Category: News Feeds

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.

“Federal
judge
blocks
Arkansas’
Ten
Commandments
law;
The
state’s
attorney
general
will
appeal
the
ruling,
his
spokesperson
says”: Antoinette
Grajeda
of
Arkansas
Advocate
has this
report.

You
can
access
today’s
decision
of
the U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Western
District
of
Arkansas at this
link.

“Chief
Justice
Says
Personal
Attacks
on
Judges
Are
‘Dangerous’
and
Must
Stop;
The
public
remarks
from
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
were
his
first
since
President
Trump
excoriated
the
justices
who
ruled
against
his
tariffs
in
harsh
and
personal
terms”: Ann
E.
Marimow
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“VanDyke
Unapologetic
Over
Colorful
Dissents
That
Irk
Colleagues”: Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Luigi
Mangione
wants
to
delay
his
federal
trial
until
2027;
Attorneys
for
the
accused
health
care
CEO
shooter
say
that
it
would
be
‘impossible’
for
the
federal
case
to
go
to
trial
in
September
with
his
state
case
already
set
for
June”: Erik
Uebelacker
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.

“Appeals
Court
Revives
Claims
Against
Activist
Over
Protest”: Suzanne
Monyak
of
Bloomberg
Law
has a
report (subscription
required
for
full
access)
that
begins,
“A
federal
appeals
court
revived
a
Louisiana
police
officer’s
lawsuit
against
a
civil
rights
activist
over
injuries
the
officer
suffered
at
a
Baton
Rouge
protest,
prompting
one
judge
to
warn
the
decision
‘imperils’
free
speech
rights.”

You
can
access
yesterday’s
decision
of
a
divided
three-judge
panel
of
the U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Fifth
Circuit at this
link.

Yesterday,
we
unveiled
the
first
two
regions
of
our
2026
March
Madness
bracket:
the
Roy
Cohn
and
Rudy
Giuliani
Regions.
Those
regions
featured
some
spectacular
individual
performances
in
the
art
of
iffy
professional
decisions.
From
Lindsey
Halligan’s
star
turn
as
an
insurance
lawyer
cosplaying
as
a
federal
prosecutor
to
Ed
Martin’s
decision
to…
well,
do
everything
he’s
done.

If
you’ve
just
joined
us
and
want
to
go
back
and
vote
in
the
earlier
regions…
head

here
and

here.

Now
we
move
on
to
unveil
another
pair
of
matchups.
Voting
is
open
until
Monday
at
7:59
p.m.
Eastern.

---

THE
JOHN
EASTMAN
REGION

John
Eastman,
former
dean
of
Chapman
University’s
law
school
and
former
clerk
to
Justice
Thomas,
authored
the
legal
theory
that
the
Vice
President
gets
to
unilaterally
decide
what
the
electoral
votes
say.
His
work
became
the
intellectual
scaffolding
for
January
6th
and
the
government
lawyers
in
this
region
follow
in
his
footsteps.

---

(1)
Todd
Blanche
vs.
(4)
David
Warrington

1.
Todd
Blanche,
Deputy
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States
(Brooklyn
Law
School)

Todd
Blanche
was
a
Cadwalader
partner
before
giving
it
up
to
serve
as
Donald
Trump’s
personal
criminal
defense
attorney.
He
is
now
the
number
two
official
at
the
Department
of
Justice,
with
oversight
of
matters
that
directly
implicate
his
former
client’s
political
interests.
If
you
were
trying
to
design
a
conflict
of
interest
hypo
for
a
law
school
exam,
you’d
be
told
to
shelve
this
one
and
come
up
with
something
less
ridiculous.

From
ongoing

immigration
enforcement
violations
to

personally
keeping
Epstein
files
under
wraps,
Blanche
is
at
the
center
of
it
all.
He’s
asked
lawyers
to
join

a
“war”
against
federal
judges
and

threatened
Trump’s
hecklers
with
organized
crime
charges.

Whenever
the
government
needs
to
have
a
lawyer
say
something
loony
and
downright
detrimental
to
the
public
perception
of
the
profession,
Blanche
is
there.

4.
David
Warrington,
White
House
Counsel
(ASS
Law)

You’d
think
the
White
House
Counsel
would
earn
higher
than
a
4
seed.
And
yet
the
daily
transgressions
piling
up
from
both
DOJ
HQ
and
the
various
U.S.
Attorney’s
offices
are
so
glaring
that
the
White
House’s
top
lawyer
fades
into
the
woodwork.
But
he’s
the
one
laying
out

the
framework
for
pardoning
the
January
6
rioters
and
concocting
the
theory
that
court
orders
barring
the
government
from
deporting
certain
individuals
don’t
apply
if
the
plane
already
took
off.

The
executive
order
threats
to
coerce
Biglaw
firms
to
cave
to
the
administration
would’ve
come
across
his
desk.

Also,
it’s
kind
of
amazing
that
this
is
our
first
ASS
Law
participant.

VOTE
HERE

---

(2)
Jeanine
Pirro
vs.
(3)
Kash
Patel

2.
Jeanine
Pirro,
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
District
of
Columbia
(Albany
Law
School)

The
Fox
News
personality
became
the
top
federal
prosecutor
for
the
nation’s
capital
after
Senate
Republicans
made
it
clear
that
they
would
not
support
Ed
Martin.
Her
old
bosses
at
Fox
privately
called
her
a
“reckless
maniac,”
which
at
the
time
seemed
harsh
and
now
seems
prescient.

Since
joining
the
administration,
Pirro’s
been

collecting
no
bills
like
she
can
win
a
free
sandwich.
And

sandwiches
are
a
touchy
subject
down
there.
She
attempted
to
convince
a
grand
jury
to
indict
six
Democratic
lawmakers
for
filming
a
video
that
accurately
restated
the
Uniform
Code
of
Military
Justice’s
provisions
on
refusing
illegal
orders.
The
grand
jury
declined.
She
tried
to
use
the
threat
of
prosecution
to
intimidate
Federal
Reserve
Chair
Jerome
Powell
into
lowering
interest
rates
—
or
something.
It
flopped
in
court
with
Lawfare
describing
the
evidentiary
record
as
one
of
“vaporous,
speculative
malice.”

3.
Kash
Patel,
FBI
Director
(Pace)

Technically,
Patel
isn’t
practicing
law
in
his
current
role,
which
may
be
the
only
thing
standing
between
him
and
a
bar
complaint.
But
he
has
a
law
degree
and
publicly
names
people
he
wants
investigated
even
though
they
aren’t
facing
any
charges
at
the
time.

Patel
announces
his
intentions
through
podcasts,
social
media,
and
celebratory
locker
room
appearances
with
hockey
teams.
He
maintained
a
public
“enemies
list”
before
taking
the
job.
He
has
co-opted
the
FBI’s
messaging
apparatus
to
broadcast
political
threats.
The
professional
conduct
rules
in
his
licensing
jurisdiction
prohibit
lawyers
from
engaging
in
conduct
involving
dishonesty,
fraud,
deceit,
or
misrepresentation,
and
from
engaging
in
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
administration
of
justice.
Whether
running
the
FBI
while
maintaining
a
public
hit
list
qualifies
remains
a
question
a
bar
authority
might
want
to
consider.

VOTE
HERE

---

Remember
voting
is
open
until
Monday
at
7:59
p.m.
Eastern!

It
was
mere
days
ago
that
we
were discussing an
interesting
lawsuit
brought
by
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics,
among
others,
challenging
RFK
Jr.
and
HHS
for
violating
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
in
making
changes
to
the
CDC’s
ACIP
panel
and
immunization
schedules.
If
you’re
not
up
on
what
the
APA
is
and
does,
the
text
of
the
law
reads:

To
the
extent
necessary
to
decision
and
when
presented,
the
reviewing
court
shall
decide
all
relevant
questions
of
law,
interpret
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions,
and
determine
the
meaning
or
applicability
of
the
terms
of
an
agency
action.
The
reviewing
court
shall-

(1)
compel
agency
action
unlawfully
withheld
or
unreasonably
delayed;
and

(2)
hold
unlawful
and
set
aside
agency
action,
findings,
and
conclusions
found
to
be-

(A)
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law;

(B)
contrary
to
constitutional
right,
power,
privilege,
or
immunity;

(C)
in
excess
of
statutory
jurisdiction,
authority,
or
limitations,
or
short
of
statutory
right;

(D)
without
observance
of
procedure
required
by
law;

(E)
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence
in
a
case
subject
to sections
556
and
557
of
this
title or
otherwise
reviewed
on
the
record
of
an
agency
hearing
provided
by
statute;
or

(F)
unwarranted
by
the
facts
to
the
extent
that
the
facts
are
subject
to
trial
de
novo
by
the
reviewing
court.

In
other
words,
the
law
outlines
how
actions
brought
by
federal
agencies
must
follow
certain
established
procedures
and
be
based
in
facts,
as
well
as
how
upon
challenge
the
courts
could
review
and
enforce
those
requirements
on
said
agencies.
Remarkably,
in
that
same
case,
the
DOJ
argued
to
the
court
that
Kennedy’s
actions
were
“unreviewable”.
At
one
point,
Judge
Murphy
asked
the
DOJ
if
that
meant
that
Kennedy
could
advise
the
public
to
get
a
shot
to get measles,
instead
of
preventing
it,
without
review
or
challenge.
The
DOJ
somehow
answered
that
question
in
the
affirmative.

It
was
all
very
stupid
on
the
part
of
this
particular
government,
but
stupid
appears
to
be
the
only
thing
on
the
menu
these
days.
But
it
turns
out
that
the
actions
of
Kennedy
and
HHS are in
fact
reviewable,
as
evidenced
by the
preliminary
injunction
the
court
just
issued blocking
the
recent
changes
to
the
vaccination
schedule
and
put
a
stay
on
the
13
new
members
appointed
to
ACIP
by
Kennedy
last
summer.

U.S.
District
Court
Judge
Brian
Murphy
in
Boston
put
a
hold
on
the
decisions
made
by
an
influential
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
vaccine
advisory
committee,
ruling
that
Health
Secretary
Robert
F.
Kennedy
Jr.
had
improperly
replaced
the
entire
committee.

The
ACIP,
whose
members
Kennedy
fired
and
replaced
largely
with
new
members
who
also
criticized
vaccines,
had
issued
a
series
of
contentious
recommendations,
including
a
recommendation
that
not
all
babies
should
get
vaccinated
against
hepatitis
B
at
birth.
The
judge’s
ruling
stays
the
appointment
of
13
committee
members
appointed
by
Kennedy
since
June
2025,
when
the
previous
members
were
fired.

Several
health
NGOs,
including
the
AAP,
are
celebrating
the
ruling,
understandably.
Before
we
pop
any
champagne
bottles,
though,
the
government
has
already
said
it
plans
to
appeal
the
ruling.
This
is
lining
up
like
one
of
those
classic
whipsaw
legal
situations
where
one
court
will
rule
sanely,
the
next
will
rule
in
favor
of
executive
power,
and
then
it’ll
go
to
the
Supreme
Court
and
we’ll
all
learn
if
that
compromised
group
of
black
robes
will
just
hand
more
destructive
power
over
to
Trump
in
ignoring
a
law
it
doesn’t
like,
in
this
case
the
APA.

But
in
the
meantime,
this
is
at
least
delaying
some
of
the
damage
Kennedy
has
attempting
to
foist
on
the
American
people.
ACIP
was
set
to
meet
this
very
week
to
talk
about
how
else
to
make
us
less
safe
from
preventable
diseases,
but
that
meeting
has
now
been
postponed.
In
the
ruling
itself,
Judge
Murphy
opens
with
a
blistering
recitation
of
how
science
and
process
are
all
supposed
to
work.

“Science,”
like
law,
“is
far
from
a
perfect
instrument
of
knowledge.”
Carl
Sagan,
The
Demon-Haunted
World:
Science
as
a
Candle
in
the
Dark
29
(1997).
History
is
littered
with
once-universal
truths
that
have
since
come
under
scrutiny.
Nevertheless,
science
is
still
“the
best
we
have.” 

“Procedure
is
to
law
what
scientific
method
is
to
science.”
In
re
Gault,
387
U.S.
1,
21
(1967)
(cleaned
up).
Although
sometimes
seemingly
tedious,
“the
procedural
rules
which
have
been
fashioned
from
the
generality
of
due
process
are
our
best
instruments
for
the
distillation
and
evaluation
of
essential
facts
from
the
conflicting
welter
of
data
that
life
and
our
adversary
methods
present.” 

For
our
public
health,
Congress
and
the
Executive
have
built—over
decades—an
apparatus
that
marries
the
rigors
of
science
with
the
execution
and
force
of
the
United
States
government…Unfortunately,
the
Government
has
disregarded
those
methods
and
thereby
undermined
the
integrity
of
its
actions.
First,
the
Government
bypassed
ACIP
to
change
the
immunization
schedules,
which
is
both
a
technical,
procedural
failure
itself
and
a
strong
indication
of
something
more
fundamentally
problematic:
an
abandonment
of
the
technical
knowledge
and
expertise
embodied
by
that
committee.
Second,
the
Government
removed
all
duly
appointed
members
of
ACIP
and
summarily
replaced
them
without
undertaking
any
of
the
rigorous
screening
that
had
been
the
hallmark
of
ACIP
member
selection
for
decades.
Again,
this
procedural
failure
highlights
the
very
reasons
why
procedures
exist
and
raises
a
substantial
likelihood
that
the
newly
appointed
ACIP
fails
to
comport
with
governing
law.

Chef’s
kiss;
no
notes.

This
administration
doesn’t
care
much
for
law
or
procedure,
of
course,
hence
the
appeal
of
an
obviously
correct
decision.
Kennedy
all
the
moreso,
either
because
this
is
all
some
flavor
of
grift
anyway,
or
he’s
a
true-believing
zealot,
or
both.
Either
way,
this
isn’t
over.

But
finally
someone
has
drawn
first
legal
blood
on
Kennedy
and
the
chaos
he’s
created
at
his
post
when
it
comes
to
vaccinations.

U.S.
District
Court
Issues
Preliminary
Injunction
Against
RFK,
HHS
For
Its
Vaccine
Schedule
Changes

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Afroman
Wins:
Jury
Rules
Mocking
Cops
Who
Raided
Your
Home
Is
Protected
Speech

The
Government
Uses
Targeted
Advertising
to
Track
Your
Location.
Here’s
What
We
Need
to
Do.

Full
Circle:
Katie
Perry
Gets
Her
Trademark
Back
In
Australia,
Court
Says
No
Risk
Of
Confusion

*
James
Comey
subpoenaed
in
“grand
conspiracy”
investigation.
[Reuters]

*
Simpson
Thacher
missed
a
deadline
and
now
client’s
merger
could
collapse.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Non-equity
partners
aren’t
loving
it.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
New
Antitrust
chief
tells
staff
not
to
worry
about
criticism
and
just
sit
back
and
be
the
best
rubberstamps
for
donors
they
can
be.
[Law360]

*
Epstein’s
lawyer
claims
he
had
no
knowledge
of
criminal
activity.
[BBC]

*
DOJ
sets
up
another
fight
over
a
phony
prosecutor.
[ABA
Journal]

Which
Trump
Administration
Lawyers
Should
Lose
Their
License
The
Hardest?:
Here’s
your
explanation
on
the
regions.
And
Here’s
Where
You
Cast
Your
Vote!:
Who
should
be
the
biggest
loser
in
the
Giuliani
division?
George
W.
Bush
Appointed
Judge
Reminds
Trump
The
White
House
Isn’t
His
House:
He
also
has
no
time
for
the
“alteration”
excuse.
Total
Victory
For
Afroman!:
The
most
ridiculous
trial
of
the
year
came
through
with
the
right
verdict!
Biglaw
Partner
Teaches
AI
Class
At
Columbia
Law:
That
sounds
way
more
interesting
than
contracts!

A
LOT
has
been
said
about
the
price
of
fuel
in
Zimbabwe
relative
to
other
countries
in
the
region
in
the
wake
of
the
Iran
war
and
disruption
to
international
fuel
supply
chains.
But
let
us
at
least
compare
like
with
like.

It
is
pointless
lining
up
pump
prices
in
coastal
economies
with
port
access
against
those
of
landlocked
countries
that
must
drag
fuel
inland
at
great
cost.
The
only
sensible
comparisons
are
Zambia
and
Botswana.
And
even
there,
Zimbabwe
has
moved
first.
The
others
will
move
too.
They
always
do.
The
only
real
comparison
is
after
everyone
has
had
their
turn
at
the
pump.

That
said,
there
are
real
issues
here
and
they
expose
the
structural
deficits
in
the
Zimbabwean
economy.
As
some
of
us
have
argued
for
a
while,
there
is
a
latent
United
States
dollar
inflation
in
Zimbabwe
over
and
above
the
inflation
of
the
greenback
itself.
The
“base
effect”
crowd
say
otherwise,
but
that
collapses
under
the
lightest
inspection.

Take
a
simple
metric:
US
dollar
interest
rates
in
Zimbabwe
are
around
18
percent
on
the
dollar.
In
neighbouring
countries,
including
those
with
weaker
currencies,
comparable
inflation
dynamics
are
nowhere
near
as
punishing.
Fuel
imports
into
Zimbabwe
are
financed
through
letters
of
credit
carrying
steep
financing
costs
for
local
firms.
That
is
not
the
prevailing
reality
in
SADC
comparables.

It
is
also
worth
considering
that
Zimbabwe
may
not
have
the
reserves
it
says
it
has.
If
reserves
were
genuinely
comfortable,
the
average
cost
of
fuel
would
cushion
short-term
spikes
in
crude
oil.
Instead,
Zimbabwe
behaves
like
a
country
buying
close
to
the
spot
price
and
living
hand
to
mouth.
That
is
why
it
is
so
often
first
to
adjust.
Not
because
it
is
uniquely
honest,
efficient
or
clairvoyant,
but
because
it
has
less
room
to
pretend.

The
SADC
comparables
also
expose
the
ZiG
problem.
Elsewhere,
foreign
currency
markets
are
allowed
at
least
some
freedom
to
breathe.
As
geopolitical
events
buffet
commodity
markets,
currencies
like
the
rand
and
the
kwacha
strengthen
and
weaken
in
response.
It
is
part
of
the
shock
absorber.

When
gold
and
platinum
prices
rose,
South
Africa,
being
mineral
rich,
saw
the
rand
strengthen.
When
oil
rose,
the
rand
weakened.
For
consumers
paid
in
rand,
the
pain
is
delayed
and
partly
spread
out.
The
same
is
true
of
the
Zambian
kwacha
when
copper
prices
surge.
It
can
strengthen
on
the
way
up,
then
weaken
and
absorb
part
of
the
import
cost
on
the
way
down.

In
Zimbabwe,
by
contrast,
the
ZiG
sits
there
like
a
portrait
on
the
wall,
unmoved
by
events,
while
the
central
bank
insists
it
is
backed
by
gold.
Other
currencies
in
the
region
are
pure
fiat
and
yet
somehow
manage
to
behave
more
honestly.

What
does
this
mean
for
Zimbabwe?
I
often
run
polls
and
questionnaires
on
X
(Twitter)
to
gauge
sentiment.
As
gold
prices
rose,
I
asked
whether
people
would
hedge.
Most
said
no.
They
wanted
to
ride
the
wave.

Zimbabweans
are
natural
risk-takers
and
that
national
habit
seems
to
have
travelled
all
the
way
into
government.
But
the
whole
point
of
derivative
markets
is
to
hedge,
not
merely
to
cheer
from
the
sidelines
while
prices
soar.
Reserves,
too,
are
meant
to
do
a
job.
They
are
supposed
to
cover
six
months
or
more
and
act
as
a
hedge
against
volatility.
So
if
gold
is
rising,
hedge.
There
is
nothing
foolish
about
hedging
at
$3,800
an
ounce
if
it
gives
you
cover
on
the
cost
side
as
well.

The
ban
on
mineral
ore
exports
may
prove
one
of
the
more
self-defeating
policy
choices
of
the
period.
Australia,
under
a
liberal
social
democratic
government
no
less,
had
the
sense
to
let
ore
exports
to
China
surge
and
ended
up
as
one
of
the
few
countries
posting
a
budget
surplus.

South
Africa,
meanwhile,
has
idle
smelters
because
many
are
loss-making.
the
government
of
Zimbabwe
looked
at
this
landscape
and
somehow
picked
the
worst
of
both
worlds,
the
wrong
policy
at
precisely
the
wrong
moment.

Meanwhile,
production
and
supply
chains
in
Zimbabwe
almost
entirely
depend
on
road
because
rail
is
defunct.
Yet
if
ever
there
was
a
sector
that
could
have
underwritten
rail
revival,
it
was
mining.
The
miners
would
have
been
the
biggest
beneficiaries,
especially
on
export
corridors
into
China-linked
trade
routes.
The
government
did
not
need
to
do
everything
itself.
It
merely
needed
to
provide
the
right
framework
and
stick
to
it
long
enough
for
private
capital
to
believe
it.

Markets
are
better
at
solving
these
issues
–
free
markets
in
the
foreign
currency,
fuel
and
mining
sectors
–
and
not
government
directives.

Tinashe
Murapata
is
a
Zimbabwean
economist
and
podcaster