When
it
comes
to
public
defense,
it
seems
like
the
only
news
is
bad
news.
We
are
seeing
nationwide
shortages
of
public
defenders.
In
some
places,
the
demand
for
public
defenders
is
so
dire
that
their
workload
has
become
a
constitutional
issue
and
people
are
being
allowed
to
walk
because
no
one
is
there
to
represent
them:
As
far
as
the
other
side?
I’ll
put
it
this
way:
they
have
so
many
resources
that
they
can
afford
to
prosecute
someone
for
throwing
a
sandwich.
With
all
the
time
and
discretion
on
their
hands,
you’d
imagine
that
prosecutors
are
taking
their
time
to
do
the
paperwork
required
to
send
someone
to
jail.
Turns
out
even
they
are
being
swayed
by
the
large
language
modeling
of
all
things
legal.
And
while
that
might
be
cool
when
it
comes
to
grunt
work,
human
intelligence
should
be
in
the
driver’s
seat
on
matters
of
fundamental
liberty.
Gov
Tech
has
coverage:
Northern
California
prosecutors
used
artificial
intelligence
to
write
a
criminal
court
filing
that
contained
references
to
nonexistent
legal
cases
and
precedents,
Nevada
County
District
Attorney
Jesse
Wilson
said
in
a
statement. … “A
prosecutor
recently
used
artificial
intelligence
in
preparing
a
filing,
which
resulted
in
an
inaccurate
citation,”
Wilson
said
in
the
statement
to
The
Sacramento
Bee.
“Once
the
error
was
discovered,
the
filing
was
immediately
withdrawn.”
As
bad
as
this
is,
the
harms
could
be
managed
if
it
were
a
one-off.
Unfortunately,
it
looks
like
we’re
starting
at
serial
prosecutorial
error:
“The
Nevada
County
District
Attorney’s
Office
has,
in
at
least
three
criminal
cases
in
recent
weeks,
filed
briefing
citing
to
fabricated
(legal)
authority,”
wrote
lawyers
for
the
nonprofit
Civil
Rights
Corps,
which
is
representing
Kjoller
along
with
a
Nevada
County
public
defender.
While
we’re
on
the
topic
of
prosecutorial
error,
few
things
should
set
off
bigger
alarms
than
repeated
Brady
violations.
Lazy
AI
usage
pales
in
comparison
to
the
shame
of
over
200
people
being
sentenced
to
death
because
prosecutors
withheld
exonerating
evidence.
Nonetheless,
it
blows
my
mind
that
the
team
that
is
already
in
the
lead
on
resources
is
using
shortcuts
to
get
guilty
pleas
and
verdicts.
Maybe
it
should
be
fair
game
to
let
ChatGPT
do
part
of
being
a
lawyer
for
you.
But
whenever
you
submit
your
filings,
whatever
is
in
them
should
be
on
you.
That’s
your
responsibility,
regardless
of
whether
an
intern
or
a
large
language
model
got
sloppy
and
made
up
a
case
to
make
it
easier
for
you
to
imprison
someone.
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.
On
Halloween,
President
Trump
announced
that,
if
ordered
to
by
a
court,
“it
will
BE
MY
HONOR”
to
fund
SNAP
benefits
and
feed
the
41
million
Americans
who
rely
on
them.
Turns
out
…
not
so
much.
Instead
the
Trump
administration
opted
to
defy
an
order
by
Judge
John
McConnell,
Jr.
in
Rhode
Island
to
get
the
money
out
to
hungry
Americans.
Specifically,
on
November
1,
the
court
directed
the
Department
of
Agriculture
to
either
tap
into
a
$23
billion
reserve
fund
for
Child
Nutrition
Programs
and
fully
fund
November
SNAP
entitlements,
or
use
$4.6
billion
in
SNAP
reserves
to
make
an
immediate
partial
payment
to
the
states.
The
USDA
opted
to
do
neither,
instead
docketing
a
declaration
claiming
to
have
transmitted
“revised
issuance
tables
to
State
agencies,”
transferring
the
obligation
to
individual
states
to
rejigger
and
resubmit
their
own
funding
requests.
“As
is
required
by
Federal
law,
after
receiving
notice
from
FNS,
State
agencies
must
recode
their
eligibility
systems
to
adjust
for
the
reduced
maximum
allotments,”
the
government
wrote,
adding
that
“For
at
least
some
States,
USDA’s
understanding
is
that
the
system
changes
States
must
implement
to
provide
the
reduced
benefit
amounts
will
take
anywhere
from
a
few
weeks
to
up
to
several
months.”
Judge
McConnell
hit
the
roof.
At
a
hearing
on
Thursday,
he
scoffed
at
the
DOJ’s
suggestion
that
it
couldn’t
possibly
tap
the
Child
Nutrition
Programs,
which
are
fully
funded
through
June,
without
starving
children.
He
called
the
DOJ’s
protests
“entirely
pretextual
given
the
numerous
statements
made
in
recent
weeks
by
the
president
and
his
administration
officials
who
admit
to
withholding
full
SNAP
benefits
for
political
reasons.”
He
followed
up
the
oral
order
with
a
written
TRO
instructing
the
USDA
to
tap
the
emergency
funds
immediately.
Instead,
the
administration
raced
to
the
First
Circuit
and
demanded
immediate
relief
from
“this
unprecedented
injunction
[that]
makes
a
mockery
of
the
separation
of
powers.”
The
government
requested
a
ruling
by
4
p.m.,
teeing
up
yet
another
request
for
“emergency
relief”
at
SCOTUS.
The
states
submitted
their
response,
arguing
that
the
trial
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
when
it
ordered
the
government
to
feed
people.
So
now
it’s
on
the
First
Circuit
to
decide
if
allowing
41
million
people
to
go
hungry
is
arbitrary
and
capricious
or
simply
a
president
virtuously
guarding
his
prerogatives
and
the
federal
fisc.
And
then
it’s
on
to
SCOTUS
to
see
if
there
are
five
votes
for
the
theory
that
separation
of
powers
requires
courts
to
let
the
president
starve
people
as
a
tool
to
bludgeon
his
political
enemies.
In
case
anyone
hasn’t
been
listening
carefully,
Comment
8
to
Model
Rule
1.1
requires
lawyers
to
understand
not
just
the risks of
technology,
but
the benefits
and
the
word
“benefits”
appears
first.
We
have
an
ethical
duty
(yes,
duty)
to
understand
and
leverage
the
benefits
of
technology.
Ethics
and
Benefits
Let’s
talk
about
the
notion
of
benefits.
Comment
8
to
Model
Rule
1.1,
is
the
oft
cited
source
when
people
preach
about
risks
and
technology.
But
in
doing
so,
they
ignore
the
additional
requirement:
To
maintain
the
requisite
knowledge
and
skill,
a
lawyer
should
keep
abreast
of
changes
in
the
law
and
its
practice,
including
the
benefits
and
risks
associated
with
relevant
technology,
engage
in
continuing
study.
Not
only
does
the
word
benefits
appear,
but
it
also
actually
appears
first.
Comment
8
has
been
adopted
in
most
states
and
even
where
it
hasn’t
been,
there
seems
to
be
little
question
that
competency
these
days
requires
the
consideration
and
use
of
technology.
And
to
be
competent
can’t
mean
wringing
our
hands
over
the
risks
of
technology
and
concluding
it
shouldn’t
be
used.
Understanding
benefits
and
taking
advantage
of
them
is
an
ethical
requirement.
And
the
word
benefits
means
the
positive
capabilities
of
technologies
like
AI
to
improve
the
practice.
Things
like
using
technology
to
do
things
to
efficiently
and
save
costs,
using
things
like
AI
to
enhance
client
service,
using
things
like
data
analytics
for
better
insights
and
outcomes,
predicting
case
outcomes
and
judicial
tendencies,
better
use
of
technology
in
the
courtroom
to
achieve
better
outcomes
for
clients,
preventative
lawyering.
I
could
go
on
and
on.
But
that
message
gets
lost,
particularly
at
legal
tech
conferences.
Legal
Tech
Conference
Speak
A
friend
of
mine
was
a
recent
speaker
at
a
legal
AI
conference.
Speaking
last,
my
friend
noticed
that
every
speaker
focused
on
the
risks
and
dangers
of
using
AI.
You
know
the
drill:
hallucinations,
loss
of
confidentiality,
the
need
for
accurate
prompts,
the
need
to
check
the
outputs,
etc.
My
friend
took
a
different
tack
and
talked
about
what
AI
could
do.
How
it
could
be
used
to
be
more
efficient,
precise,
and
accurate
in
particular
practice
areas.
I
was
the
first
speaker
at
a
recent
legal
AI
conference
as
well.
I
spoke
about
ethics
and
AI;
toward
the
end
of
my
talk,
I
realized
I
also
had
not
spent
enough
time
talking
about
our
ethical
duty
to
understand
and
leverage
the
benefits.
Of
course,
I
was
followed
by
a
slew
of
people
doing
just
what
the
speakers
at
my
friend’s
conference
did:
talking
about
the
problems,
the
risks,
the
needs
for
cautions.
Some
were
vendors
who
seemed
to
be
saying
something
like
“Lawyers
don’t
try
this
at
home.
AI
should
only
be
used
in
conjunction
with
a
licensed
professional.”
Of
course,
the
vendors
weren’t
licensed
professionals
in
the
true
sense.
But
the
message
was
clear,
lawyers
shouldn’t
use
AI
without
the
help
of
someone
who
really
knows
what
they
are
doing.
But
that
message
directly
leads
lawyers
to
shy
away
from
such
a
“dangerous”
tool.
The
Only
Thing
You
Need
to
Know
Is
That
There’s
Not
That
Much
to
Know
And
it’s
wrong.
I
have
another
friend
who
is
not
a
lawyer
but
who
hires
them.
She
uses
ChatGPT
extensively
for
all
sorts
of
things.
When
I
told
her
about
my
conference,
she
scoffed:
“The
only
thing
you
need
to
know
about
AI
is
there
is
really
not
that
much
to
know.”
She
meant
of
course
that
us
lawyers
tend
to
get
all
balled
up
in
how
many
angels
(or
risks)
can
dance
on
the
head
of
a
pin
and
we
don’t
just
roll
up
our
sleeves
and
use
the
product,
learning
as
we
go.
Get
A
Grip
Get
a
grip.
The
truth
is
there
are
only
a
couple
of
things
you
need
to
know
about
using
AI:
It
makes
mistakes.
Check
the
results.
Don’t
put
client
confidences
in
it.
I’m
amazed
how
we
make
this
so
complicated.
No
one
in
their
right
mind
would
put
their
client
confidences
in
a
Google
search.
No
lawyer
in
their
right
mind
would
take
the
websites
that
Google
provides
in
response
to
a
search
and
use
them
without
reviewing
the
site.
Yes,
there
have
been
numerous
instances
of
lawyers
taking
the
results
of
prompts
and
not
checking
the
cites,
to
later
get
embarrassed.
Yes,
it
shouldn’t
happen.
Yes,
they
were
dumb.
But
how
many
examples
are
there
of
dumb
lawyers
commingling
funds,
using
client
funds
for
their
own
expense,
violating
conflict
of
interest
standards,
missing
deadlines,
and
plain
incompetence
out
there?
Happens
every
day
but
we
don’t
say
using
bank
accounts
is
too
risky
because
a
dumb
lawyer
might
commingle
funds.
It’s
the
missed
cites
that
get
all
the
attention.
Here’s
a
good
example:
a
recent
AP
article
reported
a
French
data
scientist
and
lawyer
has
catalogued
at
least
490
court
fillings
in
the
past
six
months
with
hallucinations.
But
buried
in
the
article
was
the
fact
that
the
majority
of
instances
occurred
in
cases
where
the
plaintiffs
were
representing
themselves
instead
of
being
represented
by
lawyers.
That
fact
got
lost
in
the
headlines.
Bottom
line,
we
can’t
let
the
fact
that
there
are
dumb
lawyers
making
stupid
mistakes
blind
us
to
the
benefits
that
AI
brings.
How
to
Get
There
Another
point:
don’t
get
hung
up
on
thinking
the
tools
are
too
hard
and
complicated
to
use
as
some
would
have
you
believe.
Start
by
using
the
tools
for
anything
and
everything.
Start
with
personal
and
inconsequential
stuff.
Then
build.
It’s
on-the-job
training.
You
don’t
learn
to
play
the
guitar
by
reading
all
the
risks
of
an
electric
guitar.
You
learn
by
playing
it.
Or
trying
to
until
you
become
competent.
You
didn’t
learn
how
to
try
a
case
well
by
reading
about
it.
You
learned
by
trying
cases.
By
making
mistakes.
It’s
All
About
Our
Clients
And
make
no
mistake,
when
we
talk
about
our
ethical
duty
of
competency
that
requires
understanding,
being
aware
of,
and
taking
advantage
of
technology,
we
are
also
talking
about
something
else:
our
ethical
duty
to
benefit
our
clients,
not
just
ourselves.
We
are
talking
about
things
like
making
our
fees
reasonable
(Model
Rule
1.5),
rendering
candid
and
professional
advice
(Model
Rule
2.1),
keeping
our
clients
informed
(Model
Rule
1.4),
acting
with
reasonable
diligence
and
dedication
to
the
interests
of
our
clients
(Model
Rule
1.3),
and
serving
our
clients
best
interests.
If
you
can
use
AI
to
get
to
a
better
legal
answer
to
a
thorny
litigation
question
in
a
fraction
of
the
time
and
more
timely
advise
your
client
of
the
accompanying
risks
and
exposure,
your
client
is
the
beneficiary.
And
it
is
—
or
should
be
—
all
about
them.
So,
What’s
the
Point
Really?
Yes,
we
have
to
know
the
risks.
But
we
can’t
be
blind
to
the
benefits
of
things
like
AI.
Getting
to
these
benefits
doesn’t
require
a
host
of
consultants
or
years
of
study
and
handwringing.
It
means
getting
a
rudimentary
knowledge
of
the
tools
and
then
using
the
tools
to
wrap
your
arms
around
how
they
can
benefit
you
in
your
practice.
That
takes
a
little
time
and
effort,
but
the
benefits
can
be
worth
it.
And
just
remember
two
things:
don’t
put
client
confidences
in
a
prompt
and
check
cites.
That’s
pretty
much
all
you
need
to
know.
Now
let’s
get
to
work.
Open
up
an
AI
tool
and
ask
it
a
question.
Ask
it
to
do
something
for
you.
You
might
be
amazed
what
you
will
get.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.
Just
before
Halloween,
we
asked
our
readers
to
submit
their
legally
themed
costumes
to
us
for
our
annual
contest.
We
got
a
great
crop
of
entries,
and
there
even
some
creative
costumes
related
to
political
pop
culture.
We
think
you’re
going
to
like
them
a
lot.
We’ve
got
three
awesome
finalists
for
you
to
choose
from,
and
voting
starts
today.
Who
will
be
the
winner
of
the
sixteenth
year
of
our
competition?
But
before
we
get
to
our
finalists,
we’ve
got
a
super-cute
honorable
mention.
Aww,
it’s
none
other
than
Ruth
Baby
Ginsburg.
The
first
of
our
finalists
is
doing
a
#GRWM
for
…
robbing
the
Louvre.
Oh
mon
dieu!
C’est
super,
pas
de
notes.
Next
up,
we’ve
got
a
contestant
with
some
90s
flair
that
everyone
will
remember
from
their
1Ls
case
books.
It’s
the
star
of
the
infamous
ad
that
gave
rise
to
Leonard
v.
PepsiCo,
the
contracts
case
we
all
know
and
love.
Last,
but
certainly
not
least,
we’ve
got
perhaps
the
most
meaningful
Halloween
costume
contest
entry
to
date.
Given
the
state
of
the
rule
of
law
in
America,
this
is
a
depiction
the
battered,
beaten,
and
bruised
Justicia,
better
known
as
Lady
Justice,
2025
A.D.
You’ve
seen
the
finalists,
so
now
it’s
time
to
vote.
Who
wore
the
best
law-related
Halloween
costume
this
year?
It’s
all
up
to
you!
Polls
close
on SUNDAY,
NOVEMBER
9,
at
11:30
P.M. (Eastern
time).
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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
this
episode
of
The
Jabot,
I
am
joined
by
Yale
Law’s
Judith
Resnik.
Discover
how
historical
detention
practices
challenge
democracy
today.
Explore
her
new
book,
“Impermissible
Punishments,”
for
insights
on
humane
reforms.
A
thought-provoking
must-listen!
Prison
as
a
Social
Service:
Complexities
and
Paradoxes
Judicial
Debate
on
the
Permissibility
of
Whipping
in
Prisons
Historical
Roots:
The
League
of
Nations
and
Prison
Standards
Evolution
of
Prisoners’
Rights
and
Dignity
Importance
of
Recognizing
Incarcerated
as
Rights
Bearers
Global
Perspective:
Common
Problems
in
Prisons
Worldwide
The
Cost
of
Maintaining
the
Current
Prison
System
Inhumane
Practices
and
the
Need
for
Solid
Lines
on
Punishments
Changing
Nature:
Prison
is
a
Construct,
Not
a
Standard
Solitary
Confinement:
A
Physical
and
Emotional
Burden
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].
More
than
three
decades
after
a
young
law
school
graduate
was
found
murdered
in
his
home,
his
brutal
1990
killing
remains
an
unsolved
mystery
that
continues
to
haunt
investigators
to
this
day.
Robert
Spann,
27,
was
a
1989
graduate
of
the
William
Mitchell
College
of
Law
(now
known
as
Mitchell
Hamline)
who
served
as
president
of
the
Black
Law
Students
Association.
According
to
his
brother,
Spann
had
dreamed
of
being
a
lawyer
since
he
was
a
young
boy
“to
help
other
people,”
and
had
been
planning
to
take
the
bar
exam.
Unfortunately,
tragedy
struck
before
he
was
able
to
do
so.
Spann
lived
with
his
girlfriend,
a
Minneapolis
city
attorney,
and
her
teenage
son.
After
returning
from
school
on
November
6,
1990,
he
discovered
Spann’s
body.
The
Pioneer
Press
has
additional
details:
Spann
was
shot
and
stabbed,
and
robbery
was
a
possible
motive
as
monetary
items
were
taken
from
the
residence,
according
to
a
cold
case
playing
card highlighting
Spann’s
case that
was
distributed
by
the
Minnesota
Bureau
of
Criminal
Apprehension.
“Today
we
remember
Robert
Spann
and
his
loved
ones,”
Alyssa
Arcand,
a
St.
Paul
police
spokeswoman,
said
on
the
anniversary
of
Spann’s
death.
“Thirty-five
years
without
closure
for
this
case
is
35
years
too
long.
…
Even
the
smallest
piece
of
information
could
lead
to
justice
for
Robert.”
St.
Paul
police
are
asking
anyone
with
information
to
call
them
at
651-266-5650.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
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.
Something
is
changing
inside
IP
departments.
And
for
the
first
time,
we
have
the
data
to
prove
it.
Above
the
Law
and
Tradespace
partnered
on
a
first-of-its-kind
study
to
uncover
how
IP
leaders
are
redefining
the
function:
where
they’re
investing,
how
they’re
measuring
value,
and
what’s
next
for
the
modern
IP
organization.
Join
us
on
December
3rd
at
1
p.m.
ET, as
we
reveal
surprising
patterns
emerging
from
this
new
research
—
insights
that
challenge
long-held
assumptions
about
staffing,
technology,
and
the
business
role
of
IP. This
webinar
is
CLE-eligible.
You’ll
walk
away
knowing:
•
Why
a
growing
segment
of
organizations
are
reframing
IP
from
a
cost
center
to
a
strategic
driver •
How
resource
allocation
and
staffing
ratios
are
quietly
reshaping
performance
outcomes •
Where
technology
adoption
is
accelerating
fastest
(and
what’s
holding
others
back) •
What
top-performing
IP
teams
are
planning
for
2026
and
beyond
Be
part
of
the
first
conversation
unpacking
these
findings
–
and
see
where
your
department
stands
in
this
new
era
of
IP
management.
Last
year
almost
a
dozen
major
U.S.
ISPs
were
the
victim
of a
massive,
historic
intrusion
by
Chinese
hackers who
managed
to
spy
on
public
U.S.
officials
for
more
than
a
year.
The
“Salt
Typhoon”
hack
was
so
severe,
the
intruders
spent
much
of
the
last
year
rooting
around
the
ISP
networks even
after
discovery.
AT&T
and
Verizon,
two
of
the
compromised
companies,
apparently didn’t
think
it
was
worth
informing
subscribers any
of
this
happened.
Many
of
the
attack
vectors
were
based
on
simple
things
like
telecom
administrators
failing
to
change
default
passwords
on
sensitive
hardware
entry
points.
“The
Federal
Communications
Commission
will
vote
in
November
to
repeal
a
ruling
that
requires
telecom
providers
to
secure
their
networks,
acting
on
a
request
from
the
biggest
lobby
groups
representing
Internet
providers.”
In
a
folksy
Halloween blog
post,
Carr
tries
to
pretend
this
somehow improves cybersecurity.
According
to
Carr,
ISPs
pinky
swore
that
everything
is
fine
now,
and
frames
obvious
regulatory
capture
as
the
agency
being
more
“agile”:
“Following
extensive
FCC
engagement
with
carriers,
the
item
announces
the
substantial
steps
that
providers
have
taken
to
strengthen
their
cybersecurity
defenses.
In
doing
so,
we
will
also
reverse
an
eleventh
hour
CALEA
declaratory
ruling
reached
by
the
prior
FCC—a
decision
that
both
exceeded
the
agency’s
authority
and
did
not
present
an
effective
or
agile
response
to
the
relevant
cybersecurity
threats.
So,
we’re
correcting
course.”
Let
me
be
clear
about
something:
the
Biden
rules
were
the absolute
baseline
for
oversight
of
telecom,
basically
requiring
that
ISPs
do
the
absolute
bare
minimum
when
it
comes
to
securing
their
networks,
while
being
transparent
with
the
public
about
when
there’s
been
a
major
hack.
This
stuff
was
the bare
minimum,
and
the
U.S.
is too
corrupt to
even
do
that.
This
is
part
of
Carr’s
effort
to destroy
whatever
was
left
of
flimsy
U.S.
corporate
oversight
of
regional
telecom
monopolies so
he
can
ensure
he
has
a
cushy
post-government
job
at
a
telecom-funded
think
tank
or
lobbying
org.
To
that
end,
he’s
been
taking
a
hatchet
to
the
very
shaky
FCC
oversight
standards
that
already
helped
result
in
the
worst
hack
in
U.S.
telecom
history.
It’s
yet
another
example
of
how
Trump
policy is
indistinguishable
from
a
foreign
attack.
In
many
ways
it’s
worse,
given
that
at
least
with
Russia,
Iran,
and
China,
you’re
spared
the
kind
of
phony
piety
and
sanctimony
coming
from
inside
your
own
house.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“The
Supreme
Court’s
Latest
Shadow
Docket
Ruling
Reeks
of
Vicious,
Casual
Transphobia;
Once
again,
the
six-justice
conservative
supermajority
rides
gallantly
to
the
rescue
of
their
very
favorite
president”: Jay
Willis
has this
post at
his
“Balls
&
Strikes”
Substack
site.
“Trump’s
Tariffs
May
Not
Please
the
Court;
The
government’s
claims
in
defense
of
the
emergency
border
taxes
don’t
stand
‘major
questions’
scrutiny”: The
Wall
Street
Journal
has
published this
editorial.
“A
Fresh
Way
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
Split”: Emily
Bazelon
and
David
French
have this
conversation online
at
The
New
York
Times.
“Judge
to
Consider
Moving
Trump’s
Hush-Money
Conviction
to
Federal
Court;
A
federal
judge
must
now
determine
whether
President
Trump’s
immunity
for
official
acts
means
that
his
Manhattan
criminal
case
belongs
in
federal
court”: Jonah
E.
Bromwich
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“Texas
ban
on
sexually
explicit
drag
shows
can
be
enforced,
federal
appeals
court
rules;
The
Fifth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals’
ruling
suggested
not
all
drag
shows
are
sexually
explicit”: Alex
Nguyen
of
The
Texas
Tribune
has this
report.
“Full
Sixth
Circuit
says
Ohio
school
pronoun
policy
likely
violates
First
Amendment;
A
Columbus-area
school
district
had
previously
banned
students
from
using
biological
pronouns
when
referring
to
transgender
classmates”: Kevin
Koeninger
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report on a
10-to-7
en
banc
ruling that
the U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Sixth
Circuit issued
today.
*
Having
nothing
better
to
do
with
their
time,
GOP
Senators
want
an
investigation
into
judges
for
criticizing
the
Supreme
Court.
[NY
Times]
*
Antonio
Brown
extradited
to
the
United
States
after
four
months
on
the
run.
Still
an
elusive
route
runner!
[ESPN]
*
Judge
officially
allows
DOJ
to
drop
Boeing
conspiracy
case.
[Law360]
*
“Don’t
lose
the
civility,”
says
man
best
known
for
throwing
a
national
temper
tantrum
when
faced
with
attempted
rape
allegations.
[Politico]
*
Supreme
Court
uses
shadow
docket
to
allow
Trump
to
force
Trans
folks
to
use
deadnames
on
passports
despite
33
years
of
precedent.
[National
Law
Journal]
*
Judge
orders
footnote
message
to
appear
on
official
portrait
of
former
judge
who
resigned
in
disgrace.
[ABA
Journal]
Kathryn
