role
through
an
appointment
by
Pam
Bondi.
Appointments
made
by
the
Attorney
General
to
serve
as
a
U.S.
Attorney
are
limited
to
120
days,
which
for
Habba
will
expire
next
week.
Trump
nominated
his
bumbling
fixer
to
a
full
term
in
the
post,
but
that
nomination
stalled
in
the
Senate
with
New
Jersey’s
senators
opposing
the
pick
and
Senate
Republicans
not
caring
enough
about
Habba
that
they’ve
chosen
to
pretend
they
care
about
this
norm.
That
means
Habba
will
be
out
of
a
job
next
week
unless
the
state’s
federal
judges
decide
to
appoint
her,
and
they
reportedly
have
zilch
interest
in
having
a
cable
news
talking
head
run
the
office,
preferring
instead
to
pick
First
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
Desiree
Grace
and
former
U.S.
District
Court
Judge
Noel
Lawrence
Hillman.
If
it
goes
to
the
judges,
that
person
would
serve
for
up
to
210
days.
Signs
suggest
Habba
might
have
embraced
her
fate
in
a
staff
meeting
yesterday,
with
the
New
Jersey
Globe
reporting
that
someone
with
direct
knowledge
of
the
meeting
claimed
“Habba
had
said
she
expected
to
depart
next
week.”
That
said,
another
tipster
told
the
Globe
that
this
“interpretation
was
mischaracterized,”
and
Habba
really
said
that
she
didn’t
know
what
would
happen
but
hoped
to
stay.
An
inability
to
put
forward
a
clear,
understandable
plan?
NOT
OUR
ALINA!
If
this
is
the
end
of
Thunder
Road
for
Habba’s
bid
to
run
New
Jersey
justice,
maybe
she
can
head
up
Donald
Trump’s
new
threatened
lawsuit
against
Rupert
Murdoch.
Just
kidding…
they’re
going
to
make
one
of
the
Biglaw
capitulators
do
that
for
free.
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.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.
Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,
Quote
of
the
Day.
If
you’re
a
New
York
lawyer,
between
federal,
state
and
local
taxes,
you’re
already
paying
over
50
percent
of
earnings
in
taxes.
At
some
point,
taxes
get
so
much,
people
say
it’s
not
worth
it.
I
could
move
to
Florida.
It
should
lead
a
lot
of
Big
Law
to
say
‘this
is
an
election
I
really
care
about,
because
it
matters
for
my
firm
and
business.’
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
are
waking
up
and
saying,
‘What’s
happening
to
our
city?’
—
Jon
Henes,
a
former
Kirkland
&
Ellis
partner
who
was
Kamala
Harris’s
finance
chair
during
the
2020
Democratic
primary,
in
comments
given
to
the
New
York
Law
Journal,
on
the
“wake
up
call”
that
Zohran
Mamdani’s
surprise
victory
in
the
Democratic
primary
for
mayor
of
New
York
City
represents
for
lawyers
in
the
Big
Apple.
Mamdani
has
proposed
increasing
the
corporate
tax
rate
to
11.5%,
and
introducing
a
2%
tax
on
amounts
exceeding
$1
million
for
those
who
earn
over
that
amount.
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.
Being
a
federal
judge
has
its
perks.
You
get
to
lash
out
against
a
group
of
students
who
ask
you
to
explain
your
reasoning
and
the
dean
of
Stanford
will
jump
to
your
defense.
You
get
to
turn
decisions
into
targeted
job
applications
for
the
Supreme
Court
in
hopes
that
the
sitting
president
will
notice
you.
Hell,
if
you’re
a
Supreme
enough
judge,
you
can
even
show
love
to
insurrectionists!
But
the
bar
for
punishment
is
a
lot
lower
for
state
judges.
Law360
has
coverage:
A
Florida
state
court
judge
found
to
have
violated
judicial
canons
by
donating
funds
to
the
election
campaigns
of
Kamala
Harris
and
Joe
Biden
and
improperly
discussing
her
own
reelection
campaign
has
been
hit
with
a
10-day
suspension
by
the
Sunshine
State’s
high
court.In
a
per
curiam
ruling
Thursday,
the Supreme
Court
of
Florida suspended
Judge
Stefanie
C.
Moon
of
the
Seventeenth
Judicial
Circuit,
publicly
reprimanded
her
and
ordered
her
to
pay
a
fine
of
$2,115,
equal
to
the
amount
of
the
donations
she
made
to
funds
associated
with
the
Democratic
presidential
candidates.
I
get
the
money
is
speech
argument,
but
the
sums
that
have
been
found
to
violate
judicial
canons
just
seem
ridiculous
to
me.
Nonetheless,
dems
the
rules.
Judge
Moon’s
$2.1k
is
further
on
the
spectrum
than
say
Judge
Merchan’s
$35
donation
to
the
Biden
campaign,
but
any
number
over
zero
is
too
much.
Rules
against
endorsement
of
any
kind
are
so
strict
that
one
judge
got
reprimanded
for
simply
liking
a
post
endorsing
a
candidate
on
Facebook.
Now
the
improperly
discussing
her
own
re-election
campaign
prong?
That
seems
to
be
fair
game.
Robed
and
at
the
bench,
she
asked
a
lawyer
why
he
didn’t
respond
to
a
request
to
support
her
campaign.
With
a
spotlight
that
bright
on
him,
he
probably
felt
like
he
was
with
the
head
of
HR
at
a
Coldplay
concert.
Remember
judges,
there’s
a
time,
place,
and
dress
code
for
questions
like
that:
any
other
time,
any
other
place,
and
any
other
outfit.
Oh,
and
don’t
post
pool
bikini
pics
on
Instagram,
but
that’s
neither
here
nor
there.
Fla.
Judge
Suspended
Over
‘Unacceptable’
Political
Donations
[Law360]
Earlier:
Judge
Gets
In
Trouble
For
Giving
Good
Advice
And
Having
Fun
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Join
host
me
as
I
sit
down
with
Columbia
Law
School’s
Susan
Sturm
to
discuss
her
compelling
new
book,
What
Might
Be.
Susan
shares
her
passion
for
social
justice
and
explores
the
power
of
reimagining
systems
for
a
more
equitable
future.
This
episode
is
a
must-listen
for
those
eager
to
understand
the
paradoxes
in
social
justice
work
and
how
to
navigate
them
for
impactful
change.
Highlights
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].
Many
firms
lack
a
formal
client
intake
system,
and
many
make
matters
worse
by
trying
to
manage
intake
with
spreadsheets,
emails,
and
notepads.
In
this
episode
of
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech,”
host
Jared
Correia
speaks
with
Wendy
Wylde
of
Matter
Flow
Advisors,
who
shares
how
she
helps
firms
get
these
systems
up
and
running.
The
First
Steps
How
do
you
start
to
implement
automation
in
a
firm?
Here’s
how
Wendy
gets
started.
Automating
Intake
Client
intake
particularly
lends
itself
to
automation.
Here,
Wendy
shares
some
basics.
Enter
AI
If
your
firm
is
effectively
tracking
metrics,
artificial
intelligence
can
provide
important
insights.
Here’s
a
look
at
the
tech’s
expanding
role.
Hear
the
Full
Conversation
Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.
Most
lawyers
would
agree
that
August
is
a
pretty
slow
time
for
the
legal
profession.
Along
with
the
end
of
the
calendar
year
in
December,
August
is
when
lawyers
are
most
likely
to
take
extended
vacations. Some
law
firms
over
the
years
have
permitted
staff
to
work
remotely
during
August
so
that
everyone
can
better
enjoy
slower
work
periods. More
law
firms
should
implement
such
policies
since
they
likely
won’t
have
a
negative
impact
and
can
help
improve
employee
morale.
Typically,
August
has
fewer
court
appearances
than
other
parts
of
the
year. For
instance,
I
had
to
schedule
a
conference
with
a
court
recently,
and
I
learned
that
the
relevant
judge
took
the
entire
month
of
August
off. This
is
not
uncommon,
and
if
judges
take
vacations,
there
are
usually
fewer
court
conferences,
motion
appearances,
and
the
like
that
attorneys
need
to
prepare
for
and
attend
at
the
end
of
the
summer.
In
addition,
other
stakeholders
in
the
legal
profession
also
take
vacations
during
August.
Many
other
lawyers
take
off
during
this
time,
which
reduces
the
amount
of
paperwork
that
is
filed
in
cases
and
minimizes
interactions
between
counsel
that
can
create
work. Moreover,
clients
also
take
off
during
August. Most
people
want
to
take
advantage
of
the
summer
weather
to
do
something
fun,
and
people
generally
understand
that
after
Labor
Day,
individuals
need
to
work
hard
until
the
holiday
season
—
months
away. Accordingly,
August
is
often
the
perfect
time
for
people
to
take
off,
and
if
more
clients
are
on
vacation,
lawyers
should
have
fewer
tasks
to
handle.
Having
a
work-from-home
August
can
be
invaluable
to
attorneys
and
staff. This
can
help
employees
take
time
off
themselves
and
travel
without
needing
to
appear
in
an
office
multiple
times
a
week. Sure,
employees
can
take
time
off
to
be
entirely
off
the
grid
and
travel
to
wherever
they
want. However,
it
is
often
difficult
for
attorneys
and
staff
to
request
significant
vacation
time
due
to
unrealistic
expectations
managers
have
of
employees.
Having
an
institutional
policy
like
a
remote
August
gives
employees
the
flexibility
and
lack
of
shame
they
need
to
do
something
actually
fun.
Having
a
work-from-home
August
can
be
beneficial
to
law
firms. This
policy
can
boost
morale
around
an
office
and
show
attorneys
and
staff
that
law
firms
care
about
them
and
are
willing
to
bend
policies
for
the
benefit
of
employees. Return-to-office
policies
have
not
been
well-received
by
many
lawyers
and
staff. Most
people
believe
that
they
can
complete
their
jobs
just
fine
without
needing
to
trek
into
an
office,
and
requiring
workers
to
come
to
an
office
makes
it
more
difficult
for
employees
to
complete
personal
tasks
and
have
flexibility
in
managing
their
lives.
Many
law
firm
managers
might
think
that
workers
are
more
productive
in
offices,
and
remote
August
policies
might
impact
productivity.
However,
productivity
might
already
be
impacted
by
the
vacations
people
take
in
August
and
additional
leisure
activities
people
usually
pursue
in
the
summer. Accordingly,
more
law
firms
should
promote
work-from-home
policies
during
August
since
this
is
an
otherwise
slower
time
in
the
legal
profession
and
such
policies
can
increase
employee
morale.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
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.
“Trump
administration
signals
it
is
bypassing
Wisconsin’s
senators
in
key
judicial
selection”: Daniel
Bice
and
Lawrence
Andrea
of
The
Milwaukee
Journal
Sentinel
have an
article that
begins,
“U.S.
Sens.
Ron
Johnson
and
Tammy
Baldwin
have
sent
to
President
Donald
Trump
this
week
five
recommendations
for
filling
a
vacant
seat
on
the
7th
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals,
but
the
Trump
administration
is
signaling
that
it
is
going
its
own
way
in
selecting
the
nominee.”
“Corporate
Responsibility
and
Non-Enforcement
of
the
TikTok
Ban;
Providers
skate
by,
or
refuse
to
answer,
the
hard
questions”: Bob
Bauer
has this
post at
the
“Executive
Functions”
Substack
site.
“Abrego
Garcia
Lawyers
Question
Evidence
From
Key
Witness
in
Criminal
Case;
The
exchanges
unfolded
at
a
hearing
in
Federal
District
Court
in
Nashville
intended
to
determine
whether
Kilmar
Armando
Abrego
Garcia
should
be
freed
from
criminal
custody
as
he
awaits
trial”: Alan
Feuer
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“Trump’s
Plans
to
Put
Emil
Bove
on
the
Supreme
Court”: Jeffrey
Toobin
has this
guest
essay online
at
The
New
York
Times.
“Supreme
Court
Keeps
Ruling
in
Trump’s
Favor,
but
Doesn’t
Say
Why;
In
a
series
of
terse,
unsigned
orders,
the
court
has
often
been
giving
the
green
light
to
President
Trump’s
agenda
without
a
murmur
of
explanation”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
news
analysis.
“Trump’s
DOJ
Won’t
Let
Go
of
One
of
His
Biggest
Losers
in
Court.
I
Know
Why.” Matthew
Wollin
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.