Category: News Feeds

With
fewer
than
100
days
until
kickoff
of
the
2026
FIFA
World
Cup,
a
small
New
England
town
has
exposed
a
legal
vulnerability
that
tournament
organizers
across
North
America
should
be
paying
very
close
attention
to.

Foxborough,
Massachusetts,
population
roughly
19,000,
is
threatening
to
deny
the
entertainment
license
required
to
host
World
Cup
matches
at
the
stadium
that
will
temporarily
be
known
as
“Boston
Stadium.”
The
issue
is
not
whether
the
town
wants
the
tournament.
By
most
accounts,
it
does.

The
issue
is
who
pays
for
security.

Local
officials
say
they
need
approximately
$7.8
million
to
cover
policing,
fire
protection,
equipment,
and
other
public
safety
obligations
during
the
tournament.
That
money
was
expected
to
come
from
federal
funding
approved
last
year
as
part
of
a
broader
security
package
tied
to
the
World
Cup
and
other
national
events.

But
the
funding
has
not
arrived.

The
delay
has
left
Foxborough
officials
asking
a
very
simple
question:
If
the
money
does
not
come
through,
who
is
legally
responsible
for
covering
the
cost?

The
answer,
at
the
moment,
appears
to
be
unclear.

And
that
is
precisely
the
problem.

The
Hidden
Complexity
of
World
Cup
Hosting

Unlike
many
international
sporting
events,
the
World
Cup
in
the
United
States
is
not
managed
through
a
single
contractual
structure
that
clearly
assigns
operational
responsibility
to
one
party.

Instead,
hosting
responsibilities
are
distributed
across
a
complicated
network
that
includes
FIFA,
local
organizing
committees,
stadium
operators,
municipal
governments,
state
authorities,
and
federal
agencies.

Each
entity
plays
a
role.
Each
assumes
certain
obligations.
But
those
obligations
are
often
defined
through
overlapping
agreements
rather
than
a
single
comprehensive
framework.

When
everything
works
as
intended,
the
system
functions.

When
funding
or
timelines
break
down,
however,
the
gaps
become
visible.

Foxborough’s
dispute
illustrates
exactly
what
those
gaps
can
look
like
in
practice.

Local
public
safety
officials
cannot
wait
until
the
final
weeks
before
a
global
sporting
event
to
determine
whether
they
have
the
personnel,
equipment,
and
infrastructure
necessary
to
protect
hundreds
of
thousands
of
visitors.
Security
planning
for
events
of
this
magnitude
begins
years
in
advance.

Police
chiefs
and
fire
departments
do
not
operate
on
theoretical
funding
commitments.
They
operate
on
budgets.

Without
financial
certainty,
municipalities
face
a
serious
legal
and
fiscal
dilemma.

Municipal
Licensing
Is
a
Powerful
Legal
Tool

What
makes
the
Foxborough
situation
particularly
significant
is
the
leverage
that
local
governments
possess
in
these
circumstances.

Municipalities
control
the
permits
and
licenses
required
for
large
public
gatherings.
Those
approvals
cover
emergency
services
plans,
safety
protocols,
crowd
management,
and
a
wide
range
of
operational
requirements.

Without
those
licenses,
events
cannot
legally
proceed.

This
means
a
local
government
can
effectively
stop
a
global
sporting
event
simply
by
refusing
to
approve
the
necessary
permits.

Foxborough
officials
have
emphasized
that
they
do
not
want
to
block
the
tournament.
But
they
have
also
made
clear
that
they
cannot
responsibly
approve
the
event
without
clear
financial
guarantees.

From
a
legal
perspective,
that
position
is
entirely
defensible.

Municipal
leaders
have
fiduciary
and
statutory
obligations
to
protect
local
taxpayers
and
ensure
that
public
safety
agencies
are
adequately
resourced.
Hosting
matches
without
guaranteed
reimbursement
for
millions
in
security
costs
could
expose
the
town
to
significant
financial
liability.

That
risk
is
not
hypothetical.

The
Liability
Question
No
One
Wants
to
Discuss

Security
funding
disputes
are
not
merely
budgeting
issues.
They
are
also
liability
issues.

If
a
municipality
approves
an
event
without
adequate
staffing
or
equipment
because
funding
commitments
failed
to
materialize,
the
legal
exposure
could
be
enormous
should
something
go
wrong.

Large-scale
sporting
events
carry
inherent
risks.
Crowd
control
failures,
emergency
response
delays,
infrastructure
breakdowns,
or
security
breaches
can
quickly
generate
litigation
involving
multiple
layers
of
responsibility.

In
those
situations,
plaintiffs’
attorneys
do
not
focus
on
organizational
charts.

They
follow
the
money.

Questions
quickly
arise
about
who
approved
the
event,
who
controlled
the
safety
plan,
who
assumed
responsibility
for
emergency
services,
and
whether
adequate
resources
were
in
place.

If
those
answers
point
back
to
a
municipality
that
authorized
the
event
despite
unresolved
funding
gaps,
the
legal
consequences
could
be
severe.

That
reality
explains
why
local
officials
in
Foxborough
are
drawing
a
line
now
rather
than
hoping
the
funding
dispute
resolves
itself
later.

Why
Other
Host
Cities
Should
Pay
Attention

Foxborough’s
dispute
is
not
simply
a
local
disagreement.
It
is
a
preview
of
a
broader
structural
issue.

The
2026
World
Cup
will
be
played
across
sixteen
host
cities
in
the
United
States,
Canada,
and
Mexico.
Each
of
those
jurisdictions
relies
on
its
own
network
of
public
safety
agencies,
permitting
processes,
and
funding
mechanisms.

If
federal
funding
delays
continue
—
or
if
reimbursement
structures
remain
uncertain
—
other
municipalities
could
find
themselves
confronting
the
same
question
Foxborough
now
faces.

Do
they
assume
the
financial
risk
of
hosting
one
of
the
largest
sporting
events
in
the
world?

Or
do
they
use
their
licensing
authority
to
demand
financial
certainty
before
approving
the
event?

Neither
option
is
attractive.

But
local
governments
ultimately
answer
to
their
residents,
not
to
FIFA.

A
Warning
Before
the
Tournament
Begins

It
is
highly
likely
that
Foxborough
will
ultimately
approve
the
license
required
to
host
World
Cup
matches.
The
economic
and
reputational
stakes
are
simply
too
large
for
all
parties
involved
to
allow
the
event
to
collapse
over
a
funding
dispute.

But
the
fact
that
the
dispute
exists
at
all
should
be
viewed
as
a
warning.

Major
international
sporting
events
depend
not
only
on
stadiums
and
television
contracts
but
on
clear
legal
structures
that
define
responsibility
for
security,
liability,
and
public
safety.

If
those
structures
break
down
—
even
temporarily
—
the
consequences
can
ripple
far
beyond
a
single
host
city.

The
World
Cup
is
supposed
to
be
the
world’s
game.

But
when
it
comes
to
public
safety,
local
governments
hold
the
whistle.

And
if
the
legal
and
financial
questions
are
not
resolved
in
time,
they
also
have
the
power
to
stop
play
before
it
ever
begins.

---

Michael
J.
Epstein,
a
Harvard
Law
School
graduate,
is
a
trial
lawyer
and
managing
partner
of The
Epstein
Law
Firm,
P.A., a
law
firm
based
in
New
Jersey.

Law
schools
love
to
talk
about
preparing
students
for
the
real
world
—
a
place
where
constitutional
arguments
matter
and
administrative
authority
occasionally
runs
smack
into
the
First
Amendment.
One
student
at
Campbell
University
School
of
Law
says
his
school
might
be
getting
an
object
lesson
in
both.

According
to

reporting
from
The
News
&
Observer,
Campbell
Law
student
Justin
Booker
has
lodged
a
complaint
against
the
school
after
administrators
removed
flyers
he
posted
around
the
Raleigh
campus
following
the
death
of
conservative
activist
Charlie
Kirk.
The
posters
featured
images
of
Kirk
and
his
family
alongside
the
message,
“End
Political
Violence.”

Not
exactly
a
call
to
storm
the
barricades.

Still,
the
school
removed
the
flyers
and
issued
Booker
a
disciplinary
warning.
Administrators
reportedly
told
him
the
posters
violated
a
policy
against
“personal
messages.”
Booker
says
he
went
looking
for
that
rule
and…
came
up
empty.

“I
filed
a
formal
complaint
with
the
administration
about
this,
because
not
only
is
this
a
free
speech
issue,
it
actually
risks
the
law
school’s
accreditation,”
Booker
said.
“It
says
that
explicitly
in
ABA
standards
that
they
have
to
follow
the
First
Amendment
jurisprudence.
So
the
fact
that
they’re
not
doing
that,
and
they
have
explicitly
refused
to
do
that,
actually
is
crazy.”

Booker
appealed
the
removal
of
his
flyers,
and
the
disciplinary
warning,
to
the
faculty
committee
on
student
life.
The
committee
sided
with
the
administration.
So
did
Campbell
Law
Dean
J.
Rich
Leonard,
who
affirmed
the
decision
and
upheld
the
poster
removal.

At
that
point,
Booker
decided
to
escalate
things
by
involving
the
Foundation
for
Individual
Rights
and
Expression
(FIRE).
The
free
speech
ideologues
have
themselves
a
pretty
strong
argument
and
are
demanding
an
answer
from
the
school’s
administration
by
March
17th,
because
they’re
not
buying
the
school’s
explanation.

“It’s
particularly
noteworthy
that
other
political
content
was
allowed
to
stay
posted,
as
was
other
commercial
content,”
said
FIRE
program
officer
Dominic
Colletti,
who
authored
the
letter
to
Campbell.
“It’s
really
hard
to
come
up
with
a
policy-based
explanation
for
this,
other
than
they
did
not
like
the
image
of
Charlie
Kirk.
That
is
the
most
likely
explanation
here
and
they
haven’t
given
us
another.”

For
his
part,
Booker
says
he
isn’t
looking
to
burn
the
place
down.
He
just
wants
the
administration
to
admit
they
got
it
wrong.

“All
I
really
want
from
this
is
for
the
people
who
did
the
wrong
thing
to
admit
they
did
wrong,
promise
they
won’t
do
it
again
to
me
or
anyone
else,
and
apologize,”
Booker
said.
“Instead,
I
have
been
brushed
off,
ignored,
disrespected,
and
censored.
No
due
process,
no
transparency,
and
no
one
actually
willing
to
address
my
concerns.”

In
a
statement
to

The
News
&
Observer,
the
university
said:

“Campbell
University
has
received
a
letter
from
FIRE,
inquiring
about
the
response
to
flyers
posted
by
a
student
within
the
Campbell
Law
building.
The
letter
asked
for
an
institutional
response
by
next
week.
Campbell
University
is
currently
reviewing
the
letter,
the
internal
complaint
and
the
Campbell
Law
student
organizational
communication
and
promotion
policy.
We
plan
to
respond
to
FIRE
after
examining
all
relevant
information.”

With
FIRE
demanding
an
explanation
by
next
week,
Campbell
Law
now
has
a
chance
to
clarify
its
policies
—
and
demonstrate
that
the
institution
charged
with
training
future
lawyers
understands
the
constitutional
principles
those
lawyers
are
supposed
to
defend.

---

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].

One
of
the
best
things
about
being
an
adult
is
that
you’re
finally
able
to
make
decisions
for
yourself
about
what
you’d
like
to
do
with
your
life
and
your
body.
Unless,
of
course,
you’re
an
adult
living
in
West
Virginia
and
have
a
BLÅHAJ
somewhere
in
your
room.

The
Supreme
Court’s
decision
in


Skrmetti
held
that
children
could
be
denied
puberty
blockers
and
hormone
therapy
without
violating
the
Equal
Protection
Clause.
The
rationale
for
the
decision
was
heavy
with
the
law’s
majestic
equality
—
cisgender
children
would
still
have
those
treatment
options
available
even
if
trans
children
didn’t.
The
silver
lining
appeared
to
be
that
trans
kids
denied
care
could
just
wait
until
they
were
adults
to
get
the
treatment
they
needed.
Unfortunately,
Sotomayor’s
prediction
that
the
decision
“do[es]
irrevocable
damage
to
the
Equal
Protection
Clause
and
invite[s]
legislatures
to
engage
in
discrimination
by
hiding
blatant
sex
classifications
in
plain
sight”
was
spot
on.

Reuters
has
coverage:

A
U.S.
appeals
court
on
Tuesday
upheld
West
Virginia’s
ban
on
Medicaid
coverage
for
gender-affirming
surgeries,
the
latest
victory
for
Republican-led
states
seeking
​to
curb
the
procedures
amid
an
ongoing
national
battle
over
transgender
rights.

In
a
unanimous
ruling,
a
three-judge
panel
of
the
4th
U.S.
‌Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
in
Richmond,
Virginia,
overturned
a
judge’s
decision
that
the
2004
statute
violated
anti-discrimination
protections
under
two
federal
laws
as
well
as
the
U.S.
Constitution’s
promise
of
equal
protection
under
the
law.

Following
the
same

hate
the
sinner
not
the
sin
specific
procedures
rather
than
specific
individuals
rationale,
the
decision
extends
coverage
denial
to
adults.

The
strangest
thing
about
the
decision
is
that
it,
as

Erin
in
the
Morning
points
out,
turns
the
state’s
desire
to
“encourag[e]
citizens
to
appreciate
their
sex”
and
“not
become
disdainful
of
it”
into
a
proper
and
constitutional
aim.
Anyone
who
actually
gives
a
damn
about
personal
liberty
knows
to
be
on
high
alert
whenever
a
state
tries
to
get
away
with
with
compelled
“enjoyment”
or
“appreciation.”
The
practical
question
becomes
what
to
do
with
the
citizens
who
refuse
“encouragement.”
Erin
runs
through
some
of
the
practicalities:

If
it
is
not
unconstitutional
to
“encourage
citizens
to
appreciate
their
sex,”
the
implications
extend
to
virtually
every
area
of
transgender
life.
Are
gender
marker
bans
on
IDs
legal
because
carrying
correct
documents
could
“discourage”
transgender
people
from
“appreciating
their
sex?”
Are
drag
bans
and
bans
on
cross-gender
clothing
legal
because
the
state
has
an
interest
in
encouraging
the
appreciation
of
sex?
Could
a
state
compel
transgender
people
into
conversion
therapy,
reasoning
that
it
is
not
discriminatory
because
it
targets
a
medical
diagnosis
rather
than
transgender
status—and
that
the
goal
is
simply
to
“encourage
them
to
appreciate
their
sex?”

The
ruling
stands
as
proof
of
concept
that
autonomy
and
self-determination
rights
can
be
stripped
away
from
adults.
Right
now
it
is
West
Virginia.
How
long
will
it
take
for
Florida
or
Texas
to
adopt
the
“sex
appreciation”
rationale?
Or
until
the
rationale
gets
applied
to
other
protected
groups?
Rough
time
for
liberty.

West
Virginia
Can
Ban
Medicaid
Coverage
For
Gender-Affirming
Surgery,
US
Court
Rules
[Reuters]

4th
Circuit
Rules
That
States
Can
Compel
Trans
Adults
To
“Appreciate
Their
Sex”
Via
Care
Bans
[Erin
In
The
Morning]

Earlier:

Sam
Alito
Provides
Breath
Of
Fresh
Air
In
Transgender
Care
Case.
Vile,
Bigoted
Fresh
Air,
But
Fresh
Air
Nonetheless

---

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
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Yesterday’s
final
Legalweek
keynote
by
Heather
Nevitt,
Law.com
Editor
in
Chief,
and
Patrick
Fuller,
ALM
Chief
Legal
Industry
Strategist,
was
entitled
“State
of
the
Industry
–
The
Reckoning.”
It
was
revealing
and
scary.

Focusing
on
two
non-legal
industry
disruptors
in
the
early
2000s,
Apple
and
Netflix,
Nevitt
and
Fuller
tried
to
present
a
call
to
action
to
law
firms
to
embrace
AI
and
advance
change.
Both
Apple
and
Netflix
abandoned
very
good
business
models
because
they
saw
something
much
better
on
the
horizon.
For
Apple,
that
meant
creating
the
iPhone,
which
ultimately
made
the
iPod
obsolete.
For
Netflix,
it
meant
creating
a
streaming
service
that
made
their
video
mail
service
no
longer
popular.

Nevitt
and
Fuller
hypothesized
that
law
firm
clients
are
hungering
for
law
firms
to
similarly
use
AI
to
do
things
faster,
cheaper,
and
importantly,
better.
To
offer
predictable
pricing,
more
collaboration,
and
innovative
use
of
new
tools.
To
be
leaders
in
using
AI
to
solve
problems.
For
firms
to
be
more
transparent
and
client
aligned.
More
than
ever,
clients
are
more
interested
in
value
and
outcome
than
rates
and
time
spent.

And
those
law
firms
that
are
innovative
and
use
AI
to
be
disruptive
will
be
the
winners.
But
is
it
actually
happening?

The
Power
of
the
Billable
Hour

To
meet
these
client
goals
and
desires,
law
firms
would
need
to
make
fundamental
changes
in
their
business
model.
It
would
require
disruption
of
law
firm
culture,
goals,
and
visions.

Why?
The
billable
hour
does
not
necessarily
produce
better
—
and
certainly
not
cheaper
and
faster
—
outcomes.
But
AI
provides
the
opportunity
to
do
things
differently.
 Nevitt
and
Fuller’s
thesis
was
that
engaging
AI
tools
and
different
pricing
models
can
better
achieve
what
clients
really
want.
So,
the
firms
that
make
that
pivot
will
be
the
ones
that
succeed
in
the
future.

Hard
to
quarrel
with
that.
But
I
come
back
to
the
famous
Richard
Susskind
quote
when
it
comes
to
law
firm
change:
It’s
hard
to
convince
a
room
of
millionaires
that
their
business
model
is
all
wrong.

As
one
managing
partner
told
me
one
time,
“Our
business
model
is
pretty
simple.
Bill
more
time.
Make
more
money.”

My
Experience

I
know.
In
the
late
90s,
I
undertook
a
national
engagement
under
a
flat
fee
model.
Much
of
what
Nevitt
and
Fuller
observed
proved
true,
even
back
then.
The
client
loved
it.
I
loved
it.
The
firm
budgetary
officer
should
have
loved
it.
The
revenue
to
the
firm
was
predictable
and
the
cost
to
the
client
was
set.

So,
what
went
wrong?
I
needed
to
get
work
done
at
the
lowest
cost
to
maximize
profit.
That
meant
getting
partners
and
associates
to
do
work
as
efficiently
as
possible.
As
a
result,
they
all
hated
me
because
their
hours
took
a
hit.
And
it
was
billable
hours
that
ensured
associate
advancement
and
ultimately
partner
compensation.
It
was
simple:
The
flat
fee
was
anathema
to
the
billable
hour
model.
Culture
always
eats
strategy
for
breakfast.

What
Firms
Are
Really
Doing

And
some
statistics
cited
by
Nevitt
and
Fuller
evidence
the
continued
viability
of
Susskind’s
quote
and
the
absence
of
an
Apple/Netflix-type
pivot.

When
law
firm
leaders
were
asked
how
significant
AI
will
be
to
their
business
over
the
next
five
years,
most
believed
it
would
be
very
significant.
And
most
firms
feel
pretty
comfortable
about
their
rate
of
AI
adoption.

But
when
asked
how
prepared
their
lawyers
are
to
use
AI,
that
confidence
wanes
a
bit.
So,
you
would
think
that
to
prepare
for
the
future,
firms
need
to
be
robustly
training
their
workforce.

Indeed,
75%
say
they
are
offering
AI
training.
Sounds
good
until
you
look
at
how
they
are
doing
it.
Only
66%
are
hiring
professional
specialists
to
help.
As
Fuller
put
it,
“That’s
like
giving
someone
a
map
before
building
roads.” 

He’s
right:
Law
firms
all
want
to
say
they
are
embracing
AI
but
very
few
are
adequately
preparing
their
lawyers
for
effective
use.
A
use,
by
the
way,
that
without
planning
and
forethought
could
reduce
billable-hour
revenue
and,
ultimately,
profit.

Another
Hurdle

Profitability
in
the
brave
new
world
of
AI
can’t
hinge
on
time
spent
since
it
will
necessarily
be
less.
It
has
to
be
based
on
outcome
and
value.
To
maintain
profitability
where
fees
are
based
on
outcome
and
value,
you
have
to
move
to
alternative
fee
models
that
aren’t
based
on
time,
leveraging
AI
in
the
process.

But
there
is
a
second
hurdle
to
changing
law
firm
business
models.
Compensation.
Advancement.
Culture.
All
are
based
on
the
billable
hour.
So,
when
you
try
to
move
to
something
else,
you
aren’t
just
talking
about
a
minor
shift,
you
are
talking
about
changing
the
very
fabric
on
which
law
firms
are
built.

The
More
Things
Change,
the
More
They
Stay
the
Same

Here
are
some
statistics
cited
by
Nevitt
and
Fuller:
Only
19%
of
firms
have
modified
fee
arrangements
in
place
that
are
consistent
with
increased
AI
use
and
adoption.
Think
about
that.
Everyone
thinks
AI
will
disrupt
and
reduce
billable
hours,
but
less
than
20%
are
doing
anything
about
it.

But
here’s
something
worse:
72%
of
the
firms
have
no
plans
to
change
attorney
compensation
structures
to
align
with
the
increased
use
of
AI.
If
you
don’t
change
the
compensation
structure,
you
can’t
change
the
business
model
to
something
other
than
time
spent,
period.

Bottom
line:
Law
firms
aren’t
enthusiastic
and
robustly
training
their
workforce
to
deal
with
AI,
they
aren’t
changing
how
they
bill,
and
they
sure
as
heck
aren’t
changing
how
they
compensate
their
lawyers.

But
What
About
Clients?

And
here’s
a
final
nail
in
the
coffin.
Despite
my
client
embracing
my
flat
concept,
I
had
very
little
success
convincing
other
in-house
counsel
to
do
the
same.
The
typical
response
was:
“What
a
great
idea!
But
we
can’t
do
that.”

I
would
like
to
think
that’s
changed
since
my
1990s
experience.
But
the
law
firm
statistics
suggest
that
despite
all
the
talk,
in-house
demands
for
change
may
not
be
as
robust
as
some
think.

Why?
One
thing
that
drives
law
firm
change,
and
perhaps
the
only
thing,
is
client
demand.
If
clients
were
demanding
flat
fees
reflecting
the
rise
and
power
of
AI,
then
more
than
19%
of
the
law
firms
would
be
doing
it.
What
clients
may
instead
want
is
for
firms
to
use
AI
to
reduce
time
spent
and
cost
under
a
billable
hour
model
that
they
aren’t
prone
to
want
changed.

Could
There
Be
Change?

Nevitt
and
Fuller’s
point
was
that
successful
future
firms
will
do
what
Apple
and
Netflix
did
in
the
early
2000s:
Change
their
business
model,
how
they
do
things,
and
their
culture.
That
takes
foresight
and
leadership.

But
law
firms
are
primarily
driven
by
a
consensus
decision
model.
This
means
unlike
Apple
and
Netflix,
where
one
visionary
at
the
top
could
move
the
organization,
law
firm
leaders
have
to
get
the
buy
in
from
virtually
all
partners.
That’s
a
harder
sell.
And
they
have
to
do
it
in
the
face
of
revenue
continuing
to
roll
in,
a
seemingly
inexhaustible
ability
to
raise
rates,
more
work,
and
client
complacency.

So,
I
applaud
their
efforts.
I
think
they
are
right
about
a
lot
of
things.
But
moving
the
needle
won’t
be
as
easy.

And
here’s
something
else
telling.
The
keynote
about
the
state
of
the
industry,
arguably
the
most
important
part
of
the
show,
was
held
on
the
last
day.
Was
sparsely
attended.
But
previous
keynotes
by
an
ex-football
player
and
an
actor
in
the
TV
show
The
Office,
both
of
which
had
little
to
do
with
legal,
were
full.

Think
the
legal
industry
is
ready
to
change?
Think
again.
It’s
still
whistling
past
the
proverbial
graveyard.

---

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.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature, Quote
of
the
Day.

I
believe
the
men
and
women
who
serve
the
United
States
Marshal
Service,
I
think
they’re
taking
it
seriously.
I
have
a
problem,
I
guess,
in
saying
to
you
that
I’m
confident
that
the
Department
of
Justice
is
taking
it
seriously,
because
I
have
yet
to
see
any
leader
in
that
office
denounce
these
types
of
intimidations.
Instead,
what
do
I
see
from
the
leaders
of
the
DOJ?
They’re
calling
us
‘deranged,’
calling
us
‘lunatics,’
‘leftist
lunatics,’
saying
and
declaring
a
war
on
‘rogue’
judges
in
an
open
setting
that
was
videoed
for
all
to
see
on
YouTube.
So,
what
I
see
is
pretty
strong
rhetoric
from
the
Department
of
Justice
condemning
us,
and
I
don’t
see
that
equally
strong
rhetoric
condemning
these
threats
of
intimidation.
There
is,
from
my
vantage
point,
a
lopsidedness.
I
think
they
obviously
could
alleviate
a
lot
of
concern
if
they
came
forward
and
talked
about
this
investigation
in
a
very
general
way,
and
showed
that
it
matters
to
them.
That
the
lives
and
safety
of
judicial
officers
and
their
families
and
personnel
matter
to
them,
but
the
silence
is
deafening,

— Judge

Esther
Salas
of
the
District
of
New
Jersey,
in
comments
given
to

Law.com,
concerning
a
possible
investigation
into
the
pizza
delivery
doxxing
of
federal
judges
at
their
private
homes.
Threats
against
members
of
the
judiciary
have
rapidly
increased
during
Trump’s
presidency,
and
Salas
is
no
stranger
to
them.
In
2020,
her

son
was
fatally
shot
and
her
husband
was
wounded
at
their
home
by
a
lawyer
who
referred
to
Salas
as
an
“affirmative
action”
case
and
a
“lazy
and
incompetent
Latina
judge.”

---

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.

Judge
Lawrence
VanDyke
of
the
Ninth
Circuit,
is
an
unqualified
hack.
The
ABA
noted
as
much
when
it

rated
him
“not
qualified”
upon
his
nomination,
calling
him
“arrogant,
lazy,
an
ideologue,
and
lacking
in
knowledge
of
the
day-to-day
practice
including
procedural
rules.”
In
response,
the
second
Trump
administration

banned
the
ABA’s
input
on
judicial
qualifications.
He
has
since
spent
his
tenure
confirming
their
prescience
with
a
string
of
unhinged
and
juvenile
dissents
that
have

compared
his
colleagues
to
criminals,

insulted
them
as
“possessed,”
and

prompted
pointed
rebukes
from
his
own
court.

In


Olympus
Spa
v.
Armstrong,
a
discrimination
case
involving
a
women
only
spa
that
extended
its
ban
to
pre-operative
transgender
women
in
violation
of
state
law,
VanDyke
authored
a
dissent,
which
opens
thusly…

This
is
a
case
about
swinging
dicks.

Maybe
it’s
just
me,
but
it
feels
as
though
something
subtle
changed
when
the
intellectual
lodestar
of
the
conservative
movement
shifted
from
William
F.
Buckley
to
Kid
Rock.

Other
conservative
judges
on
the
panel
wrote
more
substantive
dissents,
managing
to
avoid
the
phrase
“swinging
dicks”
while
laying
out
a
vision
of
First
Amendment
religious
protection
that
would
allow
business
owners
to
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
sex.
The
phrase
also
doesn’t
really
make
sense
to
the
extent
“swinging
dicks”
is
a
colloquialism
for
aggressive,
ego-driven
men
embarrassing
themselves
in
childish
displays
of
dominance.
In
a
sense,
this
is
a
case
about
swinging
dicks,
but
it
describes
exactly
one
person
in
this
entire
dispute,
and
it’s
the
total
dick
who
typed
it
into
his
dissent
to
get
this
kind
of
attention
in
the
first
place.

VanDyke’s
stream
of
consciousness
dump
reads
sort
of
like

Ulysses
meets
CPAC
meets
severe
concussion
patient,
careening
from
its
crude
opening
into
calling
his
colleagues
“woke
judges,”
who
are
“complicit”
in
harming
women
and
girls,
invoking
President
Trump
and
Asian
American
discrimination
(neither
of
which
have
anything
to
do
with
the
case),
and
vomiting
up
an
Establishment
Clause
theory
and
a
private
club
exemption…
arguments
of
dubious
value
at
any
rate,
but
also
arguments
the
spa

never
bothered
to
raise
anyway.

Judge
McKeown’s
majority
opinion,
by
contrast
hewed
carefully
to
the
record.
The
spa
owners
never
challenged
the
state’s
discrimination
law,
but
rather
sued
state
officials
claiming
that
the
law’s
enforcement
was
discriminatory.
As
Judge
McKeown
explains,
“The
Spa
simply
did
not
challenge
the
statute
itself,
and
it
is
not
our
role
to
rewrite
the
statute.”
Without
taking
out
the
statute
itself,
the
burden
on
religious
exercise
was
incidental
to
the
regulation
of
conduct.

But
Judge
McKeown
also
authored
a
separate
statement
joined
by
26
fellow
judges,
including
the
Chief
Judge.
It
reads,
in
relevant
part:

The
American
legal
system
has
long
been
regarded
as
a
place
to
resolve
disputes
in
a
dignified
and
civil
manner
or,
as
Justice
O’Connor
put
it,
to
“disagree
without
being
disagreeable.”
It
is
not
a
place
for
vulgar
barroom
talk.

The
statement
goes
on
to
note
that
Van
Dyke’s
language
“makes
us
sound
like
juveniles,
not
judges”
and
“undermines
public
trust
in
the
courts.”
Two
additional
judges
filed
a
separate
statement
expressing
Judge
McKeown’s
sentiment
more
tersely:

Regarding
the
dissenting
opinion
of
Judge
VanDyke:
We
are
better
than
this.

Are
we
though?
There
are
51
active
and
senior
judges
on
the
Ninth
Circuit.
As
impressive
as
it
is
to
get
29
judges
to
join
together
to
rebuke
a
colleague,
that
means
22
judges
remained
silent.
They
didn’t
have
to
agree
with
the
substance
of
the
majority
to
sign
onto
a
statement
telling
VanDyke
to
cut
the
crap
and
act
like
the
federal
judge
he
was
never
qualified
to
be.
The
Judge
Owens
statement
gave
those
judges
12
simple,
wholly
partisan-free
words
to
sign
onto
if
they
wished!

The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
the
other
22
judges

approve
of
this.

For
every
crass,
undignified
conservative
out
there
jockeying
for
clicks
like
VanDyke,
10-20
more
hang
back
posturing
as
“serious”
Republicans
while
giggling
softly.
They
are
not
actually
serious
and
they
do
not
actually
see
a
problem
with
any
of
this.
They
enjoy
keeping
their
hands
clean
while
privately
cheering
on
the
Republican
Party’s
descent
into
the
gutter.
They
don’t
care
that
their
more
polite
dissents
end
up
next
to
low
brow
vulgarity
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
VanDyke’s
just
saying
what
they
can’t
bring
themselves
to
say
out
loud.
VanDyke’s
opinion
uses
the
word
complicit…
well,
this
is
what
complicity
looks
like.

Unfortunately,
the
descent
will
continue
to
accelerate.
When

Donald
Trump
calls
Leonard
Leo
a
sleazebag,
he’s
not
just
earning


The
Onion
meme,
he’s
declaring
independence
from
the
Federalist
Society’s
decades
long
mission
of
putting
respectability
lipstick
on
this
reactionary
pig.
This
administration
doesn’t
need
well-heeled
right-wing
intellectuals
—
too
many
of
them
honor
their
oaths
to
the
administration’s
detriment
—
it
needs
swinging
dick
goons
willing
to
move
the
idiocracy
influencer
culture
into
courthouses.

With
the
quiet
approval
of
a
lot
of
those
supposedly
higher
minded
conservatives.

(Opinions
available
on
the
next
page…)

---

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.

When
choosing
a
law
firm,
clients
expect
clarity
on
the
legal
process
and
cost
estimates. 
Clio’s
Client
Intake
Checklist
provides
a
best-practice
approach
to
ensure
you
engage
the
right
prospects
and
convert
them
into
valuable
clients.

In
this
checklist,
you’ll
discover:

>How
to
capture
client
interest
>Effective
client
screening
>Tips
for
your
first
meeting
>Steps
after
onboarding

This
checklist
is
essential
for
attorneys
and
legal
professionals
looking
to
enhance
operations
and
deliver
a
smooth,
efficient,
and
profitable
client
intake
experience.

Sign
up
to
get
the
checklist

  

In
this
episode
of
the
Jabot
Podcast,
I
speak
with
Molly
Coleman,
Executive
Director
of
the
People’s
Parity
Project
(PPP)
and
newly
elected
St.
Paul
City
Council
member,
about
organizing
within
the
legal
profession
and
redefining
the
role
lawyers
play
in
democracy.

Coleman
shares
how
her
early
work
in
public
education
inspired
her
to
pursue
law
as
a
tool
for
systemic
change,
and
how
the
People’s
Parity
Project
grew
from
a
small
group
of
law
students
into
a
national
organizing
force
challenging
corporate
power,
forced
arbitration,
and
inequities
embedded
within
the
legal
system.

The
conversation
explores
the
ideological
shaping
of
law
students,
the
long-term
influence
of
legal
movements,
and
the
importance
of
building
alternative
pathways
for
lawyers
who
want
to
advance
social
and
economic
justice.
Coleman
also
reflects
on
organizing
during
political
crisis,
the
limits
of
courts
as
vehicles
for
change,
and
why
community
action
—
not
institutions
alone
—
ultimately
drives
democratic
resilience.

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].

Alright,
I
think
it
might
be
time
for
a
wellness
check
on
the
people
running
Buc-ee’s.

I
realize
that
these
chain
of
gas
and
convenience
stores
has
a
strange
cult
following
in
the
south.
I
won’t
pretend
to
understand
why
that
is,
but
whatever.
Unfortunately,
the
company
also
appears
to
be
run
by
a
bunch
of
trademark
bullying
jackwagons.
I’ve referred to
Buc-ee’s
as
the
Monster
Energy
of
gas
stations,
because
the
company
appears
to
think
that
trademark
law
allows
it
to
own
the
concept
of
a
cartoon
animal
mascot
in
any
tangential
industry.
They
have
bullied
and/or
sued
many,
many
companies
under
this
premise.
Because
most
of
its
victims
are
smaller
companies,
they
have
gotten
a
lot
of
settlements
out
of
these
bullying
efforts.

But
those
settlements
don’t
make
the
bullying
legitimate.
Buc-ee’s
views
on
what
trademark
law
allows
it
to
own
and
control
are
fantasy.
They’re
still
out
here
doing
their
bullying
thing,
though,
with
the
latest
example
being its
decision
to
sue
a
company that
runs
a
gas
station
called
“Mickey’s”.
I’ve
embedded
the
suit
below,
but
here
is
a
sample
of
the
claims
in
the
filing
made
against
the
gas
station
chain.

Like
the
Buc-ee’s
Marks,
Defendant’s
Logos
incorporate
a
cartoon
animal
facing
right
with
wide
eyes
and
a
smile,
overlaying
a
round
background…also
uses
red
as
a
predominant
color
in
its
interior
and
exterior
signage,
as
well
as
employee
uniforms
and
anthropomorphic
representations
of
its
cartoon
moose
mascot…also
uses
red
as
a
predominant
color
in
its
interior
and
exterior
signage,
as
well
as
employee
uniforms
and
anthropomorphic
representations
of
its
cartoon
moose
mascot.

Consumers
are
likely
to
perceive
a
connection
or
association
as
to
the
source,
sponsorship,
or
affiliation
of
the
parties’
products
and
services,
when
in
fact
none
exists,
given
the
similarity
of
the
parties’
logos,
trade
channels,
and
consumer
bases.

And
here,
dear
readers,
is
the
very
similar
branding
that
the
lawsuit
references.

Once
again,
as
with
past
Buc-ee’s
trademark
suits,
the
claims
simply
fall
apart
on
inspection
of
the
evidence.
These
logos
are
not
similar.
They don’t use
the
same
overall
color
schemes.
They
feature
easily
distinguishable
cartoon
animals
as
mascot.
A
beaver
is
not
a
moose,
which
is
a
sentence
I
never
thought
I’ve
have
to
type
out
on
a
keyboard.
Likewise,
a
hexagon
is
not
round,
another
thing
I’d
never
thought
I’d
have
to
write.
This
is
all
very,
very
stupid,
and
not
at
all
concerning
from
a
customer
confusion
standpoint.

Despite
that,
the
suit
alleges
that
Mickey’s
has
“used”
the
Buc-ee’s
logos
to
enrich
themselves.
It’s
bonkers.
In
addition,
Buc-ee’s
has
petitioned
the
USPTO
to cancel the
trademark
registrations
Mickey’s
has
for
its
branding.

Why
is
this
company
so
beloved?
They
truly
seem
like
craven
bullies
above
all
else.
None
of
this
is
trademark
infringement
and
I
certainly
hope
the
owners
of
Mickey’s
are
prepared
to
fight
this
fight.
Because
Buc-ee’s
doesn’t
somehow
have
a
monopoly
on
cartoon
character
mascots.
Not
for
its
industry,
never
mind
others.

Beavers
Are
Not
Moose:
Buc-ee’s
Sues
Competitor
Over
Cartoon
Moose
Branding

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Don’t
Ban
Kids
From
Using
Chatbots

Weasel
Words:
OpenAI’s
Pentagon
Deal
Won’t
Stop
AI‑Powered
Surveillance

The
Wyden
Siren
Goes
Off
Again:
We’ll
Be
“Stunned”
By
What
the
NSA
Is
Doing
Under
Section
702

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.

“Executive
and
Judicial
Branches
Spar
Over
Control
of
Federal
Courthouses;
The
head
of
the
General
Services
Administration
said
a
proposal
to
transfer
control
of
courthouse
buildings
to
the
judiciary
was
a
bad
idea”: Mattathias
Schwartz
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“Justice
Barrett
In
Conversation
at
Library
of
Congress”: C-SPAN
has
posted this
video online.

“Left
Wing
Answer
to
the
Federalist
Society
Is
Trying
to
Rebuild”: Tiana
Headley
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Poll:
Confidence
in
the
Supreme
Court
drops
to
a
record
low;
The
latest
NBC
News
poll
shows
that
the
percentage
of
voters
with
a
‘great
deal’
or
‘quite
a
bit’
of
confidence
in
the
court
is
at
the
lowest
ebb
since
the
question
was
first
asked
in
2000.” Lawrence
Hurley
of
NBC
News
has this
report.

“Constitutional
Duels
in
the
Court’s
Rejection
of
Trump’s
Tariffs;
The
justices
agree
that
Congress
should
play
the
leading
role
in
some
realms,
but
they
disagree
on
when
—
and
how
to
get
there”: Michael
R.
Dreeben
has this
post at
the
“Lawfare”
blog.

“Ninth
Circuit
Judges
Tussle
Over
Pauses
for
Deportation
Orders”: Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Brad
Schimel
won’t
continue
as
U.S.
attorney
in
Milwaukee”: John
Diedrich
and
Jessie
Opoien
of
The
Milwaukee
Journal
Sentinel
have this
report.