Category: News Feeds

*
The
views
expressed
in
externally
authored
materials
linked
or
published
on
this
site
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
views
of
LexisNexis
Legal
&
Professional.

If
judicial
opinions
were
résumés,
Judge
Lawrence
VanDyke
just
stapled
a
cover
letter
to
his
dissent
reading,
“Dear
Donald
Trump,
please
notice
me.“

With

rumors
swirling
that
Samuel
Alito
may
be
eyeing
retirement
from
the
Supreme
Court,
VanDyke’s
latest
performance
on
the
Ninth
Circuit
reads
less
like
a
serious
judicial
disagreement
and
more

like
an
audition
tape
for
the
potentially
open
seat.
And

not
a
subtle
one.
This
is
full-on
pandering,
drenched
in
the
kind
of
belittling
rhetoric
that
reliably
delights
Donald
Trump
and
the
MAGA
faithful
who
view
professionalism
as
a
character
flaw.

VanDyke
turned

a
recent
dissent
into
a
late-night
blog
comment
section
rant,
complete
with
mockery,
sarcasm,
and
a
sneering
tone
that
would
get
a
first-year
associate
hauled
into
HR
by
lunchtime.
The
full
en
banc
court
was
reviewing
a
denial
of
a
stay
of
deportation
proceedings
for
a
Peruvian
family
seeking
to
remain
in
the
United
States
while
their
case
is
heard.
In
other
words,
the
stakes
were
extremely
real
—
whether
a
family
would
be
deported
before
the
court
even
finished
considering
the
legality
of
that
deportation.

Naturally,
VanDyke
responded
by
inventing
a
fictional
place
called
the
“Circuit
of
Wackadoo.”

Yes.
Really.

In
his
dissent,
VanDyke
spun
a
bizarre
fairy
tale
about
a
mythical
circuit
where
“the
attorneys
are
all
wise,
the
judges
are
all
zealous,
and
the
law
clerks
are
all
above
average.”
(Cool
joke,
everyone,
very
original.)
In
Wackadoo,
everything
is
“enlightened
and
efficient,”
except
for
one
fatal
flaw:
the
judges
are
apparently
too
busy.
To
cope,
they
allegedly
adopt
an
“unwritten
practice”
of
granting
administrative
stays
pending
review,
a
practice
VanDyke
presents
as
some
kind
of
radical
judicial
heresy.

The
punchline?
VanDyke
insists
that
Wackadoo
is

not
the
Ninth
Circuit.
That
would
be
ridiculous.
“That
would
be
crazy,”
he
writes.
“We
only
do
so
in
immigration
cases.”

Ah
yes.
Immigration
cases.
Those
famously
low-stakes
matters
involving
exile,
family
separation,
and
irreversible
harm.
Why

wouldn’t
judges
be
extra
cautious
there?

He
doubled
down,
accusing
his
colleagues
of
employing
what
he
calls
“manifestly
unlawful
stay
procedures.”
Procedures
that,
he
claims,
create
so
many
immigration
cases
that
the
court
then
points
to
the
volume
to
justify
continuing
the
practice.

And
here’s
where
the
dissent
fully
leaves
the
rails.

According
to
VanDyke,
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
internal
dialogue
resembles
“a
judicial
Oprah
Winfrey,
confused
by
her
own
popularity.”
He
then
helpfully
scripts
it
out:

“We
are
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
sincerely
shocked
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
by
the
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
number
of
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
utterly
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
meritless
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
immigration
petitions
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!
And
you
get
a
stay!
And
you
get
a
stay!’)
…
that
are
filed
…
(‘You
get
a
stay!’)
…
in
our
court.
(‘Everyone
gets
a
stay!’).”

This
isn’t
a
serious
critique;
it’s
performance
art
aimed
squarely
at
the
MAGA
audience
that
has
learned
to
hiss
at
the
words
“Ninth
Circuit”
on
command.

And
that’s
really
the
tell.
This
dissent
isn’t
about
persuading
colleagues
—
VanDyke
already
lost
that
battle.
It’s
about
mocking
fellow
judges
as
unserious,
lazy,
or
ideologically
captured,
while
casting
himself
as
the
lone
adult
in
the
room
bravely
resisting
the
forces
of…
procedural
fairness.
VanDyke
didn’t
need
to
write
like
this.
He
chose
to.
And
he
chose
a
tone
and
style
that
just
so
happens
to
align
perfectly
with
the
man
who
would
get
to
nominate
the
next
Supreme
Court
justice.

Of
course,
VanDyke
can
afford
this
blatant
pandering.
Lifetime
tenure
means
he
doesn’t
answer
to
voters,
clients,
or
managing
partners.
He
doesn’t
need
collegial
goodwill.
He
doesn’t
even
need
to
pretend
this
dissent
might
change
anyone’s
mind.
He
just
needs
to
make
sure
the
right
people
(Donald
Trump)
notice
that
he’s
very
angry
about
immigration
cases.

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].

After
spending
the
last
36
hours
getting
walloped
by
a
historic
snow
storm
—
one
some
meteorologists
dubbed
a
“Snowicane”
—
the
New
York
Board
of
Law
Examiners
responded
with
all
the
compassion
and
common
sense
of
a
parking
meter.
Have
your
ass
in
its
seat
this
morning,
or
be
branded
as
“withdrawn”
from
the
exam.

Over
10,000
flights
have
been
canceled
since
Sunday,
as
one
of
the
New
York
airports
reported
over
27
inches
of
snow,
and
clearing
the
backlog
has
some
travelers
waiting
until
the
end
of
the
week
for
a
flight.
Ground
transportation
wasn’t
much
better
with
New
York
City
imposing
a
travel
ban
during
the
height
of
the
storm.
And
while
NYC
has
cleared
major
thoroughfares,
roads
across
the
region
remain,
as
the
National
Weather
Service
helpfully
noted,
“nearly
impossible”
to
navigate.

In
response,
the
NY
Board
of
Law
Examiners
told
bar
applicants
to
figure
it
out
or
get
bent.

According
to

the
ABA
Journal,
the
Board’s
information
number
delivered
the
following
message
to
applicants
who
might
not
be
able
to,
you
know,
traverse
a
historic
blizzard
to
reach
their
testing
center
this
morning:

Failure
to
show
up
at
the
exam
will
not
prevent
you
from
reapplying
for
a
future
administration
of
the
bar
exam
in
New
York
unless
you
have
three
or
more
withdrawals
and
absences,
in
which
case
you
will
need
to
petition
the
board
for
permission
to
reapply.

“Withdrawn,”
because

you
made
the
deeply
personal
choice
not
to
risk
your
life
on
black
ice
at
6
a.m.
to
wax
philosophic
about
the
Rule
Against
Perpetuities.
See,
the
Board
wants
you
to
know
that
they
aren’t
punishing
you…
you’re
punishing

yourself
by
not
having
the
foresight
to
live
closer
to
a
testing
center.
Do
you
know
how
bad
it
was
out
there?
DoorDash
canceled
service,
and
their
motto
is:

Neither
rain
nor
gloom
of
night
stays
these
couriers
from
providing
your
burrito
a
personal
limousine.

Also,
the
bar
exam
message
says
nothing
about
refunds
because
of
course
it
doesn’t.

Without
downplaying
how
much
this
sucks
for
anyone
trying
to
get
to
New
York,
what
makes
this
policy
so
reckless
is
that
law
school
graduates
looking
to
take
the
bar
are

exactly
the
kind
of
people
who
will
risk
a
drive
on
treacherous
roads
to
keep
their
jobs.

And
it’s
not
just
New
York
City.
The
Long
Island
location
got
hammered
with
over
15
inches
and
many
folks
heading
to
the
Albany
location
travel
up
from
NYC,
having
only
been
relegated
to
the
capital
by
virtue
of
having
attended
a
non-NY
law
school
before
moving
to
NYC
to
begin
their
careers.

Back
in
2013,
Missouri’s
Board
of
Law
Examiners

forced
applicants
into
a
blizzard
and
the
power
went
out
during
the
exam.
You’d
think
the
legal
profession
might
have
developed
some
institutional
memory
about
this
kind
of
thing.
But
—
and
I
cannot
stress
this
enough
—
once
you
accept
the
premise
that
the
bar
exam
is
a
good
idea
in
the
first
place,
you’ve
already
signaled
that
all
that
matters
is
performative
hardship.
Remember
how
the
various
state
bars
had
to
be
dragged
kicking
and
screaming
into
acknowledging
that
they
might
not
be
able
to
ram
hundreds
of
applicants
into
a
room
during
a
deadly
pandemic?
During
COVID,

bar
examiners
hinted
at
denying
licenses
to
anyone
who
publicly
criticized
them
for
forcing
applicants
to
subject
themselves
to
an
in-person
petri
dish.

The
bar
exam
is
always
form
over
substance,
but
it
takes
emergencies
like
these
to
distill
how
rotten
that
obsession
becomes.
If
the
goal
was
really
to
test
minimum
competence,
there
are
multiple
avenues
to
make
that
happen.
But
since
the
goal
is
actually
the
uncritical
devotion
to
a
gatekeeping
mechanism
of
dubious
value,
then
of
course
a
licensing
authority
cannot
even
conceive
of
a
world
involving
reasonable
delays
or
makeups
or
any
other
accommodations.
The
test
that
matters
to
them
is
getting
bodies
in
the
room
that
they
want
you
to
be
in,
full
stop.
These
applicants
spent
months
studying,
paid
their
application
fees,
and
many
went
to
great
lengths
to
try
to
travel
from
out
of
state.

And
the
bar
examiner
position
is
essentially,

fuck
them
kids.

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.

More
than
400
rural
hospitals
across
the
country
are

at
risk
of
closure,
battling
a
mix
of
reimbursement
issues,
workforce
struggles
and
policy
decisions
that
have
left
safety
net
providers
financially
exposed.

Undeniably,
the
rural
healthcare
crisis
carries
serious
consequences
for
population
health
and
people’s
access
to
care,
but
there
are
also
ripple
effects
that
impact
the
economic
stability
of
rural
America
itself.
Healthcare
isn’t
just
a
social
good
—
it’s
a
foundational
infrastructure
that
determines
whether
rural
communities
can
attract
businesses,
sustain
populations
and
be
economically
viable.

I
asked
panelists
to
reflect
on
this
idea
during
a
rural
health
panel
I
was
moderating
Sunday
afternoon
at

ViVE
in
Los
Angeles,
and
they
agreed
that
access
to
healthcare
is
a
prerequisite
for
any
kind
of
rural
economic
development.

Joe
Dunn,
chief
policy
officer
at
the

National
Association
of
Community
Health
Centers
(NACHC),
noted
that
rural
communities
where
residents
must
drive
hours
to
reach
hospitals
or
specialist
care
are
fundamentally
unattractive
to
employers
—
whether
that’s
a
factory,
processing
plant
or
small
business. 

He
noted
that
healthcare
is
a
“backbone”
of
economic
vitality,
emphasizing
that
no
community
can
thrive
—
nor
can
the
country
tolerate
—
large
populations
being
cut
off
from
both
care
and
opportunity. 

Another
panelist,
Brian
Hoerneman,
CEO
at

Marshfield
Clinic
Health
System,
pointed
out
that
rural
healthcare
organizations
often
serve
as
anchor
institutions
that
help
the
local
economy
grow.

“For
years,
we’ve
been
the
largest
employer
in
the
northern
half
of
Wisconsin,
and
in
many
of
the
other
communities
we
serve,
we’re
the
largest
employer.
Those
jobs
then
fund
local
small
businesses
and
make
up
a
significant
part
of
those
smaller
community
economies.
So
healthcare
is
kind
of
neat
that
way
—
it’s
a
big
obligation,
it’s
something
we
feel
every
day,
but
it
also
has
the
opportunity
to
really
help
support
the
community,”
Hoerneman
remarked.

Gulshan
Mehta,
chief
digital
and
information
officer
at

Blanchard
Valley
Health
System,
added
that
his
health
system
is
the
largest
employer
in
its
region
as
well.

He
also
warned
that
the
economic
damage
isn’t
limited
to
hospital
closures
alone.
The
loss
of
individual
service
lines,
such
as
obstetrics
or
timely
emergency
services,
can
be
just
as
destabilizing.
When
residents
have
to
travel
long
distances
for
basic
care,
these
delays
compound
health
risks
across
the
area.

“You
start
thinking
about
the
commute
times
becoming
a
real
clinical
variable
when
it
comes
to
the
outcomes
of
healthcare
—
not
only
for
the
individual,
but
for
the
community
in
general,”
Mehta
declared.

Overall,
the
panelists
believe
that
healthcare
is
the
foundation
that
keeps
rural
communities
alive
—
both
literally
and
economically.

Photo:
Thomas
Barwick,
Getty
Images

*
NY
Bar
Exam’s
response
to
snowstorm
canceling
flights
nationwide…
the
show
must
go
on!
[ABA
Journal]

*
More
FOIA
suits
over
Biglaw
Pro
Bono
Payola
deals.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Neal
Katyal
says
his
clients
want
their
tariff
refunds.
If
they
get
them,
we’ll
all
surely
see
those
rebates
passed
on
to
the
consumer
the
same
way
they
passed
on
the
tariffs,
right?
[NPR]

*
Former
ICE
lawyer
testifies
that
the
system
is
dangerously
broken.
See,
now,
here’s
a
lawyer
abiding
by
his
ethical
duties

as
opposed
to
many,
many
others.
[NBC
News]

*
Gibson
Dunn
loses
case
over
former
partner’s
retirement
pay.
[Reuters]

*
Thomson
Reuters
CoCounsel
hits
a
million
users.
[Artificial
Lawyer]

*
State
of
the
Union
poised
to
get
awkward
for
Supreme
Court.
[MSNow]

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Olympic
gold
medalist
Alysia
Liu’s
father,
attorney
Arthur
Liu,
is
getting
a
lot
of
attention
in
the
wake
of
his
daughter’s
athletic
success.
What
law
school,
now
known
by
another
name,
did
he
attend?

Hint:
Arthur
Liu
fled
China
after
his
involvement
in
the
1989
Tiananmen
Square
protests
He
started
his
family
in
California
as
a
single
father
by
choice,
through
surrogacy.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

“I’ll
Never
Forget
This”
To
“An
Embarrassment”
In
A
Year’s
Time:
Trump
shamed
the
hell
out
of
Republican
justices
that
didn’t
see
it
his
way.
Aileen
Cannon
Knows
Better
Than
To
Go
Against
Trump:
Nothing
say
“checks
and
balances”
like
protecting
the
president!
Law
Student
Dams
Car
Into
The
Hoover:
The
apparent
terrorist
attack
leaves
far
more
questions
than
answers.
Bad
Time
To
Be
The
Example:
Tech
accountability
case
gets
sidelined
by
lack
of
tech
accountability.
State
Supreme
Justice
Trades
Gavel
For
Chalkboard:
Finally,
a
Con
Law
professor
that
knows
their
stuff!