Category: News Feeds

WASHINGTON
—
The
military’s
central
artificial
intelligence
hub
has
quadrupled
down
on
its
investment
in
commercial
“frontier
AI.”

This
morning,
the
Pentagon’s
Chief
Digital
&
AI
Office
(CDAO)

announced
that
it
would
split
$600
million
in
contracts
evenly
among
Anthropic,
Google,
and
xAI,
following
on

a
similar
$200
million
award
to
OpenAI
announced
last
month.

If
CDAO
exercises
all
its
options
on
all
four
contracts
—
which
isn’t
guaranteed
—
that’s
a
total
of
$800
million
the
Pentagon
is
pouring
not
into
bespoke
military
R&D
from
dedicated
defense
contractors,
but
into
widely
available,
widely
applicable
commercial
tech.

xAI
and

OpenAI
also
both
used
their
awards
to
announce
the
launch
of
‘For
Government’
business
units,
in
the
case
of
xAI
using
its
Grok
platform.

The
embrace
of
“commercial
off-the-shelf”
has
been
especially
notable
in
AI.
After
OpenAI
kicked
off
the
current

generative
AI
explosion
with
its
launch
of
ChatGPT
in

November
2022,
the
Pentagon,
much
like
the
private
sector,
scrambled
to
understand
the
new
technology,
launching
the
high-level

Task
Force
Lima
that
conducted

almost
18
months
of
studies
before
blessing
GenAI
as
an

ongoing
area
investment.
Since
then,
CDAO
has
partnered
with
the
Army’s
Enterprise
LLM
Workspace
to
bring

a
toolkit
combining
multiple
commercially
available
GenAI
models
to
a
wide
array
of
Defense
Department
offices.

Now,
however,
CDAO
wants
to
go
beyond
GenAI
to
what
many
in
the
business
consider
the
next
frontier,
so-called
“agentic”
AI.
“The
awards
to
Anthropic,
Google,
OpenAI,
and
xAI
—
each
with
a
$200M
ceiling
—
will
enable
the
Department
to
leverage
the
technology
and
talent
of
U.S.
frontier
AI
companies
to
develop
agentic
AI
workflows
across
a
variety
of
mission
areas,”
CDAO’s
press
release
states.

Where
the
breakthrough
of
generative
AI
was
that
it
allowed
computers
to
generate
novel
content
—
never-before-seen
text,
images,
or
even
videos
—
agentic
AI
would
allow
computers
not
only
to
generate
plans
but
to
take
some
kind
of
action
on
them.
You
might
ask
GenAI
to
devise
an
itinerary
for
your
vacation
and
identify
the
best
hotels
and
restaurants
in
the
area;
an
agentic
AI,
however,
would
actually
be
able
to
book
the
reservations
with
your
credit
card.
The
military
has
already

experimented
with
using
AI
agents
to
do
staff
work
that
would
previously
have
required
a
human,
while

severely
restricting
— albeit

not
completely
prohibiting
—
any
project
that
would
give
software
the
ability
to
use
lethal
force
without
human
authorization.

The
CDAO
announcement
leaves
open
what
the
“variety
of
mission
areas”
might
include.
The
office
has
been
explicit
in
the
past
that
it
aims
to
apply
AI
to
both
the
Pentagon’s
back-office
business
processes,
which
run
a
lot
like
any
corporation’s,
and
to

its
uniquely
military
functions.

Admittedly,
even
the
full
$800
million
is
a
fraction
of
the
funding
the
big
AI
companies
are
getting
from
civilian
sources:

OpenAI
alone
reported
$10
billion
in
annualized
revenue
last
month
and
raised
a
record-breaking
$40
billion
from
investors
in
March.
It’s
also
a
fraction
of
the
Pentagon’s

roughly
trillion-dollar
annual
budget.

Nevertheless,
this
is
both
a
significant
investment
in
itself
and
a
sign
of
larger
trends.

Reformers
in
Congress
have
long
pushed
the
Pentagon
to
look
beyond
the
traditional
defense
industrial
base
and
seek
better,
cheaper
options
from
commercial
industry,
especially
for
IT.
Obama’s
last
Secretary
of
Defense,
Ash
Carter,
created

the
Defense
Innovation
Unit
as
the
military’s
embassy
in
Silicon
Valley.
And
Trump’s
new
Pentagon
chief,
Pete
Hegseth,
has
issued
sweeping
directives
to
expand
purchases
of
commercial
tech
from

software
to

drones.

Updated
4:40
pm
with
Grok
For
Government
announcement.

*
Epstein
video
had
3
minutes
cut
out
of
it
but
no
one
was
smart
enough
to
realize
the
metadata
would
show
it.
[WIRED]

*
Trump
administration
asks
court
to
help
them
fire
Corporation
for
Public
Broadcasting
members.
No
wonder

Elmo’s
calling
for
the
Epstein
files.
[UPI]

*
Jeanine
Pirro
nomination
barreling
forward
like
it’s
doing
119
in
a
65
zone.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Cleary
hires
AI
product
lead.
[Legaltech
News]

*
Feds
probed
state
judges
for
possible
arrest.
[Reuters]

*
Student
protester
arrests
ordered
from
the
top
say
agents
in
least
surprising
reveal.
[Law360]

*
Reminder
for
prospective
law
students:
the
new
Trump
budget
bill
capped
student
loans
so…
more
crushing
debt!
[ABA
Journal]

Top
100
Firm
Hit
With
Their
Second
Malpractice
Claim
This
Year:
They’re
scoring
big
in
a
contest
you
don’t
want
to
win!
Hit-And-Run
Claims
First-Year
Associate:
Our
condolences
to
his
friends
and
family.
Not
The
Biggest
Fan
Of
John
Sarcone
III:
A
panel
of
judges
decided
against
locking
him
in
to
a
job
he
didn’t
seem
to
want
anyway.
You
Stole
What
From
Who?!:
Thief
steals
Beyoncé
music
in
Atlanta
during
Cowboy
Carter
tour.
Can’t
Even
Discuss
Equitable
Relief
Anymore!:
Constitutional
scholar
gets
hounded
on
X
for
being
right
about
the
Supreme
Court.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Yesterday,
the
Senate
approved
the
first
judicial
nominee
of
Trump’s
second
term.
Which
circuit
will
be
welcoming
a
new
colleague
as
a
result?

Hint:
Joe
Biden’s
nominee
for
this
seat
was
set
aside
as
part
of
a
deal
to
get
Biden
district
court
nominees
through
the
Senate
confirmation
process.
But
Democrats
still
opposed
the
nomination,
with
Sen.
Dick
Durbin
criticizing
the
nominee’s
links
to
the
Federalist
Society
and
Teneo
Network,
saying,
“Membership
in
such
organizations
has
been
a
litmus
test
for
years
for
Republican
nominees.
It’s
the
secret
handshake.
How
does
it
work?
You
claim
to
be
neutral,
but
in
fact
you
contort
history
and
overturn
precedents
to
reach
Republicans’
preferred
outcome.”

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

While
judges
should
get
a
lot
of
leeway
when
it
comes
to
their
courtrooms,
there
should
also
be
limits.
Things
like
play
handcuffing
children
to
prove
a
point
or
actually
handcuffing
children
over
fake
laws
are
at
the
top
of
my
“shit
judges
shouldn’t
be
doing
in
their
own
courtrooms”
list,
but
that
list
is
due
for
an
update.

Law.com
has
coverage
on
the
“order”
Justice
Naita
Semaj
has
been
bringing
to
her
court:

A
Bronx
jurist
agreed
to
be
censured,
admitting
she
unjustifiably
ejected
three
assistant
district
attorneys
from
her
courtroom,
and
was
impatient
and
discourteous
to
prosecutors,
often
reacting
with
sarcasm
during
a
13-month
span,
a
judicial
watchdog
said
Tuesday.

The
New
York
State
Commission
on
Judicial
Conduct’s
10-0
decision
that
state
Supreme
Court
Justice
Naita
Semaj
should
be
censured
said
the
six-year
jurist
acknowledged
she
violated
misconduct
rules
on
numerous
occasions
and
demonstrated
at
least
the
appearance
of
bias.

The
short
end
of
the
story
is
that
even
judges
shouldn’t
flippantly
kick
DAs
from
their
courtroom
or
insinuate
that
an
ADA
could
get
some
extra
leeway
with
her
male
supervisors
because
she
was
pregnant.
Sometimes
the
time
and
place
really
is
never
and
nowhere.
While
this
is
far
from
the
first
time
that
complaints
against
Justice
Semaj
have
led
to
her
behavior
being
under
review
(Semaj
once
chided
a
victim’s
mother
for
not
being
on
time
for
the
arraignment
of
the
man
who
allegedly
killed
her
son),
the
commission
described
her
demeanor
as
“contrite”
and
“cooperative.”
Hopefully
this
will
be
the
push
she
needed
to
act
in
a
manner
befitting
a
judge.

Bronx
Judge
Is
Censured
Over
Unwarranted
Ejections
and
‘Unseemly’
Criticism
of
Prosecutors
[Law.com]

---

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.

Last
night,
the
Supreme
Court
authorized
the
Trump
administration
to
dismantle
the
Education
Department,
using
the
shadow
docket
to
block
efforts
to
temporarily
halt
the
action.
When
the
dust
settles,
the
administration

should
lose,
but
by
then
all
that
will
be
left
of
the
Department
of
Education
will
be
three
raccoons
in
a
trenchcoat
calling
in
student
loans.
That’s
assuming
the
raccoons
survive
the
layoffs
and
aren’t
reassigned
to
monitor
library
books
for
gay
thoughts.
The
decision
makes
no
sense
in
any
world
where

Congress
has
a
seat
at
the
checks
and
balances
table
and
even
less
when
you
remember
this

same
Court
ruled
the
exact
opposite
way
when
Biden
tried
to
forgive
a
few
student
loans.
It’s
a
betrayal
of
basic
principles
of
equity.

Lawyers
understand
that
“equity”
in
this
sentence
means
the
body
of
law
that
governs
stuff
like
stays
and
injunctions.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
are
not
lawyers
—
most
of
them
self-identifying
as
“textualists”
naturally
—
who
do
not
understand
this
and
they
are
very
eager
to
share
their
sense
of
how
the
law
works
with
people
orders
of
magnitude
smarter
than
them.

Professor
Kries
—
a
law
professor
at
Georgia
State
University
College
of
Law
and
the
official
“AMK”
since
he’s
not
the
one
responsible
for
Justice
Keggy
McFratboy
—
continued,
“There’s
no
way
the
equities,
when
balanced,
favor
the
Administration.”
Which
seems
accurate
since
even
if
these
justices
are
inclined
to
upend
the
separation
of
powers
on
the
merits,
that’s
only
one
factor
and
avoiding
the
irreparable
harm
of
firing
thousands
of
people
while
the
case
leisurely
winds
its
way
through
the
court
system
would
more
than
outweigh.

In
any
event,
the
replies
had
thoughts
in
much
the
same
way
squirrels
in
traffic
have
a
transportation
policy:

This
particular
account,
which
took
a
break
from
defending
the
non-release
of
the
Epstein
files
for
this,
might
want
to
check
out
Article
III:
“The
judicial
Power
shall
extend
to
all
Cases,
in
Law
and
Equity….”
But
even
at
that,
I
also
suspect
that
he
didn’t
actually
“just
read”
any
of
the
Constitution
here.
The
Constitution
is
like
a
gym
membership
for
these
people:
they
talk
about
it
constantly,
it’s
mostly
aspirational,
and
they’re
winded
after
the
Preamble.

Again…
you
just
need
to
open
the
Constitution
and
hit
Cntrl-F.
It’s
right
there.
Boundless
clean
energy
to
be
had
if
we
could
just
harness
the
unearned
confidence
of
someone
without
a
law
degree
to
talk
about
law
without
even
consulting
the
very
short
document
they’re
talking
about!

What
is
it
with
this
theory
that

the
Preamble
should
hold
controlling
sway
over
everything
that
comes
after
it?
I
mean,
I

know
what’s
up
with
it:
vague,
aspirational
language
is
more
amenable
to
disingenuous
textualist
nonsense
so
someone
can
act
like
“Domestic
Tranquility”
in
the
opening
paragraph
means
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
doesn’t
have
to
exist
several
pages
later.

But
it
is
weird
that
“well-regulated
militia”
is
the
only
prefatory
language
that
doesn’t
earn
any
force
given
that
it’s

actually
in
the
same
sentence.

This
account
describes
itself
as
a
“Constitutional
and
fiscal
conservative….”

The
Federalist
Society
is
doubtless
already
in
touch
about
the
federal
bench.

A
YouTuber
that
claims
to
be
an
attorney
but
somehow
missed
civil
procedure.
But
at
least
he’s
on
top
of
his
Cntrl-F
game,
so
doing
better!

Here
we’re
leveling
up
from
“I
don’t
see
that
in
the
Constitution”
to
elevate

Marbury
v.
Madison
as
though
it
actually
is
in
the
Constitution.

An
account
called
“Small
Government”
arguing
for
unbridled,
monarchical
power…
HOOK
IT
TO
MY
VEINS!
Just
fabulous.

But
also
this
misses
the
point
because
even
IF
the
Supreme
Court
wants
to
reward
kingly
powers
to
the
executive
it

has
to
wait
its
turn.
The
case
has
to
work
its
way
to
them
and
until
that
juncture,
the
Supreme
Court
—
like
all
other
courts
—
are
bound
by
principles
of
equity
to
maintain
the
status
quo
until
such
time
that
the
matter
is
fully
briefed
and
argued
and
through
all
the
congressionally
established
tiers
of
inferior
courts.

Just
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
very
dumb
people
arguing
passionately
for

what
they
imagine
the
Constitution
to
say.

---

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.

Aspiring
law
clerks
are
applying
and
interviewing
for
clerkships
right
now.
Before

The
Legal
Accountability
Project
(LAP)
launched
our
nationwide
Clerkships
Database
(aka
“Glassdoor
for
Judges”),
clerkship
applicants
accessed
information
about
judges,
if
it
existed,
from
their
law
schools.
But
schools’

clerkship
resources
are
insufficient
at
best
and
misleading
at
worst.
No
school
knows
about
all
the
judges
students
will
apply
to,
and
schools’
information
is
restricted
by
who
alumni
have
clerked
for
in
the
past
and
clerks’
willingness
to
share
it.
Importantly,
schools
suffer
from

misaligned
incentives:
most
are
far
more
interested
in

funneling
students
into
prestigious
clerkships
than
in
ensuring
positive
work
experiences
for
graduates. 

Today’s
law
students
won’t
remember
a
time
when
clerkship
hiring
was
less
than
transparent.
It’s
the
second
application
cycle
where
applicants
benefit
from

LAP’s
Database,
a
repository
of
over
1,700

candid
clerkship
surveys
about
more
than
1,100
judges
that
democratizes
judicial
clerkships.
Clerks
can

submit
reviews
anonymously,
and
students,
irrespective
of
law
school,
can
pay
just
$50

per
year,
less
than
they
spend
annually
on
Netflix,
Hulu,
or
New
York
Times
subscriptions
—
for
access
to
a
treasure
trove
of
never-before-seen
insights. 

Importantly,
this
is
the
only
source
of

honest
feedback,
particularly
about
judges
to
avoid.
Disturbingly,
surveys
in
schools’

internal
clerkships
databases
are
almost


uniformly
positive:
out
of
hundreds
of
surveys,
often
fewer
than
10
are
negative.
Considering
the
federal
judiciary’s

workplace
climate
survey
results
suggest
around
80%
of
employees’
experiences
are
positive,
and
LAP’s
data
indicates
this
number
is
actually
closer
to
70%,
less
than
10
negative

surveys
out
of
hundreds
seems
suspect. 

That’s
why
LAP’s
Database
is
so
necessary.
Clerks
are
dissuaded
—
including


by
their
law
schools
—
from
“talking
bad”
about
judges,
let
alone
putting
negative
information
in
writing.
They
fear
retaliation
or
reputational
harm.
And
messaging
from
the
legal
industry
deifies
judges,
suggesting
judges
can
do
no
wrong
and

should
not
be
criticized. 

What’s
more
disturbing
than
the
absence
of
negative
information
is
misleading
positive
surveys
in
schools’
databases,
with
no
“contact
us
before
applying”
disclaimer
to
signal
that
advisors
have
additional
insights
to
share.
Yellers,
throwers,
judges
whose
12-hour
workdays
are
written
in
their
law
clerk
manuals
—
work
experiences
where
no
clerkship
at
all,
is
better
than
that
clerkship
—
you’ll
find
positive
reviews
about
them
in
schools’
databases. 

When
all
information
in
the
school’s
database
is
positive,
students
should

question
the
veracity
of

all
surveys.
Schools’
resources
are
worthless
for
anyone
trying
to
avoid
a
negative
clerkship
—
which,
according
to
LAP’s
surveys,
20%
or
more
are. 

When
I
was
a
Washington
University
School
of
Law
student
applying
for
clerkships,
I
had
no
way
to
know
which
judges
were
great
bosses
to
apply
to,
and
which
to
avoid.
I
was
misled
into
an
unsafe
work
environment
—
one
my
law
school
knew
of
and
should
have
warned
me
about
—
because
no
transparency
clearinghouse
existed.
And
my
law
school,
like
too
many,
doesn’t
care
about
its
graduates’
well-being.
Because
if
they
did,
more
schools
already
would
have
embraced
LAP’s
Database. 

Fortunately,
more
than
2,000
subscribers
from
law
schools
nationwide
avoided
more
than
100
negatively
reviewed
federal
judges
this
year
—
representing
around
one
seventeenth
of
federal
judges
—
and
poorly-reviewed
state
judges,
too.
This
empowered
clerks
to
reshuffle
to
positively
reviewed
judges,
including
some
they
might
not
otherwise
have
known
about,
given
their
schools’
regional
interests.
As
one
state
supreme
court
justice
remarked
recently,
clerkship
applicants
were
particularly
strong
this
year,
and
they
suspect
LAP’s
work
had
something
to
do
with
it.  

I’ve
also
noticed
a
welcome
improvement
in
how
lawyers
talk
about
clerkships
—
no
longer
framed
as
an

unadulterated
good.
Perhaps
they’ve
digested
the
increased
media
coverage
of
harassment
in
the
judiciary
—
a

lengthy
NPR
investigation,
several
high-profile
instances
of

litigation,

scandal,

judicial
discipline,
and

resignation,
and

legislative
efforts
on
Capitol
Hill.
Clearly,
there’s
a
systemic
misconduct
problem,
stemming
from
the

lack
of
legal
guardrails,

workplace
protections,

outside
oversight,
and
the

insular
nature
of
the
judiciary.
It’s
not
that
all
judges
are
bad
—
but
the
bad
ones
are
shielded
by
their
colleagues
from
accountability. 

Apparently,
this
was
a
particularly
competitive
clerkship
hiring
cycle,
as
students
who
would
otherwise
pursue
careers
with
the
Justice
Department’s
Honors
Program
and
throughout
the
federal
government
had

offers
revoked
or
decided
federal
service
was
politically
inhospitable.
More
young
lawyers
are
looking
for
one-
or
two-year
perches
to
regroup
as
public
service
dreams
are
shattered.
But
this
creates
a
dangerous
bird-in-the-hand
situation:
when
applicants
are
forced
to
choose
between
an
opportunity
with
a
notoriously
abusive
judge
and
no
clerkship
at
all,
someone
desperate,
even
after
reading
negative
reviews,
will
accept
that
clerkship
anyway. 

LAP’s
Database
creates

accountability
through
transparency
—
because
there’s
nothing
imperious
federal
judges
who
abuse
their
power
hate
more
than
negative
feedback
traveling
through
the
grapevine
that
they
cannot
see.
This
third-party
solution,
wholly
independent
of
law
schools
and
the
judiciary,
creates
transparency
and
accountability
where
before
there
was

none.
Judges
are
forced
to
take
a
hard
look
inward
and
consider
their
workplace
conduct
—
how
they
can
be
better
managers
—
knowing
their
behavior
is
under
scrutiny:
reviewed
by
their
clerks
in
LAP’s
Database
and
on
display
for
thousands
of
applicants. 

Judges
historically

benefited
from
the
lack
of
transparent
information
about
them
as
managers,
to
get
away
with
mistreating
clerks
year
after
year
—
because
prospective
clerks
did
not
know
until
it
was
too
late.
No
longer.
This
year,
applicants
will
avoid
abusive
bosses
entirely.
I’ve
even
spoken
with
incoming
clerks
about
withdrawing
from
their
clerkships
because
they
learned
negative
information
after
they’d
accepted.
Incoming
clerks
would

never
have
considered
this
before
LAP:
now,
clerks
warn
applicants;
applicants
are
empowered
to
make
informed
career
decisions;
and
prospective
clerks
can
take
agency
over
their
careers. 

LAP’s
Database
doesn’t
replace

formal
reporting
mechanisms.
I
encourage

every
clerk
I
correspond
with
to

file
a
complaint.
Most
will
never
report,
though
I’ve
assisted
a
few.
Why
not?
According
to
the

judiciary’s

own
survey,

only
42%
of
employees
would
report
misconduct,
fearing
retaliation
and
believing
nothing
will
be
done.
Clerks
regularly
tell
me
they
have
not
and
would
not
report,
because
they
do
not
believe
their
concerns
will
be
taken
seriously
and
robustly,
impartially
investigated.
It’s
a
hard
sell,
since
employees
are
not
legally
protected
against
retaliation
—
the
entire
federal
judiciary
is

exempt
from
Title
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
and
all
other
anti-discrimination
laws
—
and
the

judiciary
has
done

nothing
to
give
clerks
confidence
in
existing
processes. 

It’s
hard
not
to
get
frustrated,
knowing
the
judiciary
seems
to
have
succeeded
in
chilling
complaints
and
stymying
formal
reporting.

Dozens
of
currently
serving
judges
won’t
be
held
formally
accountable
for
misconduct.
Fortunately,
LAP’s
Database
contains
honest
insights:
the
hostility
we’ve
engendered
from
some
abusive
judges
desperate
to
prevent
applicants
from
learning
about
their
misbehavior
tells
you
everything
you
need
to
know
about
the
effectiveness
of
LAP’s
theory
of
accountability
through
transparency. 

Law
clerks
nationwide
are
galvanized
to

share
their
experiences
with
LAP,
and
with
aspiring
clerks.
Because
Glassdoor
for
Judges
would
have
helped
them
when
they
were
applying.
Even
those
who
weren’t
mistreated
know
someone
who
was,
or
understand
that
the
structure
of
judicial
chambers
—
hierarchical,
isolated,
lacking
workplace
protections
and
outside
oversight
—
creates
a
risk
of
abusive
conduct.  

Thousands
of
clerks
conclude
their
clerkships
this
summer,
and
all
should

contribute
a
survey.
Some
clerks
whose
experiences
were
positive
think
their
judges
wouldn’t
want
them
to
submit,
or
worse,
are

discouraged
by
judges
from
submitting
(a
huge
red
flag).
Given
that
LAP
has
surveys
about
1,100
judges,
subscribers
interpret
a
lack
of
surveys
as
a
negative
sign.
Clerks
love
to
rave
about
their
clerkships
—
if
it
was
so
great,
why

wouldn’t
clerks
submit?
I
discourage
students
from
applying
to
clerk
for
judges
who
oppose
transparency.
So,
it
actually
bolsters
the
judge’s
reputation
for
clerks
to
review
them,
and
hurts
their
reputations
when
clerks
don’t. 

For
clerks
who
were
mistreated,
this
is
the
best
way
to
safely
and
anonymously
warn
applicants
to
avoid
the
mistreatment
you
endured.
It’s
also
a
way
to
hold
judges
accountable
for
misconduct
through
transparency:
their
misbehavior
will,
at
least,
be
known
to
applicants.
We
know
judges
are
obsessed
with
their
reputations.  

Those
perpetuating
the
toxic
culture
of
silence
rather
than
contributing
to
this
nationwide
transparency
effort,
perpetuate
bullying,
harassment,
and
abuse
of
power
in
the
courts.
We
should
hold
judges
—
and
the
lawyers
who
protect
them
—
to
higher
ethical
standards.
Our
profession

self-regulates,
yet
many
toss
ethics
aside
when
it
comes
to
judges
—
which
is
particularly
disturbing,
since
there
are


fewer
legal
guardrails
in
the
federal
judiciary
than
the
rest
of
the
legal
industry.  

The
solutions
to

judicial
lawlessness
exist,
if
we’re
tenacious
enough
to
fight
for
them.
They
won’t
come
from

this
Congress
or
judiciary.
But
the
nationwide

grassroots
transparency
movement
LAP
sparked
is
holding
the
judiciary’s
feet
to
the
fire
like
never
before.
We’re
not
waiting
on
anyone
to
make
the
change
we
know
is
necessary.  

---

Aliza
Shatzman
is
the
President
and
Founder
of The
Legal
Accountability
Project,
a
nonprofit
aimed
at
ensuring
that
law
clerks
have
positive
clerkship
experiences,
while
extending
support
and
resources
to
those
who
do
not.
She
regularly
writes
and
speaks
about
judicial
accountability
and
clerkships.
Reach
out
to
her
via
email
at [email protected] and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@AlizaShatzman.

As
of
today,
John
Sarcone
III is
out
of
a
job.
The
former
regional
administrator
for
the
US
General
Services
Administration
and
town
attorney
in
Westchester
County
was
appointed
to
a
120-day
term
as
interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
Northern
District
of
New
York
by
Pam
Bondi,
and
in
order
to
keep
the
job,
he
needed
approval
of
the
Board
of
Judges
of
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
Northern
District
of
New
York.
In
a
rare
move,
the
panel
of
judges
declined
to
extend
Sarcone’s
role.

Sarcone
has
been
criticized
for
his
lack
of
prosecutorial
experience.
Was
that
the
reason
for
the
panel’s
rejection
of
his
appointment?
Who
knows?
The
panel’s
statement
was

supes
short,
saying
only:

“The
Board
of
Judges
of
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
Northern
District
of
New
York
declines
to
exercise
the
authority
granted
pursuant
to 28
U.S.
Code
§
546(d) to
appoint
a
United
States
attorney
for
the
Northern
District
of
New
York.”

Not
only
does
Sarcone’s
resume
have
a
dearth
of
related
experience,
he
doesn’t
seem
interested
in
the
actual
job
of
U.S.
Attorney.
In
interviews
he’s
described
the
position
only
as
a
temporary
weigh
station
before
he
gets
elevated
to
the
federal
bench.
He

said
he
wanted
to
be
the
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
Northern
District
of
New
York
because
“I
wanted
to
be
part
of
[Trump’s]
‘Take
Back
America’
initiative”
even
“knowing
it’s
temporary.”
Back
in
the
Trump
I
reign,
Sarcone
was
nominated
—
unsuccessfully
—
for
a
judgeship.

But
before
the
panel
rejected
Sarcone’s
appointment,
he
was

out
there
blabbing
that
his
role
*had*
been
extended
when
the
judges
did
no
such
thing.

This
is
the
first
time
a
panel
of
judges
has
rejected
the
permanent
appointment
of
an
interim
U.S.
Attorney,
so
what
happens
next
is
a
bit
of
a
question
mark.
The
vacancy
reform
act
means
the
office’s
number
2
will
get
the
role
in
an
“acting”
capacity,
but
that’s
not
the
final
word.
Sarcone
could
be
appointed
to
back-to-back
temporary
appointments
(no
word
on
how
that
would
interact
with
Sarcone’s
judicial
ambitions),
or
another
MAGA
faithful
could
get
the
nod
as
there’s
overlapping
federal
laws
in
play.
As
Jennifer
Selin,
an
associate
professor
at
the
Arizona
State
University
Sandra
Day
O’Connor
College
of
Law,

noted,
“This
is
where
the
Trump
administration
has
been
creative,
and
I
don’t
think
we
really
know
legally
how
this
all
works.
They’re
sort
of
creating
their
own
precedent
here.”
But
since
Senate
Minority
Leader
Chuck
Schumer
announced
a
hold
on
all
Justice
Department
political
nominees,
it’s
unlikely
the
role
will
be
filled
by
the
formal
nomination/Senate
confirmation
process.

---

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].