Fish Of The Air? An Update On An Oddly Textual Californian Bee Suit – Above the Law

Interpretation

especially
legal
interpretation

is
hard.
In
response,
many
tout
textualism
as
a
way
to
interpret
the
legal
writings
of
foregone
years
for
today’s
circumstances.
The
weird
thing
about
reading
and
applying
words
based
on
their
definitions
is
that
the
practical
implications
aren’t
always
as
clear
as
one
would
assume
at
the
onset.
Once
upon
a
time,
Jessica
Simpson
caught
hell
for
confusing
canned
tuna
for

Diogenes’
man
.
A
good
more
recent
example
of
how
hard
it
can
be
to
word
with
words
comes
from
a

Californian
case
trying
to
figure
out
which
branch
of
Chondrichthyes
Bombus
fall
under
.
Still
buzzing
with
legal
animus,
Californian
courts
are
leaving
open
the
potential
for
bees
to
be
protected
under
a
fishy
pretense.

The
California
Supreme
Court
on
Wednesday
allowed
the
state
to
consider
protecting
threatened
bumblebees
under
a
conservation
law
listing
for
fish.

The
state’s
high
court
refused
to
grant
a
review
sought
by
farming
groups
of
a
May
appellate
court
ruling
that
allowed
the
California
Fish
and
Game
Commission
to
consider
granting
endangered
species
protection
to
four
types
of
bumblebees
under
a
1970
conservation
law
that
included
the
term
“invertebrates”
under
the
definition
of
fish,
the
San
Francisco
Chronicle reported.

A
1984
law
that
replaced
the
original
act
removed
overall
protection
of
invertebrates
but
specifically
left
in
place
protection
of
the
Trinity
bristle
snail.
The
appellate ruling said
the
logic
that
allowed
a
land-living
mollusk
to
fall
under
the
law
must
be
applied
when
it
comes
to
bumblebees.

This
isn’t
the
first
time
a
literal
reading
of
the
text
led
to
a
literal
(read:

figurative
)
outcome.
A
classic
bit
of
strange
textualism
is
the
case
where
a
discussion
on
if
a
fish
constituted
a
“tangible
item.”
The
Court
decided
the
answer
was
no,
and
then
went
on
to
deliver
one
of
the
most
“legitimate”

Seuss-isms

known
to
man
besides

The
Seven
Lady
Godivas
.
Be
warned,
that
link
could
be
considered
NSFW.
It
really
depends
on
your
firms
policies
and
if
“naked
characters”
counts
as
“nudity.”
Which
may
be
harder
to
come
to
a
clear
answers
in
today’s
age
where
bees
may
be
fish
and

dictionaries
are
considered
obscene
.

Next
up
on
the
docket,
maybe
we
can
figure
out
the
legal
consequences
of
so
many
forms
of
life converging
into
crabdom
?
Given
enough
time,
bumblebees
may

actually

be
fish
proper.


California
Fish
Conservation
Law
Could
Protect
Bees

[Press
Democrat]



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
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Vorys Clinches First Place In The TrueLaw Litigation Index For The Second Year In A Row – Above the Law

Legal
data
has
never
been
more
important
than
it
is
now.
2021
was
a
record-breaking
year
for
many
law
firms
who
dramatically
accelerated
their
growth
rates
compared
to
2020.
From
profit
and
growth
to
efficiencies
and
strategic
decisions,
legal
data
can
help
uncover
key
trends
from
this
record-breaking
year
that
may
not
be
readily
apparent,
making
it
a
critical
part
of
trend
analysis
for
2021
and
beyond.

The
TrueLaw
Litigation
Index

2021
Law
Firm
Ranking
is
UniCourt’s
third
annual
edition
of
our
report
highlighting
the
top
200
federal
civil
litigation
law
firms
by
case
count
for
all
United
States
District
Courts.
To
develop
this
report,
UniCourt
downloads
all
publicly
available
civil
PACER
cases
and
we
then
leverage
artificial
intelligence
and
automation
technologies
to
organize,
structure,
and
normalize
court
data
to
identify
the
attorneys,
law
firms,
parties
and
judges
involved
in
litigation
for
trend
analysis
and
litigation
intelligence.

For
the
second
year
in
a
row,
Vorys,
Sater,
Seymour
and
Pease,
LLP
is
the
top
federal
litigation
law
firm
across
all
U.S.
District
Courts.
In
this
article,
we’ll
review
the
data
behind
Vorys’s
cases,
who
some
of
their
top
clients
are,
and
how
they
beat
out
other
law
firms
again
in
2021.


How
Vorys
Clinched
First
Place

For
an
impressive
second
year
in
a
row,
Vorys
has
clinched
first
place
in
the
TrueLaw
Litigation
Index.
While
Vorys
has
topped
our
charts
for
the
past
two
years,
the
firm
has
been
providing
quality
legal
services
for
over
100
years.
Since
its
founding
in
Columbus,
Ohio
in
1909,
Vorys
has
gone
from
a
small,
four-person
office
to
a
legal
powerhouse,
employing
close
to
400
lawyers
across
eight
offices
in
Ohio,
Washington,
D.C.,
Texas,
Pennsylvania,
and
California.

Vorys
prides
itself
on
the
firm’s
record
of
success,
representing
clients
from
children’s
hospitals
and
Fortune
500
companies
to
individuals
from
all
walks
of
life.
But
Vorys
doesn’t
just
provide
exemplary
client
services,
it
has
also
been
identified
as
a
“Best
Place
to
Work
for
LGBTQ
Equality”
by
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
and
consistently
makes
lists
of
best
lawyers
in
the
United
States.

Vorys’
rise
to
becoming
a
two-time
leader
in
U.S.
District
Court
litigation
is
mainly
due
to
one
legendary
rainmaker
and
mass
litigator

William
D.
Kloss
Jr.,
who
represents
Davol
Inc.
and
C.
R.
Bard,
Inc.
While
Vorys
had
a
decline
in
overall
case
volume
compared
to
2020,
Mr.
Kloss,
a
30-year
litigation
veteran,
handled
thousands
of
cases
in
2021,
leading
his
firm
to
the
title.

As
in
2020,
the
majority
of
Vorys’s
2021
cases
are
concentrated
in
Ohio.
The
top
five
jurisdictions
where
Vorys
litigated
are:

  • Southern
    District
    of
    Ohio

    3439
  • Northern
    District
    of
    Ohio

    19
  • Central
    District
    of
    California

    15
  • Northern
    District
    of
    Texas

    5
  • Northern
    District
    of
    California

    5

However,
with
access
to
federal
litigation
data,
we
can
dig
deeper
into
Vorys’s
2021
roadmap
to
first
place,
and
go
beyond
simple
jurisdictional
lists.
With
legal
data,
we
can
uncover
Vorys’s
primary
practice
areas,
top
clients,
and
most
active
litigators.
In
the
next
section,
we’ll
discuss
what
these
data
points
mean
for
Vorys
and
how
law
firms
can
use
legal
data
to
enhance
their
decision-making.


Dig
Deeper
with
Legal
Data

Legal
data
provides
law
firms
with
the
ability
to
make
targeted,
knowledgeable
decisions
regarding
litigation
strategies,
legal
marketing,
legal
recruiting,
and
practice
area
development.
It
can
also
enhance
their
knowledge
management
and
data
analytics
initiatives.
Legal
data
isn’t
just
case
specific.
Utilizing
litigation
intelligence
derived
from
legal
data
can
uncover
macro
trends
in
areas
impacting
caseloads,
clientele,
and
internal
efficiency.

By
breaking
down
litigation
by
case
types,
law
firms
can
easily
get
a
sense
of
where
their
business
is
coming
from.
Does
the
firm
handle
mainly
one
type
of
case
within
a
specific
practice
area?
Is
there
an
area
in
which
the
firm
is
expanding,
or
wants
to
expand
due
to
increased
profitability?

Deep
diving
into
caseload
data
allows
law
firms
to
divert
focus,
energy,
and
resources
to
the
practice
areas
driving
the
firm’s
success.
Alternatively,
caseload
data
gives
firms
the
chance
to
highlight
their
next
move:
did
you
litigate
significantly
more
of
a
certain
type
of
case
this
year
than
last?
It
may
be
time
to
invest
in
expanding
your
practice
to
capture
new
available
business
opportunities.

Here
are
Vorys’s
top
ten
case
types
for
2021:

  • Personal
    Injury

    Medical/Pharmaceutical
    Product
    Liability

    2252
  • Personal
    Injury

    Other
    Product
    Liability

    1089
  • Intellectual
    Property

    Trademark

    26
  • Property

    Real
    Property
    Product
    Liability

    23
  • Contract

    Other
    Contract

    21
  • Civil
    Right

    Employment
    Discrimination

    20
  • Labor

    Labor
    Standard

    14
  • Civil
    Right

    Other
    Civil
    Right

    7
  • Property

    Other
    Personal
    Property

    7
  • Contract

    Insurance

    6

Litigation
volume,
however,
isn’t
the
only
important
metric
to
look
at
when
seeking
to
understand
a
law
firm’s
litigation
profile.
A
firm’s
client
roster
can
be
just
as,
if
not
more,
helpful
to
understanding
a
law
firm’s
business.

A
client
roster
is
like
a
private
social
media
handle:
it
illustrates
exactly
who
the
firm
wants
to
interact
with,
as
well
as
who
chooses
to
interact
with
the
firm.
Further,
it
highlights
key
clients
and
the
strength
or
weaknesses
the
firm
has
with
those
clients.

Do
you
want
to
understand
a
firm’s
health
outside
of
what
you
can
see
on
its
website?
Litigation
data
shows
which
clients
stick
with
the
firm
long
term,
and
which
took
their
business
elsewhere.
What’s
more,
looking
at
competitors’
client
rosters
can
be
critical
for
understanding
upcoming
business
development
opportunities.

2021
saw
Vorys
represent
a
variety
of
well-known
clients
across
multiple
different
disciplines.
Below,
we’ve
listed
some
of
Vorys’s
most
prominent
clients:

Finance

  • The
    Home
    Loan
    Savings
    Bank
  • US
    Bank
    National
    Association
  • Premier
    Bank
  • Fifth
    Third
    Bank
  • Global
    Lending
    Services
    LLC

Insurance

  • Anthem
    Blue
    Cross
    and
    Blue
    Shield
  • Anthem
    Insurance
    Companies,
    Inc.
  • Community
    Insurance,
    Inc.
  • The
    Western
    and
    Southern
    Life
    Insurance
  • Acceptance
    Insurance
    Agency
    of
    Tennessee,
    Inc.

Retail

  • Mary
    Kay
    Inc.
  • Big
    Lots
    Stores,
    Inc.
  • GNC
    Holdings,
    Inc.
  • General
    Nutrition
    Corporation
  • Abercrombie
    &
    Fitch
    Management
    Co.
  • Victoria’s
    Secret
    Stores,
    LLC
  • The
    Goodyear
    Tire
    &
    Rubber
    Company
  • General
    Electric
    Company
  • Jos.
    A.
    Bank
    Clothiers,
    Inc.
  • Zale
    Corporation

Notable
Mentions

  • Google
    Inc.
  • CBS
    Broadcasting
    Inc.
  • Cushman
    &
    Wakefield
    Western,
    Inc.
  • Abbott
    Laboratories
  • Viacom
    Inc.
  • FEDEX
    Ground
    Package
    System,
    Inc.
  • The
    Boeing
    Company
  • Monsanto
    Company
  • Halliburton
    Energy
    Services,
    Inc.
  • 3M
    Company

The
strength
of
a
firm’s
litigation
practice
can
be
directly
tied
to
its
top
litigators,
so
it’s
imperative
to
look
at
who
a
firm’s
litigators
are,
and
how
their
case
volume
is
spread
out
across
a
firm’s
practice
areas.
Identifying
top
rainmakers
can
assist
competitors
in
poaching
the
best
lateral
candidates
with
large
books
of
business,
give
future
clients
an
understanding
of
who
they’ll
potentially
be
working
with,
and
help
law
firm
HR
departments
highlight
top
performers
for
retention
and
promotions,
such
as
partnership
offers.

Here
are
Vorys’s
top
ten
attorneys
from
2021
and
their
respective
caseloads:

  • William
    Darrell
    Kloss,
    Jr

    3380
  • Emily
    Anne
    Papania

    12
  • Kent
    Allen
    Britt

    11
  • Nathaniel
    Lampley,
    Jr

    10
  • Wesley
    Abrams

    9
  • Janay
    Marie
    Stevens

    9
  • Thomas
    N.
    McCormick

    7
  • Cory
    D.
    Catignani

    7
  • Daniel
    J.
    Clark

    7
  • Timothy
    B.
    McGranor

    6

Each
of
the
data
points
we’ve
looked
at
individually
in
this
article
tell
an
interesting
story
and
give
a
small
window
into
the
larger
picture
of
Vorys’s
litigation
and
its
performance
over
the
last
year.
Combined
together,
these
data
points
can
be
used
to
create
a
bigger,
fuller
portrait
of
who
a
law
firm
is,
how
they
got
there,
and
where
they’re
headed.

Success
isn’t
just
about
the
money
coming
in

it
takes
a
holistic,
data-centric
view
of
a
law
firm’s
inner
workings
to
uncover
the
best
ways
to
expand,
take
on
new
clients,
and
ultimately,
increase
firm
profitability.

Whether
you
need
a
dossier
of
client
or
competitor
litigation
portfolios
for
business
intelligence,
information
to
enhance
your
business
development
initiatives
with
data
analytics,
or
a
way
to
see
litigation
trends
impacting
your
firm’s
profitability
in
real-time,
litigation
data
unlocks
the
intelligence
you
need
to
move
forward
with
confidence.

Interested
in
learning
more
about
the
TrueLaw
Litigation
Index
and
UniCourt’s
Legal
Data
as
a
Service?
Check
out
our
blog
post,
where
we
talk
about
how
the
2021
report
was
created,
give
a
rundown
of
2021’s
top
ten
civil
litigation
firms,
and
look
at
the
biggest
gains
and
losses
in
the
law
firm
rankings
from
2020
to
2021.





Josh
Blandi

is
the
CEO
and
Co-Founder
of

UniCourt
,
a
SaaS
offering
using
machine
learning
to
disrupt
the
way
court
data
is
organized,
accessed,
and
used.
UniCourt
provides

Legal
Data
as
a
Service
(LDaaS)
via
our
APIs

to
AmLaw
50
firms
and
Fortune
500
businesses
for
accessing
normalized
court
data
for
business
development
and
intelligence,
analytics,
machine
learning
models,
process
automation,
background
checks,
investigations,
and
underwriting.

Zimbabwe, Chinese Investors Sign $2.8B Metals Park Deal

Zimbabwean
authorities
say
the
lithium,
platinum
and
nickel
production
will
be
used
to
make
solar
batteries.

President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
said
the
project,
about
an
hour’s
drive
northwest
of
Harare,
would
help
turn
around
the
decline
of
Zimbabwe’s
economy.

“The
mines-to-energy
park
will
augment
my
government’s
thrust
of
value
addition
and
beneficiation
of
minerals,
as
well
as
bolster
the
crucial
role
that
minerals’
value
chain
plays
in
the
national
industrialization
agenda,”
he
said.
“It
is
set
to
mark
the
inception
of
a
lithium
ion
battery
chain
in
Zimbabwe.
It
is
set
to
place
Zimbabwe
among
the
world’s
producers
of
lithium
ion
batteries.”

Zimbabwe’s
government
plans
to
provide
the
land
and
minerals
for
the
park,
while
the
two
Chinese
companies
investing
will
bring
in
machinery
and
needed
funds.

Mnangagwa
is
aiming
for
a
$12
billion
mining
industry
in
Zimbabwe
by
next
year.

Lionel
Mhlanga,
director
at
Hong
Kong
Eagle
International
Holdings,
one
of
the
Chinese
investors,
said
the
project
“will
revolutionize
the
mining
and
energy
sector
of
Zimbabwe,
ensuring
optimum
value
addition
for
all
minerals
extracted
locally.
Zimbabwe
is
endowed
with
most
if
not
all
minerals
needed
in
this
clean
energy
drive.
Eagle
International
Investment
Holdings
and
Pacific
Goal
Investment
are
partnering
with
the
government
of
Zimbabwe
to
set
up
this
industrial
park.
This
multibillion-dollar
project,
on
completion,
will
have
a
turnover
exceeding
$13
billion
annually.”

But
critics
note
Zimbabwe
has
announced
several
multibillion-dollar
projects
in
recent
years
that
fell
apart,
include
mining
by
Russian
investors
for
platinum
and
Chinese
for
diamonds.

The
projects
that
do
go
forward
rarely
benefit
ordinary
Zimbabweans,
said
opposition
lawmaker
and
rights
activist
Daniel
Molokele.

“The
mining
model
that
we
have,
which
favors
countries
such
as
China,
is
a
big
disadvantage
for
the
poor
people
of
Zimbabwe
because
the
investment
method
is
called
extractive
mining,”
he
said.
“It’s
to
the
advantage
of
the
investor
[rather]
than
to
local
communities.
So
Zimbabwe
is
not
benefiting

at
least
at
common
citizen
level

until
and
unless
we
come
up
with
a
mining
model
that
favors
local
communities,
that
allows
for
shareholding
and
profiting
for
local
communities
in
all
mining
investments.”

Zimbabwe
is
home
to
valuable
minerals
such
as
gold,
iron,
diamonds,
lithium,
platinum
and
chrome.
But
the
World
Bank
says
half
of
Zimbabweans
live
on
less
than
$1
per
day.

Farai
Maguwu,
the
director
of
the
Centre
for
Natural
Resource
Governance,
a
group
working
to
improve
governance
of
Zimbabwe’s
natural
resources,
said
the
metals
park
deal
needs
to
be
transparent
and
aimed
at
helping
locals,
or
else
Zimbabwe
will
remain
a
resource-cursed
country.

“If
the
government
is
merely
looking
at
creating
jobs,
then
that’s
a
very
minimal
expectation
that
we
can
have
out
of
this
project,”
he
said.
“What
we
see
with
the
Chinese
in
Zimbabwe
is
that
everything
they
are
getting,
they
are
taking
to
China.
That’s
why
the
influx
of
Chinese
investors
in
Zimbabwe
is
not
contributing
anything,
even
to
liquidity,
in
our
financial
sector,
simply
because
the
Zimbabweans
are
not
involved
in
these
projects.
We
are
simply
giving
them
access
to
our
resources
without
any
plan.”

The
battery
metals
park
is
expected
to
be
up
to
50
square
kilometers
in
size
when
completed
in
about
three
years.

Zimbabwe Vocal Traditions Are Focus of Performance


On
Saturday,
September
24
at
7:30
p.m.
in
Richardson
Auditorium,
the
Princeton
University
Glee
Club
collaborates
with
Mushandirapamwe
Singers
of
Zimbabwe
in
a
performance
that
weaves
together
personal
narratives
and
national
histories
from
the
perspective
of
Dr.
Tanyaradzwa
Tawengwa,
featuring
the
Mbira
instrument
of
Zimbabwe.


This
concert
is
the
first
of
the
current
season’s
“Glee
Club
Presents”
events,
in
which
the
students
of
the
Glee
Club
collaborate
with
and
learn
from
a
diversity
of
renowned
vocal
artists.


Created
and
directed
by
former
Glee
Club
President
Tawengwa
’14,
the
Mushandirapamwe
Singers
takes
its
name
from
the
hotel
of
the
same
name
in
Harare,
Zimbabwe,
which
served
as
a
beacon
for
the
artists
and
freedom
fighters
of
Zimbabwe
who
strove
to
define
and
assert
the
nation’s
cultural
identity
during
the
1970s,
in
resistance
to
British
colonial
rule.


The
hotel
holds
personal
significance
to
Tawengwa
because
it
was
built
by
her
grandfather,
George
Tawengwa.
The
members
of
the
Mushandirapamwe
Singers
were
first
brought
together
by
their
founder
at
the
University
of
Kentucky
in
2016,
and
include
many
of
the
leading
African
vocalists
based
in
the
USA.
Tawengwa
is
a
singer,
scholar
and
composer,
and
is
considered
one
of
the
leading
exponents
of
the
emblematic
instrument
of
Zimbabwe

the
Mbira.


The
Mushandirapmwe
Singers
will
sing
in
collaboration
with
the
students
of
the
Princeton
University
Glee
Club,
under
Tawengwa’s
direction.
Tickets
$5-$15.
Visit music.princeton.edu or
call
(609)
258-9220.

Validity Extension of Zimbabwe Exemption Permits “far from a resolution”: Catholic Priest

In
November
2021,
DHA
Minister
Aaron
Motsoaledi
announced
the withdrawal of
ZEPs,
which
were
granted
to
over
100,000
Zimbabwean
nationals
who
moved
to
South
Africa
before
2009.
On
September
2,
the
DHA
issued
a communique advising
that
the
Minister
had
extended
the
validity
of
the
ZEPs
to
30
June
2023.

In
the
communique,
the
DHA
Minister
indicated
that
there
would
be
no
further
extensions
after
the
June
deadline
and
warned
that
holders
of
the
permit
should
not
count
on
endless
extensions
as
a
way
of
resolving
their
status
in
South
Africa.

The
DHA
Minister
regarded
the
extension
as
offering
Zimbabweans
a
fair
chance
to
apply
for
alternative
visas
and
waivers.

In
an
interview
with
ACI
Africa,
the
Director
of
the Catholic
Parliamentary
Liaison
Office
 (CPLO),
an
office
of
the Southern
African
Catholic
Bishops’
Conference

(SACBC),
said
that
the
decision
by
the
South
African
department,
which
verifies
the
identity
of
residents
in
the
country
“is
far
from
a
resolution”
and
called
for
authorities
to
look
into
other
alternatives
for
ZEP
holders,
including
the
possibility
of
permanent
residence.

Fr.
Peter
John
Pearson
said,
“A
validity
extension
of
ZEPs
is
far
from
a
resolution.
The
reality
is,
of
course,
that
few
of
the
holders
actually
qualify
for
the
alternative
visas
such
as
those
linked
to
critical
skills,
spousal
connections
and
the
like.”

“While
it
was
always
clear
that
possession
of
a
ZEP
did
not
imply
an
entitlement
to
permanent
residence,
no
matter
how
long
the
holder
remained
in
South
Africa,
this
might
be
a
good
time
to
open
that
possibility
for
ZEP
holders,”
said
Fr.
Pearson
in
the
Monday,
September
19
interview.

The
CPLO
Director
whose
work
includes
issues
related
to
refugees,
migrants,
and
displaced
people
at
parliament
level,
highlighted
Pope
Francis’ four
migration
verbs
 of
welcoming,
protecting,
promoting,
and
integrating,
and
suggested
that
Catholic
leaders
advocate
for
permanent
residence
for
the
ZEPs
holders.

“I
hope
that
given
how
Catholic
social
teachings
have
developed
in
this
area
around
issues
of
justice,
especially,
but
also
given
the
Pope’s
famous
four
verbs,
I
believe
the
leadership
needs
to
push
for
permanent
residence.
For
me
that’s
the
clear
goal
of
our
advocacy,”
he
said.

The
South
African
Priest
added,
“All
who
hold
such
a
permit
have
been
in
the
country
for
at
least
thirteen
years,
if
not
longer,
and
have
contributed
to
the
economy,
started
families,
raised
children
and
settled
into
regular
patterns
of
social
and
economic
engagement,
they
should
surely
qualify
for
permanent
residence.”

“There
is
no
reason
at
all,
given
the
way
permanent
residence
has
been
available
in
this
country,
that
there
is
a
history
of
granting
it
after
X
number
of
years,”
Fr
Pearson
further
said.

He
continued,
“Given
that
there
is
the
international
precedent,
but
also,
I
think
there
is
the
issue
of
clear
justice,
that
people
who
have
been
here
for
so
long
and
have
contributed
to
South
Africa,
have
contributed
to
the
fiscus,
have
started
families
here.
The
only
just
outcome
would
be
to
offer
a
permanent
residence.”

The
CPLO
Director
went
on
to
explain,
“We
are
not
opening
the
doors
to
millions
of
people
to
come
from
other
parts
of
Africa
or
the
world
to
come
and
seek
a
residence;
we
we’re
not
promoting
any
of
that.
We’re
simply
saying
there
is
every
good
reason
that
people
who
have
been
here
legally
should
be
allowed
to
continue
legally.”

In
the
September
19
interview,
Fr.
Pearson
slammed
vigilante
groups
and
political
parties
who
are
using
“anti-foreigner”
sentiment
to
gain
support
in
the
build
up
to
the
2024
general
elections,
the
seventh
elections
to
be
held
in
South
Africa
post-apartheid,
which
will
see
the
election
of
a
new
National
Assembly
and
the
Provincial
legislature.

“We
think
those
are
designed
to
speak
into
the
growing
anti-foreign
feeling
that
is
so
prevalent
in
South
Africa
and
to
get
popularity.
We
must
expect
that
as
we
build
up
towards
an
election
in
2024
that
parties
who
have
seen
that
the
kind
of
anti-immigrant
sentiment
is
something
that
constituents
are
responding
to
will
bang
that
drum
in
order
to
get
political
gain
from
it,”
Fr.
Pearson
told
ACI
Africa.

He
added,
“So,
we
must
expect
that
a
lot
of
what
happens
in
the
next
year
and
a
half
will
be
around
populist
rhetoric
to
bait
voters.”

His Political Playbook Worked Elsewhere. Can He Win Here?

Precious
Dinha,
left,
holds
a
banner
at
a
rally
in
Mutare,
Zimbabwe,
on
March
19,
2022,
for
opposition
presidential
candidate
Nelson
Chamisa.
Photo
Credit:
Evidence
Chenjerai,
Global
Press
Journal
Zimbabwe


Evidence
Chenjerai,
Global
Press
Journal
Zimbabwe

This
story
was
originally
published
by
Global
Press
Journal.

MUTARE,
ZIMBABWE

Precious
Dinha
elbows
her
way
into
a
packed
soccer
stadium.
Despite
thunderclouds
looming
above,
thousands
of
yellow-clad
Zimbabweans
are
singing,
dancing
and
thrusting
their
index
fingers
skyward.
They
wave
placards
in
Shona
and
English
saying,
“We
need
democracy
in
Zimbabwe”
and
“Police
stop
brutality
against
citizens.”
Dinha
unfurls
her
own
large
white
banner:
“We
want
free
and
fair
elections.”

Soon
Zimbabwe’s
leading
opposition
presidential
candidate,
44-year-old
Nelson
Chamisa,
bounds
onto
a
stage.
“Do
you
embrace
the
new?”
he
asks.
“Yes!”
the
crowd
shouts.
Dinha
traveled
close
to
four
hours
from
Harare,
the
capital,
to
hear
Chamisa
speak.
She
attends
every
Chamisa
rally
she
can,
wearing
yellow,
the
color
of
his
movement,
and
reveling
in
the
festive
atmosphere.
This
event
marks
the
formal
introduction
of
his
new
political
party,
Citizens
Coalition
for
Change
(CCC),
in
eastern
Zimbabwe
ahead
of
next
year’s
presidential
election.

Dinha,
32,
believes
Chamisa’s
relative
youth
and
outsider
perspective
can
help
resuscitate
Zimbabwe’s
listless
economy,
with
high
levels
of
unemployment,
inflation
and
food
insecurity.
“I
have
never
been
employed
despite
having
professional
qualifications.
I
do
not
even
know
what
a
pay
slip
looks
like,”
Dinha
says.
She
was
trained
as
a
human
resources
manager
but
raises
chickens
and
sells
secondhand
clothes
to
get
by.
“He
understands
us
as
youths,
and
there
are
promises
of
reviving
the
economy
so
that
we
can
also
have
jobs.”

Despite
his
supporters’
fervency,
Chamisa
faces
a
tough
road
to
the
presidency.
In
2018,
he
lost
a
bid
to
wrest
control
from
the
Zimbabwe
African
National
Union-Patriotic
Front
(ZANU-PF),
the
ruling
party
since
1980,
in
an
election
whose
fairness
an
international
election
monitoring
team
questioned.
But
in
the
years
since,
other
southern
African
opposition
leaders
have
found
success
in
copying
the
Chamisa
playbook:
targeting
young,
social
media-savvy
voters
fed
up
with
entrenched
parties
and
alleged
corruption.

Chamisa
supporters
believe
recent
upstart
victories
in
Malawi
and
Zambia
could
foreshadow
his
own.
“2022
is
the
year
when
change
in
Zimbabwe
was
authored
by
God,”
he
tells
the
rally
crowd.
“No
one
can
stop
an
idea
whose
time
has
come.”

With
little
public
polling
in
Zimbabwe,
it’s
hard
to
assess
his
chances.
Mike
Bimha,
ZANU-PF’s
secretary
for
commissariat,
dismisses
Chamisa
as
an
electoral
threat.
“It
is
still
an
opposition
which
came
out
of
forces
from
outside
Zimbabwe
who
want
a
regime
change,”
Bimha
says.

Chamisa
stumbled
into
the
political
spotlight.
In
2018,
Zimbabweans
had
just
witnessed
the
ouster
of
their
longtime
leader,
Robert
Mugabe,
in
a
military
coup.
As
the
new
president,
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
vowed
to
modernize
the
health
care
system,
repair
crumbling
infrastructure
and
rebuild
frayed
business
ties
with
Europe.
He
expected
to
face
the
popular
opposition
candidate
Morgan
Tsvangirai
in
that
July’s
presidential
election,
but
just
months
before
the
vote,
Tsvangirai
died
of
complications
related
to
cancer.
Chamisa
stepped
in.

A
former
student
activist
and
member
of
Parliament,
Chamisa
found
ways
to
sidestep
government-controlled
media
outlets
and
drum
up
support.
He
electrified
crowds
around
the
country
with
rallies
that
enhanced
his
name
recognition
and
built
community
among
his
backers,
and
wooed
voters
directly
on
social
media.
(He
now
has
1
million
Twitter
followers.)

Nevertheless,
Zimbabwe’s
first
post-Mugabe
election
ended
in
turmoil,
with
vote-rigging
allegations
and
protests
where
security
forces
fired
into
crowds
and
several
people
died.
The
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission

long
criticized
by
opposition
parties
as
an
arm
of
ZANU-PF

eventually
declared
Mnangagwa
the
winner
with
50.8%
of
the
vote.
Afterward,
the
Zimbabwe
International
Election
Observation
Mission,
a
group
of
international
election
observers,
denounced
the
process,
saying
Zimbabwe
lacked
“a
tolerant,
democratic
culture”
where
“parties
are
treated
equitably
and
citizens
can
cast
their
vote
freely.”
A
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
spokesperson
didn’t
respond
to
requests
for
comment.
Bimha,
the
ZANU-PF
official,
says,
“We
want
free
and
fair
elections,
harmony,
love
and
collaboration,
and
that
is
a
party
position.”

Elsewhere
in
the
region,
many
voters
shared
the
frustrations
of
Chamisa
supporters,
says
political
analyst
Onai
Moyo,
believing
that
the
leaders
who
freed
their
countries
from
colonialism
had
subsequently
failed
at
governing.
In
2020,
Lazarus
Chakwera
won
the
presidency
in
Malawi.
In
2021,
Hakainde
Hichilema
clinched
victory
in
Zambia.
Both
opposition
candidates
rallied
voters
with
a
Chamisa-esque
message
of
African
renaissance.
Their
argument:
The
ruling
class
had
fallen
prey
to
corruption,
leaving
the
continent
poor
and
underdeveloped
despite
its
vast
natural
resources.

In
Zimbabwe,
that
message
has
gained
traction
even
with
older
voters.
Cresencia
Chabuka,
61,
was
a
senator
with
Chamisa’s
old
political
coalition,
the
Movement
for
Democratic
Change
Alliance.
She
joined
Chamisa’s
new
party,
she
says,
because
pensioners
like
her
are
suffering
from
poverty
as
hyperinflation
erodes
their
savings.
At
the
soccer
stadium
rally,
she
flits
through
the
crowd,
trying
to
convince
her
peers
that
Chamisa
is
the
solution.
“A
lot
of
senior
citizens
have
lost
faith
in
ZANU
promises,”
she
says.

Even
so,
there
are
key
differences
between
Zimbabwe
and
its
neighbors.
For
example,
since
liberation
in
the
1960s,
Zambians
have
chosen
four
different
political
parties
to
run
the
country.
Each
ruled
for
many
years,
but
the
periodic
change
in
leadership
meant
Zambia’s
election
system
wasn’t
intertwined
with
a
single
party,
Moyo
says.
In
Zimbabwe,
one
party

and
mainly
one
man

was
in
charge.

ZANU-PF
was
instrumental
in
overthrowing
white-minority
rule
in
the
1970s,
a
campaign
that
was
bloodier
than
in
either
Zambia
or
Malawi.
“Zimbabwe’s
independence
came
through
a
liberation
struggle,”
says
political
analyst
Alexander
Rusero.
“It
came
at
the
bedrock
of
massive
violence
of
several
forms,
coupled
with
inflicting
pain
and
fear
in
the
masses.”
To
party
loyalists,
ZANU-PF
has
earned
the
right
to
lead
Zimbabwe.
“Nyika
inotongwa
nevene
vayo,”
they
say
in
Shona

only
the
liberators
can
rule.

Even
voters
fed
up
with
the
ruling
class
may
not
rally
for
Chamisa.
Tendai,
47,
who
asked
to
be
identified
only
by
his
first
name
because
of
Zimbabwe’s
history
of
political
violence,
lives
in
Mutare
and
scrapes
by
on
gardening
jobs.
He
voted
for
ZANU-PF
in
2018,
hoping
for
an
economic
revival
that
never
arrived.
While
he’s
lost
faith
in
Mnangagwa,
he
doesn’t
view
Chamisa
as
a
viable
alternative.
“Once
you
vote
them
into
power,
they
serve
self-interests
and
forget
us,”
Tendai
says.
He
plans
to
stay
home
instead
of
voting.

This
March,
Zimbabwe
held
elections
for
various
parliamentary
and
council
seats.
They
did
not
bode
well
for
Chamisa’s
party.
Before
the
vote,
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga
vowed
that
ZANU-PF
would
defeat
CCC

something
he
compared
to
crushing
lice.
The
next
day,
a
Chamisa
supporter
was
fatally
stabbed
at
a
rally.
Though
Chamisa’s
party
won
a
majority
of
contested
seats,
most
were
already
in
the
hands
of
opposition
candidates;
ZANU-PF
even
recovered
two
seats
it
had
lost
in
previous
contests.

Chamisa
often
promises
electoral
reforms
in
his
speeches,
but
his
allies
don’t
have
the
numbers
in
Parliament
to
make
changes
before
the
next
election.
“We
are
likely
to
have
history
repeating
itself
when
it
comes
to
violence,”
Rusero
says.
“I
also
don’t
see
the
elections
bringing
the
much-needed
change,
instead
worsening
the
situation
and
deepening
the
divide
that
exists
among
Zimbabweans.”

At
the
soccer
stadium
rally,
Dinha
is
more
optimistic.
A
devout
Christian,
she
sees
Chamisa
as
a
Moses-like
figure,
tasked
with
leading
Zimbabwe
to
a
political
promised
land.
All
around
her,
supporters
sweat
out
the
three-hour
rally;
some
had
climbed
trees
outside
the
stadium
to
get
a
better
glimpse
of
the
candidate.
Others
raise
placards
saying,
“ngaapinde
hake
mukomana”

let
the
boy
rule.


Evidence
Chenjerai
is
a
Global
Press
Journal
reporter
based
in
Mutare,
Zimbabwe.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Trump Realizes Too Late That This Special Master Thing Might Not Be Such A Smart Plan After All – Above the Law

President
Donald
Trump

It’s
unclear
what
Donald
Trump
thought
would
happen
when
he
dropped
that

bullshit
lawsuit

demanding
a
special
master
to
sort
through
the
documents
seized
when
the
FBI
executed
a
search
warrant
at
his
Mar-a-Lago
club
August
8.
He
appeared
to
have
no
agenda
other
than
mollifying
Fox
News
host
Laura
Ingraham,
who

demanded

a
flurry
of
motions
after
more
than
a
week
when
his
lawyers
sat
silent
as
media
outlets
fought
to
get
the
warrant
and
underlying
affidavit
disclosed.

And
it’s
no
more
obvious
why
he
suggested
Senior
US
District
Judge
Raymond
Dearie
as
special
master,
after
lucking
onto
the
docket
of
perhaps
the
one
judge
in
Florida
craven
enough
to

yadda
yadda
yadda

herself
into
jurisdiction
and
credit
Trump’s
nonsensical
assertions
that
he
telepathically
declassified
top
secret
documents
and
converted
them
to
personal
property.

But
now
that
US
District
Judge
Aileen
Cannon
has
appointed
Judge
Dearie
as
special
master,
the
former
president
finds
himself
in
the
position
of
the
dog
who
caught
the
car:
staring
at
the
prospect
of
actually
sinking
his
teeth
into
the
bumper
or
getting
run
over.

Hot
on
the
heels
of
the
Eleventh
Circuit’s

humiliating
reversal

of
Judge
Cannon’s
refusal
to
exclude
classified
documents
from
review

coupled
with
an
ominous
warning
that
Trump’s
claims
would
get
a
very
different
treatment
at
the
appellate
court

Judge
Dearie
released
his

case
management
plan
.
And
his
very
first
order
of
business
is
to
nuke
one
of
Trump’s
talking
points
from
orbit.

Just
hours
after
the
search,
Trump’s
minions
took
to
the
airwaves
to
suggest
that
the
FBI
had

planted
documents

to
frame
him.

“Quite
honestly,
I’m
concerned
that
they
may
have
planted
something.
You
know,
at
this
point,
who
knows,”
Trump’s
lawyer
Alina
Habba

told

Fox’s
Jesse
Watters
on
August
9.

Trump
himself

repeated
the
allegation

to
Sean
Hannity
as
recently
as
Wednesday
night.
Because
it’s
fun
to
lob
wild
accusations
without
having
to
back
them
up,
safe
in
the
knowledge
that
your
good
buddy
won’t
demand
any
actual
proof.

But
on
Monday,
the
government
will
hand
over
a
detailed
inventory
of
everything
they
took.
And
on
Friday
September
30,
Trump’s
lawyers
will
have
to
submit
an
affidavit
specifying
what,
if
anything,
was
“planted,”
as
well
as
any
item
seized
which
does
not
appear
on
the
list.

“This
submission
shall
be
Plaintiff’s
final
opportunity
to
raise
any
factual
dispute
as
to
the
completeness
and
accuracy
of
the
Detailed
Property
Inventory,”
Judge
Dearie
wrote.

Then
next
week,
Trump
can
begin
rolling
production
of
a
spreadsheet
categorizing
each
item
as:
personal
property;
a
presidential
record;
attorney-client
privileged;
attorney
work
product;
executive
privileged,
not
to
be
distributed
outside
the
executive
branch;
and
executive
privileged,
not
to
be
distributed
within
the
executive
branch.

This
last
appears
to
be
a
category
entirely
concocted
for
this
dispute.
There’s
never
been
a
successful
invocation
of
executive
privilege
as
against
the
executive
branch,
and
furthermore
the

Presidential
Records
Act

clearly
states
that
the
Archivist,
as
custodian
of
those
records,

shall

make
them
available
“pursuant
to
subpoena
or
other
judicial
process
issued
by
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
for
the
purposes
of
any
civil
or
criminal
investigation
or
proceeding.”
The
only
executive
agency
Trump
is
worried
about
distributing
those
documents
to
is
the
Justice
Department,
which
showed
up
with
both
a
subpoena
and
a
judicially
approved
warrant.
So

WTF?

Any
disputes
about
the
status
of
a
record
will
be
promptly
resolved
by
Judge
Dearie,
with
the
parties
to
submit
all
documents
to
him
for
resolution
by
October
21.
So
much
for
Trump’s

request

that
“all
of
the
deadlines
can
be
extended
to
allow
for
a
more
realistic
and
complete
assessment
of
the
areas
of
disagreement.”

Judge
Cannon
has
consistently
treated
the
case
as
Rule
41(g)
motion
for
return
of
property,
although
no
such
motion
was
ever
filed,
and
Trump’s
lawyers
claim
they
are
simply
seeking
more
information
about
the
documents
seized
so
that
they
might
file
such
a
motion
at
some
indeterminate
future
point.
There’s
also
the
minor
matter
that
Rule
41
is
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure,
usually
employed post-indictment,
and
this
is
a
pre-indictment
civil
proceeding.
But
if
Judge
Cannon
wants
to
play
this
game,
Judge
Dearie
will
keep
up
the
ruse.

“Once
the
Court
has
reviewed
the
Special
Master’s
recommendations
and
ruled
on
any
objections
thereto,
the
Special
Master
will,
if
necessary,
consider
Plaintiff’s
motion
for
the
return
of
property
under
Federal
Rule
of
Criminal
Procedure
41(g),”
he
writes,
politely
declining
to
note
that
said
motion
appears
to
have
been
filed
next
to
the
telepathic
declassification
orders
inside
the
former
president’s
addlepated
cranium.

“Plaintiff
shall
submit
a
brief
in
support
of
the
motion
no
later
than
seven
calendar
days
after
the
Court’s
ruling
on
the
Special
Master’s
recommendations,”
he
went
on.
“In
addition
to
addressing
the
merits
of
the
Rule
41(g)
motion,
Plaintiff’s
brief
should
address
specifically
whether
the
motion
may
properly
be
resolved
in
this
action
or
must
instead
be
decided
as
part
of
the
docket
in
the
action
in
which
the
relevant
warrant
was
issued,
9:22-MJ-08332-BER.”

Yes,
why

shouldn’t

this
motion
go
back
to
Magistrate
Judge
Reinhart,
who
issued
the
original
warrant?
Good
question!

The
plan
concludes
with
some
minor
housekeeping.
Judge
Dearie,
as
an
active
member
of
the
judiciary,
will
not
be
taking
compensation
for
his
work.
But
he’s
enlisting
the
aid
of
retired
Magistrate
Judge
James
Orenstein,
of
the
Eastern
District
of
New
York.
Judge
Orenstein
will
be
paid
$500
per
hour,
a
substantial
discount
off
of
the
regular
compensation
rate
for
special
masters.
And
since
Trump
is
picking
up
the
tab
for
this
little
diversion,
he’ll
no
doubt
appreciate
the
discount.

On
the
other
hand,
he’s
now
locked
in
to
this
process
with
Judge
Dearie.
And
even
if
Judge
Cannon
overrules
the
special
master
and
allows
Trump
to
make
sweeping
assertions
of
executive
privilege,
it’s
pretty
clear
that
the
Eleventh
Circuit
isn’t
prepared
to
jettison
all
that
stuff
about
the
unitary
executive
for
some
bloviating
nitwit.

As
Hunter
S.
Thompson
said,
“Buy
the
ticket,
take
the
ride…and
if
it
occasionally
gets
a
little
heavier
than
what
you
had
in
mind,
well…maybe
chalk
it
up
to
forced
consciousness
expansion.”


Trump
v.
United
States

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

United
States
v.
Sealed
Search
Warrant

[Docket
via
Court
Listener]





Liz
Dye

lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics.

Use Your Superpower In Your Legal Career – Above the Law

In
this
episode,
I
welcome
Shana
Simmons,

General
Counsel
at
Everlaw
,
to
talk
about
how
her
career
in
the
world
of
law
started.
Shana
leads
the
legal
department
and
is
responsible
for
all
legal,
regulatory,
privacy,
risk
and
compliance,
and
governance
issues
around
the
company.
She
describes
the
transition
from
working
as
the
Head
of
Google’s
Cloud
Go-To-Market
Legal
team
to
being
a
General
Counsel.
Additionally,
Shana
talks
about
how
their
own
practice
ensures
that
the
culture
at
their
workplace
is
inviting
to
people
of
all
backgrounds
and
colors.

JAB128 QUOTE 2

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).

Florida Officially Asks Supreme Court To Review Its Social Media Content Moderation Law – Above the Law

Back
in
May,
an
11th
Circuit
appeals
court
panel
found
that
Florida’s
ridiculous
content
moderation
law
was clearly
unconstitutional
,
mostly
upholding
district
court
ruling
 saying
the
same
thing.
As
you’ll
recall,
Florida
passed
this
law,
mainly
in
response
to
Trump
being
banned
from
social
media,
that
limits
how
websites
can
moderate
content,
largely
focused
on
content
posted
by
politicians.
The
11th
Circuit
did
push
back
on
one
part
of
the
lower
court
decision,
saying
that
the
transparency
requirements
of
the
law
were
likely
constitutional.

As
you
also
know,
Texas
passed
a
similar
law
and
the
various
fights
over
both
states’
laws
have
been
mostly
intertwined.
Last
week,
the
5th
Circuit
issued its
bewildering
ruling
 (we’ll
have
more
on
that
soon)
that
basically
ignored
a
century’s
worth
of
1st
Amendment
law,
while
misreading
both
other
existing
precedent
and
literally
rewriting
Section
230
and
pretending
it
was
somehow
controlling
over
the
1st
Amendment.

Anyway,
over
the
summer,
Florida
had
told
the
lower
courts
that
it
intended
to
ask
the
Supreme
Court
to
hear
the
appeal
over
its
law,
and
on
Wednesday
that
finally
happened.
Florida
has petitioned
the
Supreme
Court
to
review
 the
decision,
highlighting
the
two
key
questions
it
sees
from
the
ruling.
While
the
Supreme
Court
does
not
need
to
take
the
case,
it
seems
likely
it
will.
It’s
possible
that
an
appeal
on
the
5th
Circuit’s
ruling
will
get
consolidated
into
this
case
as
well,
or
perhaps
it
will
remain
separate.

Florida
presents
these
as
the
two
questions
the
appeal
seeks
to
answer:


1.
Whether
the
First
Amendment
prohibits
a
State
from
requiring
that
social-media
companies
host
third-party
communications,
and
from
regulating
the
time,
place,
and
manner
in
which
they
do
so.

2.
Whether
the
First
Amendment
prohibits
a
State
from
requiring
social-media
companies
to
notify
and
provide
an
explanation
to
their
users
when
they
censor
the
user’s
speech.

Both
of
these
questions
could
have
a
huge
impact
on
the
future
of
the
internet.
The
answer
to
both
of
these should
be
yes. 
Indeed,
there’s
some
argument
that
it’s
a
little
weird
that
Florida
constructed
the
questions
in
a
way
where
they
want
the
answer
to
be
“no”
rather
than
“yes.”
But,
beyond
that,
this
case
is
going
to
be
a
big,
big
deal.

It’s
unclear
if
Florida
deliberately
waited
for
the
5th
Circuit’s
opinion,
but
the
petition
plays
up
the
circuit
split
between
the
5th
and
11th
Circuits.


The
Fifth
Circuit
split
with
the
decision
below
on
the
threshold
question
of
whether
the
platforms
are
speaking
at
all
when
they
censor
a
user’s
speech.

The
Eleventh
Circuit
below
said
“yes.”
It
reasoned
that
“[w]hen
a
platform
selectively
removes
what
it
perceives
to
be
incendiary
political
rhetoric,
pornographic
content,
or
public-health
misinformation,
it
conveys
a
message
and
thereby
engages
in
‘speech’
within
the
meaning
of
the
First
Amendment.”
App.19a–20a.
And
it
reached
that
conclusion
because
it
thought
that
“editorial
judgments”
are
protected
by
the
First
Amendment.
App.20a.

The
Fifth
Circuit
said
“no.”
In
rejecting
the
Eleventh
Circuit’s
reasoning,
it
explained
that
the
Eleventh
Circuit’s
“‘editorial-judgment
principle’
conflicts
with”
this
Court’s
cases.
Paxton,
2022
WL
4285917,
at
*39.
As
the
Fifth
Circuit
pointed
out,
this
Court
has
held
that
some
hosts
can
be
denied
the
“right
to
decide
whether
to
disseminate
or
accommodate
a”
speaker’s
message

That
certainly
tees
things
up
for
the
5th
Circuit
ruling
to
be
consolidated
into
this
case.

Much
of
the
argument
by
Florida
is
basically
just
repeating
the
5th
Circuit’s
nonsense
ruling,
which
is
to
be
expected.
I
don’t
need
to
go
over
why
it’s
all
wrong

that’s
pretty
well
established.
I
will
have
more
soon
on
why
multiple
Supreme
Court
justices
would
need
to
completely
reverse
themselves
on
earlier
decisions
to
agree
with
both
Texas
and
Florida,
but
that’s
not
impossible
these
days.

Either
way,
the
Supreme
Court
is
likely
to
hear
this
and
it’s
just
the
future
of
the
open
internet
and
editorial
freedom
at
stake.


Florida
Officially
Asks
Supreme
Court
To
Review
Its
Social
Media
Content
Moderation
Law


5th
Circuit
Awards
Immunity
To
Cop
Who
Decided
A
Suicidal
Man
Should
Be
Tased
While
He
Had
A
Noose
Around
His
Neck


Klobuchar’s
Link
Tax
Is
Back…
And
Somehow
Even
Worse?
Helps
Trumpist
Grifters
Get
Free
Money
&
No
Moderation
From
Google


Ohio
Supreme
Court
Says
There’s
Nothing
Wrong
With
Cops
Seizing
A
$31,000
Truck
Over
An
$850
Criminal
Offense