LAPD Tried To Fight Order That Wouldn’t Let Them Shoot Journalists, Shot Them Anyway – Above the Law

The
recent
“No
Kings”
protest
brought
out

millions

nationwide.
There’s
been
a
lot
of
focus
on
what
the
protest
means,
both
as
a
standalone
event
and
as

a
potential
starting
point
for
further
organizing
and
concrete
demands
.
The
protest
was
lauded
for
how
overwhelmingly

peaceful

it
was

which
isn’t
what
you’d
expect
from
a
bunch
of
Hamas
terrorists,
illegal
terrorists,
and
violent
criminals
.”
But
there
were
pockets
of
violence
at
these
protests;
it
sprang
from
the
police.
At
a
No
Kings
protest
in
California,
the
LAPD
was
accused
of

hit-and-running
a
protester

along
with

shooting
at
reporters
with
less
lethal
ammunition

for
standing
there
menacingly.
In
a
world
where
the
Constitution
actually
mattered,
you
wouldn’t
have
to
worry
about
the
police
shooting
journalists
doing
their
job
documenting
a
protest
because
the
officers
would
have
a
robust
respect
for
the
press
and
exercise
of
the
First
Amendment.
However,
we
are
in
this
one.
Just
days
before
the
protest
happened,
the
LAPD
was
fighting
to
get
the
injunction
preventing
them
from
using
journalists
as
target
practice
removed.

Knock
LA

has
coverage:

In
a
unanimous
vote
on
Friday
morning,
LA
City
Council
put
a
halt
to
City
Attorney
Hydee
Feldstein
Soto’s
attempt
to
lift
an
injunction
on
LAPD’s
use
of
force
against
journalists.
The
City
Attorney’s
office
withdrew
their
misguided
motion
the
same
day.

Adam
Rose,
press
rights
chair
at
the
Los
Angeles
Press
Club,
told
LAist
in
a
written
statement,
“Karen
Bass
is
quick
to
run
to
the
media
for
attention
to
criticize
Trump
for
violating
court
orders
(rightfully
so!),
but
when
the
media
is
assaulted
by
her
own
LAPD,
she
never
says
a
word…Instead
of
holding
the
department
accountable,
the
city
is
spending
even
more
money
to
hire
an
outside
law
firm
so
they
can
effectively
beg
a
judge
for
permission
to
keep
assaulting
journalists
for
just
doing
their
job.
The
mayor
of
Los
Angeles
needs
to
take
charge
here,
and
Bass
has
been
completely
absent.”

The
takeaway
here
is
that
conversations
about
violence
and
lawlessness
at
protests
are
incomplete
without
a
thorough
analysis
of

all

of
the
parties
involved.
Where
is
the
room
in
public
discourse
to
discuss
protests
being
violent
or
not
peaceful

because
of

unlawful
uses
of
force
from
the
police?
To
the
people
who
have
the
reflex
to
respond
“Well,
they
were
just
doing
their
job,”
you
should
also
factor
in
injunctions
and
legal
restraints
that
determine
if
the
officers
were
doing
their
jobs
well
or
not.
An
aside:
the
injunction
obviously
wasn’t
enough
to
prevent
some
LAPD
members
from
shooting
journalists
according
to
eye
witness
accounts,
but
how
many
more
people
would
have
been
shot
if
Soto
successfully
got
the
injunction
to
shoot
journalists
lifted?

As
protests
continue,
we
will
see
talking
heads
and
politicians
demand
that
the
people
with
cardboard
signs
and
dinosaur
costumes
do
whatever
it
takes
to
de-escalate
and
make
sure
that
protests
remain
peaceful.
Just
keep
that
same
energy
for
the
people
at
the
protest
in
uniform
who
are
armed
with
guns
and
are
disappointed
that
injunctions
prevent
them
from
opening
fire
as
much
as
they’d
like.


LAPD
Wants
Judge
To
Lift
An
Order
Restricting
Use
Of
Force
Against
The
Press

[LAist]



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.

New guiding note for reporting on children with albinism: UN expert



GENEVA

A
UN 
expert
today
welcomed
the
publication
of
a
Guiding
Note
on
Reporting
on
the
Rights
and
Welfare
of
Children
with
Albinism
in
Africa,
a


critical
 tool
developed
by
the
African
Committee
of
Experts
on
the
Rights
and
Welfare
of
the
Child
(ACERWC)
 in
collaboration
with
the
UN
Independent
Expert
on
the
enjoyment
of
human
rights
by
persons
with
albinism
.
She
issued
the
following
statement:

“Children
with
albinism continue
to
face
systemic
discrimination,
violence, ritual
attacks, and
exclusion,
particularly
in
areas of education,
healthcare, parental
care
and
protection,
social
protection,
and
access
to
justice
among
others.
We
urgently
need
targeted
action
to
protect
and
promote
their
human
rights.

The Guiding
Note
 on
Reporting
on
the
Rights
and
Welfare
of
Children
with
Albinism
in
Africa
provides key indicators
to
assist
African
Union
Member
States
in
fulfilling
their
reporting
obligations
under
the
African
Children’s
Charter,
with
a
specific
focus
on
addressing
the peculiar challenges
faced
by
children
with
albinism. The
indicators
guide
States
on
which
specific
areas
they
should
report
on
in
relation
to
children
with
albinism
when
submitting
their
State
Party
reports
to
the
ACERWC.

I
call
on
all
African
Union
Member
States
to
integrate
these
indicators
into
their
reporting
frameworks
and
to
take
concrete
steps
to
implement
the
recommendations.
It
is
only
through
sustained
commitment
and
collaboration
that
we
will
be
able
to eliminate the
barriers
faced
by
children
with
albinism
and
uphold
their
rights
to non-discrimination,
life,
survival
and
development, and
full inclusion
and participation
in
society.

The
Guiding
Note
is
also
a
critical
tool
for
other
stakeholders
such
as
children,
NHRIs,
and
CSOs
in
their
alternative
or
complementary
reports
to
the
Committee.
It
also
serves
as
an
important
advocacy
tool
for
all
stakeholders. This
Guiding
Note
is
a
testament
to
the
power
of
partnership
between
regional
and
international
mechanisms on
issues
of
Children
with
Albinism
and
beyond.

Let
us
seize
this
opportunity
to
transform
the
lives
of
children
with
albinism
across
Africa.”

Post
published
in:

Featured

‘Adventures In Legal Tech’: How AI Is Changing Law Firms – Above the Law

Artificial
intelligence
will
give
solos
and
small
firms
“a
huge
advantage,”
according
to
one
legal
tech
consultant.

In
this
episode
of
“Adventures
in
Legal
Tech,”
host
Jared
Correia
speaks
with

Ernie
Svenson


aka
“Ernie
the
Attorney”

about
the
psychology
behind
resistance
to
change,
how
law
firms
are
positioning
their
AI
use,
the
power
of
technology
for
business
development,
and
more.


The
Psychology
of
Tech
Adoption

Are
lawyers
really
resistant
to
change?
Here,
Ernie
shares
his
thoughts
on
tech
adoption
in
the
legal
industry.


AI’s
Effects
on
Small
Firms

Artificial
intelligence
tools
can
be
particularly
transformative
for
small
firms
and
solos.
Here,
Ernie
explains
why.


The
Value
of


Email

Technology
can
boost
email
marketing,
and
win
more
business
for
small
firms.
Here,
Ernie
explains
why.


Hear
the
Full
Conversation

Curious
to
learn
more?
Check
out
this
episode
below.

Mahere Opens Up On Resignation From “Sham” Parliament

Former
Mt
Pleasant
MP,
Fadzayi
“Iron
Lady”
Mahere,
has
described
the
current
Parliament
as
a
sham.

On
Wednesday,
22
October,
Mahere
explained
further,
saying
she
had
been
repeatedly
blocked
by
the
Speaker
from
raising
points
of
order
in
the
National
Assembly.
She
wrote
on
X:

“Why
do
you
imagine
that
the
place
that
they
call
Zimbabwe’s
‘Parliament’
is
some
magical
place
where
legislators
use
reason
to
debate
policy,
enact
legislation
and
exercise
oversight
over
the
Executive?

“In
its
current
state,
the
place
is
a
sham.

“Whenever
I’d
switch
on
my
mic
to
speak
or
raise
a
point
of
order,
the
Silencer
of
Parliament
would
turn
my
mic
off
and
order
me
to
shut
up
and
sit
down.

“Of
course,
Zanu
MP
Enoch
Zhou
would
be
in
the
background
heckling
“hure.”
There
was
no
voice,
let
alone
voice
of
reason,
to
speak
of.

“When
I
would
invoke
the
Standing
Rules
to
challenge
the
Silencer’s
unconstitutional
conduct
in
prohibiting
me
from
speaking
as
I
was
elected
to
do,
the
Silencer
would
order
me
to
leave
the
House.

“When
I
refused
to
leave
the
House,
he’d
call
in
armed
riot
police
to
escort
me
out.
Often
a
suspension
would
ensue.

“Weekly
fisty
cuffs
with
the
poe-poe
was
not
what
I’d
spend
hours
reading
draft
bills,
analyzing
policy
reports
and
scrutinizing
Cabinet
conduct
for.
I
sell
time.

“When
all
is
said
and
done,
I
was
not
prepared
to
stay
and
pretend
the
place
was
an
expression
of
the
will
of
the
people
when
election-losing,
murderous
gold
smugglers
and
snake
oil
politicians
replaced
properly
elected
representatives.

“I
foresaw
all
the
while
that
the
end
game
was
to
forcibly
drive
through
an
annihilation
of
the
Constitution
to
extend
Mr
Mnangagwa’s
term
limit
and
create
another
Robert
Mugabe.

“My
conscience
would
not
let
me
participate
in
such
an
insidious
choreographed
charade.

“How
would
I
explain
myself
to
the
thousands
of
constituents
who
had
voted
me
in
when,
after
5
years,
I
had
nothing
to
show
for
my
presence

except
a
corpse
of
the
Constitution
marinaded
in
corruption?

“I’ve
been
jailed
for
tweeting
but
the
fact
is

they
can’t
turn
off
my
mic.”

Leaked Document On Mnangagwa Presidential Term Extension Does Not Reflect Official Position, Says Ziyambi

The
document,
titled
Breaking
Barriers
Initiative
(BBI),
circulated
widely
on
social
media
this
week,
claiming
to
outline
a
secret
plan
to
suspend
elections
and
amend
the
Constitution
to
keep
Mnangagwa
in
power
beyond
his
current
term.

Ziyambi,
who
is
also
ZANU
PF
Secretary
for
Legal
Affairs
and
responsible
for
implementing
the
party’s
Resolution
Number
1
on
extending
Mnangagwa’s
term
to
2030,
said
the
initiative
has
no
named
author
and
does
not
reflect
the
official
position
of
ZANU
PF
or
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe.
He
said:

“It
has
come
to
my
attention
that
a
document
entitled
“Breaking
Barriers
Initiative”-bearing
no
named
author
and
allegedly
referenced
in
a
purported
“dossier”
recently
submitted
to
the
praesidium
of
the
governing
party,
Zanu
PF-is
being
disseminated
widely
across
social
media
platforms.

“Such
dissemination
is
accompanied
by
unsubstantiated,
unverified,
and
uncorroborated
assertions
that
the
document
constitutes
an
authentic
representation
of
the
official
stance
of
Zanu
PF
and
the
Government
of
Zimbabwe
regarding
proposed
amendments
to
the
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe,
intended
to
implement
and
give
effect
to
the
party’s
Resolution
Number
1,
first
adopted
in
October
2024.

“Whereas
multiple
submissions
from
legal
practitioners,
experts,
and
scholars
have
been
tendered,
proposing
sundry
amendments
and
procedural
mechanisms
for
the
implementation
of
the
Resolution,
and
with
submissions
having
been
presented
since
November
2024—some
directly
to
the
party,
others
to
Parliament
or
my
office;
and
whereas
no
determination
has
been
rendered
to
adopt,
endorse,
or
advance
any
such
proposals;
my
office
is
not
able
to
comment
on
or
verify
the
authenticity
of
the
circulating
document,
which
may,
in
all
likelihood,
be
spurious,
fabricated
or
manipulated:
particularly
in
light
of
the
dubious
source
of
its
disclosure.

“Once
the
relevant
authorities
make
a
decision
on
the
precise
amendments
to
be
made
and
the
process
for
their
enactment
into
law,
the
public
will
be
appropriately
and
transparently
informed.

“Until
then,
any
fascination
or
preoccupation
with
a
document
reportedly
leaked
from
dubious
sources—
and
lacking
a
named
author-is
a
total
waste
of
time
and
an
unfortunate
disservice
to
the
national
interest.

“In
the
meantime,
the
public
is
advised
to
be
guided
accordingly.”

Road traffic accidents jump 20 percent in second quarter – ZimStat

HARARE

Road
traffic
accidents
in
Zimbabwe
surged
sharply
in
the
second
quarter
of
2025,
with
new
figures
from
the
Zimbabwe
National
Statistics
Agency
(ZimStat)
showing
a
19.8
percent
increase
compared
to
the
first
three
months
of
the
year.

ZimStat
said
15,350
accidents
were
recorded
between
April
and
June,
up
from
12,817
in
the
first
quarter.
Of
these,
492
were
fatal,
marking
a
30.2
percent
rise
from
the
378
deadly
crashes
reported
earlier
in
the
year.

The
accidents
claimed
624
lives
and
left
2,926
people
injured,
underlining
what
analysts
describe
as
a
deepening
road
safety
crisis
on
Zimbabwe’s
increasingly
congested
highways.

ZimStat
also
reported
a
15.2
percent
jump
in
new
vehicle
registrations,
from
18,214
in
the
first
quarter
to
21,128
between
April
and
June.
The
number
of
newly
registered
light
motor
vehicles
rose
18.1
percent,
from
13,631
to
16,095.


Statistics
from
early
2025
show
that
a
road
accident
occurs
roughly
every
15
minutes
in
Zimbabwe,
with
about
five
people
dying
daily—most
frequently
on
Fridays,
Saturdays,
and
public
holidays.

Crime rate rises slightly in second quarter, Bulawayo tops national chart

HARARE

Zimbabwe
recorded
a
marginal
rise
in
crime
during
the
second
quarter
of
2025,
with
321,640
offences
reported
between
April
and
June

a
3.5
percent
increase
from
the
310,876
offences
logged
in
the
first
quarter,
according
to
new
data
from
the
Zimbabwe
National
Statistics
Agency
(ZimStat).

The
national
crime
rate
rose
to
2,119
offences
per
100,000
people,
up
from
2,048
in
the
previous
quarter,
meaning
more
than
2,100
crimes
were
committed
for
every
100,000
residents.

Crimes
against
public
safety
and
state
security
dominated
the
statistics,
accounting
for
192,562
cases,
or
nearly
60
percent
of
all
recorded
offences.
This
category’s
rate
climbed
to
1,268.6
per
100,000,
up
from
1,172.1
in
the
first
quarter.

Acts
against
property
followed
with
49,691
cases,
while
acts
leading
to
or
intending
to
cause
harm
to
persons
totalled
39,569
cases
during
the
quarter.


The
data
also
show
wide
regional
disparities
in
exposure
to
crime.
Bulawayo
Province
recorded
the
highest
crime
rate
in
the
country
at
5,464.5
offences
per
100,000
people

more
than
double
the
national
average.
Other
provinces
with
above-average
rates
included
Harare,
Masvingo
and
Matabeleland
South,
reflecting
higher
crime
concentrations
in
urban
and
border
areas.

A
total
of
262,793
individuals
were
charged
with
criminal
offences
in
the
second
quarter,
up
from
earlier
in
the
year.
Men
accounted
for
88
percent
of
those
charged.
The
overall
charge
rate
increased
to
1,731.3
per
100,000
people,
from
1,662.6
in
the
first
quarter.

The
male
charge
rate
stood
at
3,164.1
per
100,000,
almost
eight
times
higher
than
the
407.5
recorded
for
females

a
trend
consistent
with
previous
ZimStat
reports.

Zimbabwe
has
in
recent
months
seen
a
surge
in
offences
including
theft,
robbery,
sexual
crimes,
drug-related
cases
and
murder,
prompting
renewed
concern
over
public
safety
and
law
enforcement
capacity.

No, Your Honor, I Didn’t Call You That, I Was Talking About, Um, Bundt Cake – Above the Law

Appeals
court
decides
that
some
things
are
best
left
unsaid.
And
among
those
things
are

calling
your
judge
the
c-word
.
Just
so
we’re
clear,
even
though
this
was
over
Zoom,

we’re
not
talking
about
“cat.”

After
trying
to
bully
Michigan
Law
Review
through
litigation,
the
anti-DEI
publicity
hounds
at
FASORP

have
dropped
the
case
.
And
with
Trump
inching
closer
to
declaring
martial
law
in
America’s
cities,
right-leaning

legal
analysts
have
started
the
process
of
normalizing
abuse
of
the
Insurrection
Act

by
pretending
its
strict
limits
are
really
just
open-ended
invitations
and
if
anyone’s
to
blame
for
Donald
Trump’s
authoritarianism,
it’s
really
Joe
Biden.
We
manage
to
talk
about
AI
and
Baudrillard
in
a
single
episode.

The Trump Gold Card: A New $1 Million Pathway To A U.S. Green Card – Above the Law

James
Pittman,
JD,
Co-Founder
of
8am
DocketWise

In
September
2025,
the
Trump
administration
unveiled
a
bold
and
controversial
proposal
to
create
a
new
pathway
to
U.S.
permanent
residency—one
that
centers
not
on
skills
or
jobs
created,
but
on
wealth.
The
initiative,
known
as
the
“Trump
Gold
Card,”
aims
to
offer
foreign
nationals
the
opportunity
to
obtain
a
green
card
in
exchange
for
a
$1
million
“gift”
to
the
U.S.
government.
If
the
gift
comes
from
a
sponsoring
business
entity,
the
amount
rises
to
$2
million.

Promoted
as
a
streamlined
alternative
to
existing
employment-based
and
investment
immigration
routes,
the
Gold
Card
has
sparked
widespread
debate—raising
questions
around
legality,
fairness,
feasibility,
and
its
implications
for
the
future
of
the
U.S.
immigration
system.

Here’s
what
we
know
so
far.


What
is
the
Trump
Gold
Card?

The
Gold
Card
is
not
a
new
visa
category
in
name,
but
rather
a
new
immigration
pathway
proposed
through
an
executive
order
signed
on
September
19,
2025.
According
to
the
White
House,
the
program
would
allow
eligible
foreign
nationals
to
receive
an
immigrant
visa—commonly
known
as
a
green
card—after
making
a
voluntary,
unrestricted
contribution
of
$1
million
to
the
federal
government.
When
the
contribution
is
made
on
the
applicant’s
behalf
by
a
corporation,
the
amount
must
be
$2
million.

The
contribution
is
not
classified
as
a
“filing
fee”
or
“investment,”
but
rather
a
“gift”
to
the
United
States,
with
the
funds
directed
to
a
dedicated
government
fund
to
promote
U.S.
commerce,
infrastructure,
and
development.

In
return,
recipients
of
the
Gold
Card
would
benefit
from
expedited
processing,
potentially
gaining
permanent
residency
faster
than
through
traditional
employment-based
or
investment
immigration
programs.


Not
a
new
visa—but
a
repurposing
of
existing
ones

Perhaps
the
most
unusual—and
legally
sensitive—aspect
of
the
Trump
Gold
Card
is
that
it
does
not
create
a
new
visa
category
through
legislation.
Instead,
the
administration
is
attempting
to
repurpose
existing
employment-based
green
card
categories,
specifically
EB-1
and
EB-2.

The
executive
order
directs
federal
agencies
to
treat
the
$1
million
gift
as
“evidence”
of
eligibility
under:


  • EB-1A
    :
    for
    individuals
    with
    extraordinary
    ability,
    and

  • EB-2
    NIW
    :
    for
    individuals
    whose
    work
    is
    in
    the
    national
    interest
    of
    the
    United
    States.

This
essentially
means
the
administration
is
attempting
to
substitute
financial
contribution
for
traditional
eligibility
criteria
such
as
awards,
publications,
professional
recognition,
or
a
demonstrated
record
of
high
achievement.

Whether
this
reinterpretation
can
withstand
legal
scrutiny
remains
to
be
seen.


Key
differences
from
EB-5

The
Trump
Gold
Card
proposal
is
frequently
compared
to
the
EB-5
Immigrant
Investor
Program,
which
also
offers
a
path
to
permanent
residency
through
financial
means.
However,
the
two
programs
differ
significantly
in
structure
and
requirements.

The
EB-5
program
requires
a
capital
investment
ranging
from
$800,000
to
$1,050,000,
depending
on
whether
the
investment
is
in
a
targeted
employment
area.
This
investment
must
be
directed
into
a
commercial
enterprise
and
is
required
to
create
at
least
10
full-time
jobs
for
U.S.
workers.
EB-5
petitions
undergo
rigorous
vetting,
including
extensive
documentation
of
the
lawful
source
of
funds
and
detailed
business
planning.
The
visa
category
itself
is
rooted
in
statutory
law,
created
and
regulated
by
Congress.

In
contrast,
the
Trump
Gold
Card
would
require
a
$1
million
gift
to
the
U.S.
government
for
individual
applicants—or
$2
million
if
contributed
by
a
sponsoring
corporation
on
the
applicant’s
behalf.
Unlike
EB-5,
the
Gold
Card
does
not
involve
an
investment
in
a
business
and
does
not
require
job
creation.
Instead,
it
is
structured
around
a
non-refundable
“unrestricted
gift”
deposited
with
the
Department
of
Commerce.
The
proposal
repurposes
the
existing
EB-1
and
EB-2
employment-based
categories
as
the
legal
basis
for
issuing
green
cards
under
this
program,
treating
the
financial
gift
as
sufficient
evidence
of
“extraordinary
ability”
or
“national
interest”—a
sharp
departure
from
traditional
eligibility
standards.
While
EB-5
is
grounded
in
legislation,
the
Gold
Card
is
a
purely
executive
initiative,
with
many
of
its
procedures
and
safeguards
still
undefined.


Legal
and
constitutional
questions

Critics
argue
that
the
Gold
Card
oversteps
the
legal
authority
of
the
executive
branch.
Under
the
Immigration
and
Nationality
Act
(INA),
only
Congress
can
create
new
visa
categories
or
substantially
alter
existing
eligibility
criteria.

Attempting
to
redefine
“extraordinary
ability”
or
“national
interest”
through
the
lens
of
a
financial
gift
could
be
seen
as
an
unlawful
reinterpretation
of
statutory
language
and
may
violate
the
principle
of
separation
of
powers.

Additionally,
the
framing
of
the
$1
million
as
a
“gift”
rather
than
a
fee
may
be
a
strategic
workaround
to
avoid
triggering
rulemaking
or
fee-setting
procedures—but
courts
could
still
evaluate
whether
the
gift
is,
in
effect,
a
mandatory
payment
and
thus
subject
to
regulation.

Observers
expect
that
if
the
program
proceeds,
it
will
face
litigation,
likely
on
both
statutory
and
constitutional
grounds.


Backlog
and
visa
cap
concerns

Another
major
concern
is
how
Gold
Card
applications
would
interact
with
existing
employment-based
visa
caps.

Since
EB-1
and
EB-2
are
numerically
limited
categories,
especially
for
high-demand
countries
like
India
and
China,
critics
warn
that
inserting

high-paying
applicants

into
those
queues
could
displace
or
delay
other
petitioners
who
are
already
in
line.

Without
a
special
carve-out
or
cap
exemption,
this
could
mean
longer
waits
for
traditional
applicants—and
further
politicization
of
visa
allocation.


Implementation:
What’s
still
unclear

The
executive
order
instructs
the
Departments
of
Homeland
Security,
State,
and
Commerce
to
develop
the
actual
implementation
framework—but
many
key
details
remain
undefined,
including:

  • How
    applications
    will
    be
    processed
  • How

    payments

    will
    be
    accepted
    and
    verified
  • What
    additional
    documentation
    will
    be
    required
  • Whether
    family
    members
    are
    included
    automatically
  • Whether
    the
    program
    will
    be
    subject
    to
    standard
    background
    and
    source-of-funds
    reviews

Until
this
implementation
guidance
is
published,
the
Gold
Card
remains
more
vision
than
reality.


Who
would
use
it?

The
Gold
Card
is
clearly
aimed
at
ultra-high-net-worth
individuals,
including
foreign
businesspeople,
investors,
entrepreneurs,
and
corporations
seeking
to
sponsor
executive-level
talent.

Supporters
argue
that
it
could
be
a
powerful
economic
driver,
attracting
capital
with
minimal
administrative
burden.
Detractors
say
it
creates
a
two-tiered
immigration
system,
where
those
with
money
can
skip
the
line
while
others
must
meet
far
more
rigorous
standards.


Final
thoughts

The
Trump
Gold
Card
proposal
is
one
of
the
boldest—and
most
controversial—immigration
policy
moves
in
recent
memory.
While
it’s
positioned
as
an
economic
innovation,
it
raises
deep
legal,
ethical,
and
structural
questions
about
how
we
define
merit
and
value
in
immigration
law.

For
now,
the
program
exists
as
an
executive
framework,
not
yet
tested
in
the
real
world.
Whether
it
moves
forward
will
depend
not
only
on
agency
implementation,
but
likely
on
the
courts—and
potentially
Congress—intervening
in
what
could
become
one
of
the
defining
immigration
policy
battles
of
the
decade.

As
immigration
policies
continue
to
shift,
staying
organized
and
informed
is
more
important
than
ever.

8am™
DocketWise

helps
immigration
lawyers
manage
cases,
track
updates,
and
communicate
seamlessly
with
clients.