Rafiq
Adam,
a
respected
figure
in
Zimbabwean
business
circles
and
a
former
football
administrator,
is
best
known
for
his
tenure
as
Dynamos
chairman
and
as
team
manager
of
the
national
team,
the
Warriors,
during
the
famed
“Dream
Team”
era.
The
court
heard
that
Samson
Gora,
a
driver
employed
by
Adam’s
company,
Merchantman
Enterprises,
allegedly
supplied
key
information
about
the
movement
and
storage
of
large
sums
of
cash
at
the
company’s
offices
on
Cameroon
Street
in
the
capital.
Gora
is
alleged
to
have
conspired
with
Nyengerayi
Chikwadze,
Oscar
Muchenje,
and
two
unidentified
foreign
nationals
still
at
large.
The
gang,
posing
as
prospective
clients,
reportedly
stormed
the
premises
armed
with
a
pistol on
16
June
2025.
During
the
robbery,
one
of
the
suspects
allegedly
struck
Adam
with
the
butt
of
the
weapon
and
demanded
keys
to
the
company
safe.
In
fear
for
his
life,
Adam
complied,
allowing
the
robbers
to
access
the
safe
and
steal
US$500,000
in
cash
along
with
other
valuables,
pushing
the
total
haul
to
US$600,000.
Gora
was
arrested
on
27
June
after
CID
Homicide
detectives
received
intelligence
linking
him
to
the
heist.
During
interrogation,
he
reportedly
confessed
to
being
the
inside
man
and
admitted
to
receiving
US$10,000
as
his
share
of
the
loot.
Further
investigations
led
to
the
recovery
of
US$4,400
in
cash
and
a
Toyota
Hiace
vehicle
allegedly
purchased
with
proceeds
from
the
robbery.
The
vehicle
was
found
hidden
at
his
brother
Willard
Gora’s
residence.
Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Renee
Knake
Jefferson
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
Legal
Ethics
Roundup,here.
Welcome
to
what
captivates,
haunts,
inspires,
and
surprises
me
every
week
in
the
world
of
legal
ethics.
Happy
Monday!
It
was
a
whirlwind
of
legal
ethics
news
last
week,
so
let’s
jump
right
in.
Highlights
from
Last
Week
–
Top
Ten
Headlines
#1“DOJ
Sues
All
Federal
Judges
in
Maryland
Over
Deportation
Order.” From
the Washington
Post:
“The Justice
Department sued
all
15
federal
district
court
judges
in
Maryland
on
Tuesday
over
an
order
that
pauses
any
deportations
under
legal
challenge
in
the
state
for
48
hours.
Legal
experts
described
the
moveas
an
unprecedented
attack
on
judicial
independence,
while
government
lawyers
said
it
was
necessary
to
preserve President
Donald
Trump’s constitutional
authority
over
immigration.
Longtime
court
watchers
said
they
could
not
recall
another
instance
in
which
the
Justice
Department,
which
usually
represents
members
of
the
judicial
branch
in
court,
sued
the
entire
roster
of
judges
in
a
district.”
“It
is
reckless
and
irresponsible
and
yet
another
direct
frontal
assault
on
the
federal
courts
of
this
country,”
said
retired
federal
judge J.
Michael
Luttig,
who
served
on
the U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
4th
Circuit from
1991
to
2006.
#2“Justice
Dept.
Leader
Suggested
Violating
Court
Orders,
Whistle-Blower
Says.” From
the New
York
Times:
“A
senior Justice
Department official, Emil
Bove
III,
told
subordinates
he
was
willing
to
ignore
court
orders
to
fulfill
the
president’s
aggressive
deportation
campaign,
according
to
a
whistle-blower
complaint
by
a
department
lawyer
who
has
since
been
fired.
The
account
by
the
dismissed
lawyer, Erez
Reuveni,
paints
a
disturbing
portrait
of
his
final
three
weeks
on
the
front
lines
of
the
Trump
administration’s
legal
efforts
to
ship
immigrants
overseas,
often
with
little
notice
or
recourse.
In
Mr.
Reuveni’s
telling,
Mr.
Bove
discussed
disregarding
court
orders,
adding
an
expletive
for
emphasis,
and
other
top
law
enforcement
officials
showed
themselves
ready
to
stonewall
judges
or
lie
to
them
to
get
their
way.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
For
more
commentary,
head
over
to
this Substack
post by Brad
Wendel (Cornell)
where,
among
other
observations,
he
catalogs
the
eight
–
yes
eight-
professional
conduct
rules
implicated.
As
Brad
says:
“Don’t
take
my
word
for
it.
Read
through
theletter and,
if
you’re
a
lawyer,
ask
yourself
what
you
would
have
done.”
#3“Lawyer
Who
Pushed
Bogus
Trump
Elector
Scheme
Is
Disbarred
in
New
York.” From
the New
York
Times:
“Kenneth
Chesebro,
a
lawyer
who
helped
spearhead
a
brazen
legal
effort
to
use
phony
slates
of
pro-Trump
electors
to
overturn
the
2020
presidential
election,
was
disbarred
in
New
York
on
Thursday,
cementing
an
indefinite
ban
issued
last
year.
The
decision
by
a
New
York
State
appellate
court
concluded
a
strange
legal
journey
for
a
Harvard-educated
lawyer
who
worked
for
former Vice
President
Al
Gore during
the
2000
presidential
election
recount
in
Florida
and
later
evolved
into
a
supporter
of
President
Trump.
In
a seven-page
opinion,
the
court
cited
a
criminal
racketeering
case
centered
on
the
fake
electors
in
Georgia,
where
in
2023
Mr.
Chesebro
pleaded
guilty.
The
New
York
court
said
Thursday
that
Mr.
Chesebro’s
“criminal
conduct
—
conspiracy
to
commit
filing
false
documents
—
is
unquestionably
serious”
and
that
he
had
undercut
“the
very
notion
of
our
constitutional
democracy
that
he,
as
an
attorney,
swore
an
oath
to
uphold.”
#4“Lawyers
Market
Big
#MeToo
Verdicts,
but
Their
Clients
Struggle
to
Collect.” From
the Wall
Street
Journal:
“The
cases
reveal
an
unpleasant
reality
about
#MeToo
verdicts
and
other
civil
judgments:
Winning
is
hard
enough,
but
collecting
can
be
even
harder.
…
Plaintiffs,
on
top
of
what
they
pay
lawyers
handling
their
lawsuits,
must
pay
for
time
spent
by
the
judgment
enforcers,
or
give
them
a
cut
of
any
amounts
collected.
The
plaintiffs
have
to
cover
some
costs
upfront,
so
they
sometimes
turn
to
firms
that
finance
such
work.
Those
specialty
funders
often
take
a
first
cut
of
any
recoveries.”
Read
more here (gift
link).
#5“A
Fourth
Judge
Has
Blocked
a
Trump
Executive
Order
Targeting
Elite
Law
Firms.” From NPR:
“A
federal
judge
has
struck
down
President
Trump’s
executive
order
targeting
the
law
firm Susman
Godfrey,
delivering
the
latest
in
a
series
of
legal
wins
for
firms
that
have
challenged
the
president’s
punitive
campaign
against
Big
Law.
The
ruling
Friday
from U.S.
District
Judge
Loren
AliKhan marks
the
fourth
time
out
of
four
that
a
federal
judge
has
permanently
blocked
one
of
Trump’s
executive
orders
seeking
to
punish
an
elite
law
firm.”
Read
more here.
#6“Former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Kennedy
Says
‘Democracy
is
at
Risk’.” From Politico:
“Former Supreme
CourtJustice
Anthony
Kennedy warned
Thursday
that
acrimonious
political
discourse
and
threats
to
judges
are
eroding
the
ability
of
the
United
States
to
serve
as
an
example
of
democracy
worldwide.
‘Many
in
the
rest
of
the
world
look
to
the
United
States
to
see
what
democracy
is,
to
see
what
democracy
ought
to
be,’
Kennedy
said
during
an
online
forum
about
threats
to
the
rule
of
law.
‘If
they
see
a
hostile,
fractious
discourse,
if
they
see
a
discourse
that
uses
identity
politics
rather
than
to
talk
about
issues,
democracy
is
at
risk.
Freedom
is
at
risk.’”
Read
more here.
#7“Litigation
Funders
And
Lawyers
Face
40.8%
Tax
In
One,
Big,
Beautiful
Bill.” From Forbes:
“The
litigation
funding
industry—and
many
lawyers
and
law
firms—are
worried
about
a
provision
inserted
in
the
pending
tax
bill. Senator
Thom
Tillis (R-N.C.)
introduced
the
Tackling
Predatory
Litigation
Funding
Act
in
the
Senate,
you
can
read
the
text here.
A
companion
bill
was
introduced
in
the
House
by Kevin
Hern (R-Okla.).
The
litigation
funding
tax
was
not
in
the
House-passed
One,
Big,
Beautiful
Bill
Act,
but
the
Senate’s
reconciliation
bill
includes
it.
Its
ostensible
goal
as
described
by
Tillis
when
he
introduced
it
is
to
prevent
foreign
influence
in
the
U.S.
court
system
and
stem
frivolous
lawsuits.
Some
insurers
and
trade
groups
support
it,
you
can
see
a
list here.
Investors
(both
foreign
and
domestic)
often
help
fund
lawsuits,
and
the
U.S.
is
full
of
lawsuits.
But
given
the
elephant
gun
approach
of
the
proposed
new
tax,
domestic
funders
are
equally
worried,
as
are
lawyers
and
law
firms.”
Read
more here.
#8“Florida
Judge
Sided
with
Trump
While
Advocating
for
Nomination.” From Bloomberg
Law:
“A
Florida
state
judge
was
angling
for
a
federal
judicial
nomination
from Donald
Trump when
he
sided
with
the
president
in
a
defamation
case
before
his
court. Ed
Artau,
who’s
now
under
consideration
for
South
Florida’s
US
trial
court,
met
with
the
White
House
roughly
two
weeks
after
he
wrote
his
February
concurring
opinion
allowing
Trump’s
defamation
suit
against
the
Pulitzer
Prize
Board
to
proceed,
according
to
his Senate
Judiciary
Questionnaire made
public
by Accountable.US,
a
progressive
watchdog
group.
The
disclosure
was
first
reported
Friday
by Politico.
The
timing
of
Trump’s
announcement
that
he’d
tapped
Artau
for
the
federal
bench
soon
after
the
judge’s
decision
in
the
case
raised
concerns
about
his
impartiality
in
the
defamation
case
and
the
process
by
which
he
was
chosen.”
Read
more here.
#9“The
Future
is
Now:
Why
Trial
Lawyers
and
Judges
Should
Embrace
Generative
AI
Now
and
How
to
Do
It
Safely
and
Productively.” From JD
Supra:
“The
unprecedented
rapid
advancement
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(AI)
worldwide
presents
the
legal
profession
with
a
pivotal
opportunity
for
transformation.
The
legal
system
is
deeply
rooted
in
tradition,
precedent,
and
established
practices,
which
is
good;
however,
this
does
not
mean
we
should
avoid
technology.
The
legal
practice
must
be
open
to
change
and
embrace
AI,
just
as
it
did
with
computers
and
online
communications.
We
can
keep
our
traditions
of
ethics,
justice,
and
precedent,
but
also
utilize
generative
AI
to
make
our
practices
more
efficient,
consistent,
and
responsive
to
the
demands
of
the
modern
world.”
Read
more here.
#10“Maine’s
Highest-Ranking
Justices
Will
Not
Weigh
Complaints
Against
Peers.” From
the Portland
Press
Herald:
“According
to
new
rules,
ethics
complaints
against
members
of
the Maine
Supreme
Judicial
Court instead
will
be
heard
by
a
panel
of
lower
court
judges.”
Read
more here.
Get
Hired
Did
you
miss
the
150+
job
postings
from
previous
Roundups?
Find
them
all here.
Upcoming
Ethics
Events
&
Other
Announcements
Did
you
miss
an
announcement
from
previous
Roundups?
Find
them
all here.
Keep
in
Touch
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.
Government
incentives,
including
a
reduction
of
import
tax
duties
on
electric
vehicles
(EVs)
from
40
to
25
%,
are
propelling
Zimbabwe
towards
greater
EV
adoption.
This
aligns
the
country
with
global
trends
promoting
environmentally
friendly
ways
of
transportation.
Tanaka
Kutama,
a
business
consultant
and
EV
specialist,
confirms
growing
interest
in
the
sector
since
the
duty
reductions
were
introduced.
“We
have
seen
an
increase
in
inquiries
and
imports,
but
infrastructure,
and
energy
reliability
remain
major
hurdles,”
he
says.
Currently,
Zimbabwe
has
only
a
small
number
of
public
EV
charging
stations
spread
across
key
cities
such
as
Mutare,
Bulawayo
and
Harare.
Notable
locations
include
the
Fidelity
Life
Centre
in
Mutare,
the
Century
Towers
in
Harare
and
the
Zimbabwe
International
Trade
Fair
(ZITF)
grounds
in
Bulawayo.
According
to
Washington
Zhakata,
director
of
Climate
Change
Management
in
the
Ministry
of
Environment,
Climate
and
Wildlife,
the
shift
towards
EVs
is
inevitable.
“Countries
that
are
producing
oil
have
been
obliged
under
multilateral
environmental
agreements
to
reduce
oil
production
and
switch
to
renewable
energy,”
he
explains.
“So,
the
issue
of
electric
vehicles
is
inevitable.
We
can’t
run
away
from
it.”
Zhakata
also
notes
that
EV
adoption
is
already
under
way
in
Zimbabwe.
“Several
companies
are
starting
to
market
electric
vehicles,
including
motorcycles.
By
2030,
we
expect
a
transformation
in
the
transport
mix
from
fossil
fuel-based
energy
to
renewable
sources,”
he
says.
However,
experts
emphasise
that
for
EVs
to
truly
reduce
emissions, investment
in
mass
transportation
solutions
is
essential.
“There
are
far
too
many
private
cars,
and
the
carbon
footprint
could
be
greatly
reduced
if
the
country
invested
in
public
transport
options
such
as
electric
buses
and
vans,”
Zhakata
adds.
Power
supply
issues
remain
a
major
challenge.
Frequent
outages,
lasting
up
to
18
hours
in
some
areas,
combined
with
limited
grid
coverage,
hinder
the
viability
of
EVs.
Many
consumers
are
sceptical,
especially
in
rural
areas,
where
electricity
supply
is
unreliable.
“People
don’t
see
EVs
as
a
solution
if
they
can’t
charge
them,”
one
commentator
observes.
Yet,
there
is
cautious
optimism.
Zimbabwe
holds
significant
lithium
reserves,
a
critical
input
in
EV
battery
technology.
This
could
position
the
country
as
a
player
in
the
emerging
EV
market,
both
regionally
and
globally.
Kudakwashe
Ngoni,
an
EV
owner
from
Harare,
remains
confident
about
the
future.
“We
are
hopeful
to
see
more
electric
vehicles
on
the
roads.
I
currently
drive
one,
and
it
has
been
a
great
investment,”
he
says.
The
road
ahead
will
not
be
without
obstacles.
However,
by
leveraging
local
resources,
addressing
infrastructure
gaps
and
promoting
public-private
partnerships,
Zimbabwe
has
an
opportunity
to
drive
sustainable
growth
in
the
transport
sector.
Biglaw
firms
are
trying
to
expand
their
presence
in
the
Southeast,
specifically
Atlanta
and
Charlotte,
and
that’s
causing
some
local
firms
to
leak
lawyers
like
sieves.
In
fact,
one
midsize
firm
in
the
area
has
been
hit
so
hard
by
Biglaw
firms
on
the
hunt
for
attorneys
that
it’s
now
looking
into
merger
opportunities.
Morris
Manning
&
Martin
—
a
well-regarded
Am
Law
200
firm
that
brought
in
$157,946,000
gross
revenue
last
year
—
is
now
facing
quite
the
conundrum.
The
firm
has
lost
more
than
one
third
of
its
attorneys
(about
60)
this
year
alone
to
firms
like
Fox
Rothschild,
Clark
Hill,
Reed
Smith,
Bradley
Arant,
and
Gunderson
Dettmer,
and
most
recently
suffered
a
blow
after
Seyfarth
Shaw
took
22
lawyers
from
its
real
estate
and
corporate
practice
groups.
According
to
the
Daily
Report,
Morris
Manning
is
now
in
serious
merger
talks
with
an
Am
Law
100
firm.
Here
are
the
details:
Morris
Manning
managing
partner
Simon
Malko
said
in
a
statement
that
a
potential
merger
offers
the
firm
“growth
prospects
on
the
horizon”
which
“are
very
exciting.”
“Morris,
Manning
&
Martin
is
poised
for
highly
strategic
and
transformational
options
for
growth,”
Malko
said.
“We
are
in
advanced
discussions
with
a
national
Am
Law
100
firm
with
outstanding
lawyers,
comprehensive
full-service
resources,
a
highly
collegial
culture,
and
a
strong
cultural,
client
and
economic
fit.
“We
have
a
solid
group
of
highly
respected
attorneys,
along
with
an
impressive
and
loyal
client
base
built
during
the
last
50
years,”
he
said.
“While
we
are
disappointed
to
see
some
of
our
attorneys
go,
we
wish
them
the
best.”
Although
this
certainly
sounds
promising,
an
industry
insider
with
knowledge
of
the
merger
talks
doesn’t
think
this
scenario
will
have
as
happy
of
an
ending
as
the
one
Malko
is
painting.
The
insider
thinks
a
more
likely
plan
will
be
for
other
firms
to
hire
away
lawyers
once
the
Morris
Manning
dissolves.
Best
of
luck
to
Morris
Manning
&
Martin
during
this
critical
juncture
in
time,
as
its
future
may
depend
on
the
next
moves
that
are
made.
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.
On
the
latest
episode
of
the
Jabot
Podcast,
I
welcome
attorney
Laura
Cowan,
author
of
“Lifestyle
Lawyer
Revolution.”
Discover
why
Laura
transitioned
from
CPA
to
law,
her
journey
of
starting
an
estate
planning
firm,
and
the
insights
from
her
lifestyle-focused
law
practice.
Laura
shares
invaluable
tips
on
balancing
career
success
with
personal
well-being.
Whether
you’re
a
seasoned
lawyer
or
just
starting,
Laura’s
practical
advice
and
unique
perspective
offer
a
refreshing
take
on
modern
legal
practice.
Don’t
miss
this
insightful
conversation!
Highlights
Combining
law
with
finance
interests
Entrepreneurial
spirit
in
law
practice
Surviving
the
challenge
of
starting
a
law
firm
Importance
of
practical
law
education
Debunking
the
workaholic
lawyer
myth
Avoiding
lawyer
burnout
Utilizing
technology
in
law
practice
Value
of
coaching
for
legal
success
Fear
and
success
in
public
speaking
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].
Boston
is
brimming
with
business
opportunities,
which
is
just
one
of
the
reasons
that
Biglaw
firms
are
flocking
there
to
throw
open
their
doors.
If
you’re
a
lawyer
who
runs
on
Dunkin’,
Beantown
is
the
place
to
be.
But
which
firm
is
right
for
you?
Thanks
to
Vault’s
recently
released regional
rankings,
we
now
know
which
Biglaw
firms
are
dominating
the
legal
scene
in
the
Cradle
of
Liberty.
This
ranking
is
based
on
votes
tabulated
from
associates
who
were
asked
to
rate
firms
on
a
1
to
10
scale
based
on
their
prestige
within
the
region.
Here
are
the
top
10
most
prestigious
firms
in
Boston
(you
can
see
the
full
list
from
Vault
by
clicking here):
Ropes
&
Gray
WilmerHale
Goodwin
Kirkland
&
Ellis
Latham
&
Watkins
Skadden
Choate
Hall
&
Stewart
Mintz
Cooley
Morgan
Lewis
&
Bockius
Congrats
to
all
of
the
Biglaw
firms
that
made
the
latest
edition
of
Vault’s
Boston
rankings.
How
did
your
firm
do
this
time? Email
us,
text
us
at (646)
820-8477,
or
tweet
us @atlblog to
let
us
know
how
you
feel.
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
has
issued
its
long-anticipated
ruling
in
Braidwood
Management
v.
Becerra,
affirming
the
constitutionality
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act
provision
that
requires
insurers
to
cover
certain
preventive
services
recommended
by
the
U.S.
Preventive
Services
Task
Force
without
cost-sharing.
This
includes
cancer
screenings,
pregnancy
care
and
testing
for
sexually
transmitted
diseases.
Several
Texas
residents
and
two
Christian-affiliated
businesses
had
sued
the
government,
arguing
that
the
provision
violates
the
appointments
clause,
which
requires
that
officers
of
the
U.S.
only
be
appointed
by
the
president
with
advice
and
consent
of
the
Senate.
Members
of
USPSTF
were
not
nominated
by
the
president
and
approved
by
the
Senate.
They
also
argued
that
covering
benefits
like
preexposure
prophylaxis
(PrEP),
which
is
used
to
prevent
HIV,
goes
against
their
religious
beliefs,
violating
the
Religious
Freedom
Restoration
Act
(RFRA).
In
a
6-3
ruling
authored
by
Justice
Brett
Kavanaugh,
the
Supreme
Court
stated
that
the
U.S.
Preventive
Services
Task
Force
are
inferior
officers
and
don’t
require
Senate
approval,
and
therefore,
their
appointment
was
constitutional
under
the
appointments
clause.
HHS
Secretary
Robert
F.
Kennedy
Jr.
has
the
power
to
appoint
and
fire
members
of
the
task
force,
and
review
and
block
their
recommendations.
Justices
Clarence
Thomas,
Samuel
Alito
and
Neil
Gorsuch
dissented.
In
regards
to
the
religious
claim,
the
district
court
ruled
in
favor
of
Braidwood.
The
Supreme
Court
noted
that
the
government
did
not
appeal
this
part
of
the
district
court’s
judgment,
so
the
religious
issue
remains
with
the
district
court,
said
Daniel
Frier,
a
healthcare
attorney
and
founding
partner
of
Frier
Levitt.
“The
Court’s
handling
of
the
religious
freedom
claim
signals
that
employers
with
sincerely
held
religious
objections
may
still
seek
exemptions
from
certain
coverage
mandates
under
RFRA.
The
ongoing
proceedings
in
the
district
court
on
this
issue
could
influence
the
scope
of
religious
accommodations
available
under
federal
health
care
law,”
he
added.
Had
the
Supreme
Court
decided
differently
on
the
appointments
clause,
the
government’s
ability
to
require
insurers
and
employers
to
cover
preventive
services
without
cost
sharing
could
have
been
severely
limited.
An
executive
from
the
American
Cancer
Society
Cancer
Action
Network
applauded
the
decision.
“In
a
critical
ruling
that
helps
reduce
the
cancer
burden
nationwide
by
ensuring
affordable
access
to
evidence-based
cancer
screening
and
preventive
services,
we
are
pleased
that
today
the
Supreme
Court
upheld
the
provision
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act
that
requires
most
private
insurers
to
cover
many
lifesaving
preventive
care
services
without
cost
sharing.
Research
has
shown
that
any
out-of-pocket
costs
can
be
a
deterrent
to
accessing
proven
cancer
screening,
which
can
be
the
difference
between
life
and
death,”
said
Lisa
Lacasse,
president
of
the
American
Cancer
Society
Cancer
Action
Network,
in
a
statement.
Families
USA,
an
advocacy
group
for
healthcare
consumers,
said
the
decision
provides
some
security
to
more
than
170
million
Americans
by
preserving
their
access
to
preventive
services
without
cost-sharing.
Still,
there’s
cause
for
concern,
said
Anthony
Wright,
executive
director
of
Families
USA.
“While
this
is
a
foundational
victory
for
patients,
patients
have
reason
to
be
concerned
that
the
decision
reaffirms
the
ability
of
the
HHS
secretary,
including
our
current
one,
to
control
the
membership
and
recommendations
of
the
US
Preventive
Services
Task
Force
that
determines
which
preventive
services
are
covered,”
Wright
said
in
a
statement.
“We
must
be
vigilant
to
ensure
Secretary
Kennedy
does
not
undo
coverage
of
preventive
services
by
taking
actions
such
as
his
recent
firing
of
qualified
health
experts
from
the
CDC’s
independent
vaccine
advisory
committee
and
replacing
them
with
his
personal
allies.”
Another
healthcare
expert
noted
that
the
“implications
of
this
case
cannot
be
overstated.”
However,
this
doesn’t
mark
the
final
chapter.
“The
decision
does
not
resolve
the
deeper
legal
and
political
uncertainty
surrounding
health
care
access,”
said
Greg
Fosheim,
a
partner
at
McDermott
Will
&
Emery.
“Braidwood
must
be
read
in
tandem
with
the
Court’s
recent
decision
in
United
States
v.
Skrmetti,
which
limited
federal
protections
for
access
to
gender-affirming
care.
Taken
together,
these
rulings
underscore
how
vulnerable
many
forms
of
essential,
compassionate,
and
evidence-based
health
care
remain
—
particularly
when
they
intersect
with
contested
social
or
religious
issues.”
Fosheim
emphasized
that
in
Braidwood,
the
Court
left
open
the
possibility
of
future
exemptions
based
on
religious
freedoms
for
services
like
PrEP.
This
suggests
that
“even
when
structural
elements
of
the
ACA
are
upheld,
access
to
comprehensive
care
can
still
be
narrowed
in
practice,”
he
said.
And,
thus
far,
every
firm
that
had
the
actual
courage
to
challenge
these
EOs
in
court
has
successfully
challenged
the
orders
as
unconstitutional.
Susman
Godfrey
joined
Perkins
Coie,
Jenner
&
Block,
and
WilmerHale
as
the
latest
firm
to
notch
a
victory
against
Trump.
On
Friday
U.S.
District
Judge
Loren
AliKhan
issued
a
decision,
available
below,
granting
Susman’s
motion
for
summary
judgment,
writing,
“The
order
was
one
in
a
series
attacking
firms
that
had
taken
positions
with
which
President
Trump
disagreed.
In
the
ensuing
months,
every
court
to
have
considered
a
challenge
to
one
of
these
orders
has
found
grave
constitutional
violations
and
permanently
enjoined
enforcement
of
the
order
in
full.”
AliKhan
found
the
EO
was
a
violation
of
the
First
Amendment,
writing
“As
the
court
has
laid
out,
the
activities
that
the
Order
contemplates—which
include
litigation
concerning
the
2020
election,
a
donation
to
GLAD
law,
an
academic
prize
that
is
not
covered
by
Title
VII,
and
general
statements
about
diversity
on
Susman’s
website—are
all
plainly
protected
by
the
First
Amendment.
Defendants
cannot
target
Susman
for
those
activities
simply
because
it
does
not
like
them.”
The
judge
also
found
the
EO
violated
the
firm’s
due
process
rights,
because
it
“interferes
with
the
right
of
the
firm
and
its
attorneys
to
pursue
their
chosen
profession;
harms
the
firm’s
reputation;
and
deprives
the
firm
of
its
protected
property
interest
in
contracts
with
its
clients.”
“The
aforementioned
liberty
and
property
interests
were
all
taken
without
any
process.
The
Constitution
demands
more;
specifically,
that
Susman
has
the
‘right
to
know
the
factual
basis
for
the
action’
and
have
‘the
opportunity
to
rebut’
it.
Susman
was
afforded
neither.
The
firm
was
not
given
prior
notice
of
the
Order,
learned
of
it
only
when
it
was
announced
on
live
television,
and
was
not
provided
the
opportunity
to
clear
its
name.”
[Internal
citations
omitted.]
A
firm
spokesperson
had
the
following
comment,
“The
Court’s
ruling
is
a
resounding
victory
for
the
rule
of
law
and
the
right
of
every
American
to
be
represented
by
legal
counsel
without
fear
of
retaliation.
We
applaud
the
Court
for
declaring
the
administration’s
order
unconstitutional.
Our
firm
is
committed
to
the
rule
of
law
and
to
protecting
the
rights
of
our
clients
without
regard
to
their
political
or
other
beliefs.
Susman
Godfrey’s
lawyers
and
staff
live
these
values
every
day.
We
are
also
deeply
appreciative
of
those
who
supported
us
in
this
lawsuit,
including
our
superb
legal
team
at
Munger,
Tolles
&
Olson
and
the
thousands
of
lawyers,
former
judges,
law
professors,
and
law
students
who
submitted
amicus
briefs.”
The
legal
arguments
against
the
EOs
have
been
pretty
slam
dunk…
which
is
certainly
fanning
some
of
the
frustration
directed
at
the
nine
firms
that
capitulated
to
Trump.
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].
Just
Because
You
Lost
The
Battle,
It
Doesn’t
Mean
You’ve
Lost
The
War:
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor’s
dissent
shows
there
is
a
way
forward.
Perkins
Coie
Makes
Some
Big
Staffing
Changes:
Staff
bears
the
burnt
of
the
cuts.
Biglaw
Partner
Watches
A
Little
Too
Much
Pulp
Fiction:
And
it
shows
in
a
most
peculiar
way.
Bummed
About
All
Those
Pesky
Rights
The
Constitution
Provides?
Here’s
a
plan,
sue
all
the
judges!
New
Mega
Firm
Alert:
Looks
like
McDermott
Will
&
Schulte
is
really
happening.
Milbank
Is
Going
After
The
Trump
Administration
On
Tariffs:
Where
was
this
chutzpah
when
Trump
was
threatening
the
firm?
Law
Student
Gets
Rewarded
For
Writing
A
Paper
Arguing
The
Constitution
Is
For
White
People:
Law
school
dean
is
the
model
of
ineptitude.
Kathryn
