Podcast appearances and mentions of judge pauline newman

For Chris Dove, it started when he came upon articles in Above the Law about the saga of then-95-year-old federal Judge Pauline Newman. A giant in IP law, Judge Newman faced allegations of poor health and declining cognitive abilities in 2023. Those allegations led to a council's recommendation that the judge be suspended and a flurry of litigation. “When I started reading for myself,” Chris recalls to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders, “I realized there is a whole system that goes on for policing and managing federal judges that I was unaware of.” Chris' investigation into the little-known system eventually led to his paper, “Who Judges The Judges? Judicial Qualification and Recusal,” and CLEs. With Todd and Jody, he discusses broader implications around the independence and accountability of federal judges. Connect and Learn More☑️ Chris Dove ☑️ Troutman Pepper Locke on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC | LinkedIn ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts |

This Day in Legal History: Gary Gilmore ExecutedOn January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah, becoming the first person to be put to death in the United States after a 10-year pause in capital punishment. This execution followed the Supreme Court's landmark 1976 decision in Gregg v. Georgia, which reinstated the death penalty under revised statutes that addressed prior concerns about arbitrariness and fairness. Gilmore had been convicted of two murders committed during robberies in Utah and notably refused to appeal his death sentence, demanding instead that it be carried out promptly.His case drew significant public and media attention, particularly as it coincided with the reopening of the death penalty debate in the U.S. After the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily invalidated capital punishment, states had revised their laws to provide more structured sentencing guidelines. Gilmore's execution marked the first test of those reforms.The event reignited intense national debates over the morality, fairness, and efficacy of capital punishment. Proponents argued that it served as a deterrent and a just response to heinous crimes, while critics questioned its alignment with human rights principles and pointed to racial and socioeconomic disparities in its application. The firing squad method itself sparked further controversy over humane execution practices.Gilmore's case also influenced popular culture, inspiring Norman Mailer's Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Executioner's Song. His willingness to accept the penalty became a focal point in discussions about agency and justice within the death penalty system. The debates sparked by his execution continue to shape U.S. legal discourse, reflecting unresolved tensions over capital punishment in the American legal system.Pam Bondi, Trump's pick for attorney general, disclosed a net worth of $12.2 million, including nearly $3 million in Trump Media shares received after the public debut of Truth Social's parent company last year. Her financial disclosures, submitted during the Senate confirmation process, revealed significant earnings linked to Trump-related entities since leaving public service in 2019. Bondi earned $1.1 million as a lobbyist with Ballard Partners, a firm led by Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard, and $520,000 from the Trump-affiliated America First Policy Institute.She also reported earning $203,738 in 2024 as a lawyer with Panza, Maurer & Maynard, where her clients included Pfizer. Bondi's stake in Trump Media Technology Group includes $3 million in stock and warrants valued at $3.9 million as of December 2024, acquired as compensation for consulting services. Her financial disclosures showed $1.7 million in liabilities, largely from real estate mortgages and notes payable to relatives. Democrats expressed concerns about her close ties to Trump during her Senate hearing, questioning her independence if confirmed as attorney general.Trump AG Pick Bondi Discloses $3 Million in Truth Social StockDemocratic attorneys general are preparing to defend key Biden administration policies as Donald Trump is set to begin his second term as president. With Trump's plans to reverse rules on immigration, the environment, and transgender rights, AGs from over a dozen states, including California, New Jersey, and Michigan, have moved to intervene in legal cases. One major effort involves defending a Biden rule providing health insurance to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, which is currently challenged by Republican AGs.These Democratic coalitions are also seeking to uphold Biden-era regulations on environmental protections, gun dealers, and firearm devices that allow rapid firing. New Jersey AG Matt Platkin emphasized their focus on protecting residents' rights and ensuring Trump's administration adheres to the rule of law. This strategy mirrors actions during Trump's first term when Democratic AGs filed 155 lawsuits against his policies, achieving an 83% success rate. However, the current legal landscape presents new challenges, with a more conservative judiciary shaped by Trump's earlier appointments. Democratic AG offices, however, are now more experienced, having honed their strategies in prior legal battles. Political experts anticipate numerous lawsuits targeting executive actions Trump may issue early in his term.Democratic states brace for Trump by launching defense of Biden policies | ReutersIn the latest development of the ongoing saga surrounding 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council has dismissed her appeal against suspension as "meritless." In a brief filed with the DC Circuit, the Council, alongside the Department of Justice, argued that Newman's claim—that her suspension amounts to unconstitutional removal without impeachment—should be rejected under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.Judge Newman, the oldest active federal judge, was suspended after refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her mental fitness. Her second one-year suspension from hearing new cases remains in effect, though the government maintains it is not permanent and could be lifted if she agrees to participate in the inquiry. Newman has challenged the suspension through administrative proceedings and an appeal in the DC Circuit, where her court, known for its jurisdiction over patent cases, is also located.The brief, representing Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and the Judicial Council, asserts that Congress distinguishes temporary suspensions from removal. Newman's legal team, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, continues to argue her case.97-Year-Old Judge's Suspension Appeal 'Meritless,' Council SaysThe Biden administration will leave enforcement of the TikTok ban to the incoming Trump administration, signaling no immediate action to force the app offline when a new law targeting the platform takes effect. While TikTok itself could shut down to highlight the law's impact on its 170 million U.S. users, the Biden administration stated it will not enforce the ban, instead emphasizing that TikTok should operate under American ownership. The law imposes penalties on tech companies like Apple and Google if they continue providing services to TikTok while it remains under ByteDance's ownership, exposing them to significant financial risk. However, any delay in enforcement would require the president to grant an extension under strict conditions, none of which TikTok has met. Efforts in Congress to extend the deadline have stalled, with security concerns raised by lawmakers like Senator Tom Cotton blocking attempts to provide ByteDance with more time to divest.President-elect Trump has signaled openness to negotiating a resolution to keep TikTok operational, citing its value to his campaign and young voters. Discussions within his team include a potential executive order to delay the ban while exploring ways to safeguard user data. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the law, though justices have expressed concerns about national security risks tied to TikTok's Chinese ownership. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer, are urging further action to balance security, privacy, and the platform's continued availability.Biden administration will leave it to Trump to implement TikTok ban - ABC NewsThis week's closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901). Verdi is one of the most celebrated composers in the history of opera, renowned for his ability to blend dramatic storytelling with deeply emotive music. A central figure in 19th-century Italian opera, Verdi's works, including La Traviata, Rigoletto, and Aida, remain staples of the repertoire worldwide. His music often reflected his passion for Italian nationalism and human emotion, making his operas timeless in their appeal. Among his earliest triumphs was Nabucco (1842), a work that established him as a leading composer and marked the start of his long and illustrious career.Nabucco, Verdi's third opera, tells the story of the plight of the Israelites under the rule of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Nabucco). Its overture, a brilliant instrumental prelude, captures the opera's dramatic intensity and stirring themes. The piece begins with ominous, foreboding chords that hint at the struggles to come, followed by a sweeping and heroic melody that reflects the resilience and hope central to the story. The overture's dynamic shifts and richly textured orchestration showcase Verdi's ability to infuse orchestral music with the same dramatic power found in his vocal writing.Notably, Nabucco became a symbol of Italian unification during the Risorgimento, with its famous chorus "Va, pensiero" resonating as an anthem of liberation. While the overture does not include this iconic melody, it captures the essence of the opera's emotional and political undertones. As this week's closing theme, the Nabucco overture offers a perfect blend of drama, passion, and triumph, embodying Verdi's mastery and the timeless power of his music.Without further ado, Giuseppe Verdi's overture from Nabucco. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The majority of the Supreme Court keeps diluting bribery laws and Eric Adams had best hope they aren't done yet. ----- Eric Adams got indicted last week and quickly pulled out the big litigation guns to explain that the Supreme Court already said bribery was cool. Meanwhile, Jonathan Turley rushed to the embattled mayor's defense to explain why ACTUALLY it was way worse that AOC once wore a borrowed dress to a party. Judge Pauline Newman's fight to end the pocket impeachment her colleagues on the Federal Circuit imposed upon her has added even more objective medical evidence that the other judges will continue to pretend they can't understand. And Shohei Ohtani's 50-50 home run ball reminds everyone that free stuff still has taxable value.

The majority of the Supreme Court keeps diluting bribery laws and Eric Adams had best hope they aren't done yet. ----- Eric Adams got indicted last week and quickly pulled out the big litigation guns to explain that the Supreme Court already said bribery was cool. Meanwhile, Jonathan Turley rushed to the embattled mayor's defense to explain why ACTUALLY it was way worse that AOC once wore a borrowed dress to a party. Judge Pauline Newman's fight to end the pocket impeachment her colleagues on the Federal Circuit imposed upon her has added even more objective medical evidence that the other judges will continue to pretend they can't understand. And Shohei Ohtani's 50-50 home run ball reminds everyone that free stuff still has taxable value.

NCLA continues to fight on behalf of Honorable Judge Pauline Newman as she faces unjust attempts from her colleagues to remove her from a constitutionally appointed lifetime position as a Federal Cir. Judge. This case isn't just about restoring her to the bench—it is about the very independence of the federal judiciary and the ability of each federal judge to fulfill the office constitutionally entrusted to her. Mark and Vec are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Geg Dolin who provides updates on Judge Pauline Newman's case against the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth Amendment Ratified On April 8, 1913, a significant transformation in American democracy was cemented with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, fundamentally altering the process for selecting U.S. Senators. Prior to this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures, a practice established by the original Constitution that aimed to ensure states' power within the federal system. However, this method was increasingly seen as flawed, particularly due to issues like corruption and deadlock within state legislatures, which often led to Senate seats remaining vacant for extended periods.The push for reform gained momentum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Progressive Era advocates argued for more direct democratic control over government. The Seventeenth Amendment represented a pivotal victory for these reformers, as it mandated the direct election of senators by the voting public of each state. This change was intended to make the Senate more responsive to the electorate's will, reduce corruption, and enhance the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.The amendment's journey to ratification was a testament to the growing demand for political reform. After being passed by Congress in 1912, it was swiftly ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, reflecting widespread public support for greater democratic involvement in federal government. This process also showcased the amendment mechanism outlined in the Constitution as a powerful tool for evolving the nation's governance structures in response to calls for change.The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment marked a fundamental shift in the balance of power between state legislatures and the general electorate. By empowering citizens with the ability to directly elect their senators, it significantly expanded American democratic practices. This change not only reshaped the Senate but also had lasting implications for American politics, ensuring that senators would be more directly accountable to the people they represent.Today, the Seventeenth Amendment stands as a critical milestone in the ongoing development of American democracy, embodying the Progressive Era's ideals of increasing public participation and reducing undue influence in the legislative process. Its anniversary serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of democratic reform and the impact of constitutional amendments in shaping the trajectory of the United States.The New York State Bar Association's AI task force recently emphasized the privacy and confidentiality risks attorneys face when using artificial intelligence, urging them to be cautious with client data to prevent breaches. Approved guidelines advise lawyers on AI usage and advocate for educational efforts and comprehensive legislation to address regulatory gaps. While AI offers significant benefits like reducing errors and enhancing efficiency, it also poses privacy and cybersecurity threats. The task force highlighted the potential for AI to improve access to justice but warned against exacerbating the burden on the already overwhelmed court system through its increased use.Confidentiality issues are particularly concerning when information shared with AI, like chatbots, is used for AI training, suggesting that lawyers obtain client consent and ensure data protection. Attorneys are advised against relying solely on AI-generated content without verifying its accuracy and completeness. The report recommends using closed AI systems to mitigate privacy concerns and emphasizes the necessity for attorneys to understand the technology they use or seek assistance to fulfill their duty of competence.The task force pointed out that laws and regulations lag behind AI advancements, with unresolved questions about liability and intellectual property disputes involving AI training data. It calls for education on AI's legal applications and legislative attention to AI-related risks not covered by current laws. The report cautions against viewing AI as a panacea for access to justice issues, highlighting the risk of creating a two-tiered legal system where only the well-resourced benefit, potentially leaving underserved communities at a disadvantage.NY Bar Warns Attorneys of Privacy Risks Posed by AI ToolsA federal appeals court recently addressed a contentious issue of "judge shopping" by ruling against the transfer of a lawsuit challenging a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule on credit card late fees from Texas to Washington, D.C. This lawsuit, initiated by business and banking groups in Fort Worth, Texas, aimed to contest the CFPB's regulation that sought to cap "excessive" late fees, which the agency believes cost consumers approximately $12 billion annually. The CFPB's rule limits charges for late payments to $8 for credit card issuers with over 1 million open accounts, a significant decrease from the previously allowable charges of up to $30 or $41 for subsequent late payments. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, sided with the plaintiffs, emphasizing the broader debate over the practice of selecting courts for their sympathetic judges. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the impact of the ruling on district court discretion and the management of forum shopping. The case's transfer, prompted by a newly announced policy to curb "judge shopping," was nullified, underscoring the ongoing challenges in addressing this legal strategy.US court rejects transfer of credit card fees rule case amid focus on 'judge shopping' | ReutersFederal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman is making a determined effort to keep her lawsuit active, which contests her suspension from hearing cases under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. At 97 years old, Newman, the oldest active federal judge in the U.S. and the longest-serving member of the court that specializes in patent appeals, argues that the Act's provisions are unconstitutionally vague and improperly allowed her peers to suspend her without legitimate grounds. Her suspension came after she declined to undergo medical testing amid an investigation into her capability to serve, instigated by her colleagues at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.In her recent legal filings, Newman challenges not only her suspension but also the broader legal framework that enabled it, specifically criticizing the statute's provision for demanding medical records or psychiatric exams without adequate legal justification. She contends that the process used against her amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's sole authority to remove her from office and criticizes the vague criteria used to define a disqualifying mental disability.The legal battle has seen parts of Newman's lawsuit dismissed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper, though claims challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Act remain under consideration. In response to a motion to dismiss these remaining claims, Newman and her legal team, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, argue that the Act's vague definitions and lack of provisions for judicial review of decisions, including those authorizing access to private medical information, undermine its constitutionality.Newman's case, positioned against Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and other members of the Judicial Council, emphasizes a significant legal debate over the standards and procedures for evaluating the fitness of federal judges and the balance of power between judicial and legislative authorities.Newman Urges Judge Not to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Suspension Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.  In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America's IP system. John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101 and the PTAB, what it will take for Section 101 legislation to pass, why broad consensus is necessary for IP legislation, what's driving the bitter disagreements over IP issues, and much more!  The episode was recorded at the end of last year.   You don't want to miss this episode if you want to learn what changes might be in store for patent law or how the patent policy sausage is made in Washington DC Selected Timestamps | 0:04:52 | How John Lee became Chief counsel for IP in the House of Representatives | | 0:08:05 | John Lee's role as chief counsel for IP and his relationship with Congressman Darrell Issa | | 0:10:18 | John Lee's experience stepping into his role on the Hill | | 0:12:13 | Making positive impressions on IP staffers in Congress | | 0:16:04 | Trajectory of patent system over last 20 years | | 0:24:52 | Proposal to exercise march-in rights under the Bay-Dole Act | | 0:31:27 | Administration's failure to build consensus on - and widespread congressional opposition to - proposals to waive & seize IP rights| | 0:33:26 | Uncertainty and lack of administration policy on standard essential patents (SEPs)| | 0:38:08 | The need to protect US leadership in technology and innovation | | 0:39:19 | Concerns about the state of Section 101 and the weaknesses of the patent system | | 0:44:04 | How patent system creates an innovation engine by encouraging disclosure of innovations | | 0:45:12 | Importance of consensus for significant changes in IP law | | 0:49:54 | Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on IP, AI, and other related issues | | 0:53:39 | Heated opposition in House on USPTO's ANPRM proposing changes for the PTAB | | 0:57:12 | Optimism for patent bills and substantial progress in the House and Senate. | | 1:02:28 | Possibility of introducing companion bills for Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)| | 1:05:13 | Pain points that might drive agreement on Section 101: third party litigation funding, discretionary denials at PTAB, and standard essential patents (SEPs) | || 1:06:26 | Negative impact on Federal Circuit from suspension of Judge Pauline Newman | | 1:07:44 | Cannot comment on the details of the issue involving Judge Pauline Newman. | | 1:07:57 | Role of lobbyists in development of IP policy |

J. John Lee is the Chief Counsel for IP in the US House of Representatives and helms the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which is chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.  In that role, he is one of only four staffers in Congress who focus on IP issues and help set the agenda for what happens with America's IP system.John joins Eli on this lively episode to discuss how he ended up in that role after serving as a Lead Judge on the PTAB, how he is currently working closely with the other IP staffers in Congress to advance legislation to fix Section 101 and the PTAB, what it will take for Section 101 legislation to pass, why broad consensus is necessary for IP legislation, what's driving the bitter disagreements over IP issues, and much more!  The episode was recorded at the end of last year.  If you know anyone else who might be interested to learn what changes might be in store for patent law or how the patent policy sausage is made in Washington, please share with others:Selected Timestamps| 0:04:52 | How John Lee became Chief Counsel for IP in the House of Representatives || 0:08:05 | John Lee's role as Chief Counsel for IP and his relationship with Issa and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan || 0:10:18 | John Lee's experience stepping into his role on the Hill || 0:12:13 | Making positive impressions on IP staffers in Congress || 0:16:04 | Trajectory of patent system over last 20 years || 0:24:52 | Proposal to exercise march-in rights under the Bay-Dole Act || 0:31:27 | Administration's failure to build consensus on - and widespread congressional opposition to - proposals to waive & seize IP rights|| 0:33:26 | Uncertainty and lack of administration policy on standard essential patents (SEPs)|| 0:38:08 | The need to protect US leadership in technology and innovation || 0:39:19 | Concerns about the state of Section 101 and the weaknesses of the patent system || 0:44:04 | How patent system creates an innovation engine by encouraging disclosure of innovations || 0:45:12 | Importance of consensus for significant changes in IP law || 0:49:54 | Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on IP, AI, and other related issues || 0:53:39 | Heated opposition in House on USPTO's ANPRM proposing changes for the PTAB || 0:57:12 | Optimism for patent bills and substantial progress in the House and Senate. || 1:02:28 | Possibility of introducing companion bills for Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)|| 1:05:13 | Pain points that might drive agreement on Section 101: third party litigation funding, discretionary denials at PTAB, and standard essential patents (SEPs) || 1:06:26 | Negative impact on Federal Circuit from suspension of Judge Pauline Newman || 1:07:57 | Role of lobbyists in development of IP policy | This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

At the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman […]

Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri Law School, discusses the impeachment of the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, discusses 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman's failed efforts to get reinstated. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. Although the complaint was initially based on alleged “cognitive decline,” it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Judge Moore's investigation. This program will provide an update on Judge Newman's case and discuss issues related to this most-unusual set of circumstances. This program coincides with panelist David Lat's recent interview with Judge Newman, available here, which allows viewers to hear Judge Newman in her own words. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability released an opinion in the case, available here. Check out this recording for a discussion of Judge Newman's case, the state of judicial conduct, and more.Featuring: David Lat, Founder, Original JurisdictionProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri Law School, discusses the impeachment of the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, discusses 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman's failed efforts to get reinstated. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!For the past 10 months, the legal world has been transfixed by the Pauline Newman saga. At 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest active federal judge. Last March, her longtime colleague, Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, initiated an effort to remove Judge Newman from the Federal Circuit.The complaint against Judge Newman was initially based on her supposed “cognitive decline” and “paranoid and bizarre behavior,” but it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Chief Judge Moore's investigation. Judge Newman said she'd be happy to cooperate with an investigation—as long as it's conducted by a neutral party, namely, the judicial council of another circuit.As I have written repeatedly, I agree with Judge Newman on her due-process argument. It's routine for circuit judges to transfer an investigation of a fellow circuit judge—as opposed to, say, a district, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge—to another circuit. And there are some interpersonal issues between Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman, which I might write about in the future, that make it completely inappropriate for Moore to be leading this investigation.I was agnostic, however, on Judge Newman's mental capacity. I read, along with everyone else, the gossipy details in Chief Judge Moore's various reports that made Newman sound, well, totally out of it. But I also read and heard accounts from other sources—such as journalists who visited Newman in chambers, and lawyers who saw her speak at conferences—stating that she's just fine.On January 4, I met with Judge Newman and her clerks in chambers, for about four hours. Last Friday, I interviewed Judge Newman on my podcast, for another hour. I'm now of the view that she's completely lucid and sane—and I have reason to disbelieve or at least question much of what I've read in the takedowns of her. (I'm hoping to publish a deep dive into the drama at the Federal Circuit, which is actually quite fascinating—and if you have information or insight to share, please email me.)But you don't have to take my word for it when it comes to Judge Newman's condition. Listen to our almost hour-long podcast conversation—or watch video clips of the judge that I'll be posting later this week, at her request—and judge for yourself.Show Notes:* Pauline Newman bio, Wikipedia* Colleagues want a 95-year-old judge to retire. She's suing them instead, by Rachel Weiner for the Washington Post* Fed. Circuit's Newman, 96, Fights Colleagues From Sideline, by Michael Shapiro for Bloomberg LawPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Jenin and Vec interview NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris on updates in Judge Pauline Newman's case against the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Biden administration announced Wednesday that it would deploy an additional 800 troops to assist in stemming the migration influx at the southern border. he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Wednesday suspended Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases amid a deepening clash over the 96-year-old jurist's mental competence to serve on the bench for at least one year or until she sits for court-ordered medical examinations. Following the California Legislature's adjournment last week, hundreds of bills await Gov. Gavin Newsom's signature. One of the most contentious bills this session aims to make caste a protected status under California's civil rights law.  Thursday - 9/21/2023 - Hour 2See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this day in legal history, September 21, 1981, the United States Senate approved the nomination by President Reagan of Sandra Day O'Connor to the United States Supreme Court–making her the first female Supreme Court justice. O'Connor, who often leaned conservative, used her political experience from her time in the Arizona state Senate to shape her judicial views. She was known for filing concurring opinions that aimed to limit the scope of majority rulings. She faced opposition from the time of her nomination from anti-abortion and religious groups. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often served as the swing vote in contentious cases. Initially aligning closely with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, her voting record later became more moderate as the Court's composition shifted. She played a pivotal role in key decisions, including those related to abortion rights, affirmative action, and campaign finance.She was involved in landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the constitutionality of race-based admissions to universities, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core constitutional precept of Roe v. Wade. O'Connor retired in 2006 but left a lasting impact on American jurisprudence, particularly in her nuanced approach to complex legal issues.O'Connor also had a brief stint in acting, appearing as Queen Isabel in a 1996 Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V. In a landmark decision, she cast the deciding vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which ended the Florida vote recount and paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency. She later expressed reservations about the court's involvement in the case.In another historic moment, O'Connor became the first woman to preside over an oral argument in the Supreme Court during the case of Kelo v. City of New London on February 22, 2005. Later that year, at the age of 75, she announced her plans to retire from the bench. Following her retirement, she took on the ceremonial role of the 23rd chancellor of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, a position first held by George Washington. Her groundbreaking career remains a significant chapter in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.The Federal Circuit's active judges have suspended 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for one year for failing to undergo medical testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation. Initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, the probe began after Newman allegedly had a cardiac incident and raised questions about her productivity. The investigation is notable for its public nature, a rarity in judicial disability investigations. Legal scholars suggest that such probes may become more frequent as the average age of federal judges has risen to 69.Newman has contested the investigation, framing it as bullying and arguing that it was motivated by her frequent dissents in favor of stronger patent rights. The council stated that Newman's non-compliance with medical tests hampers their ability to assess her fitness for duty. A special committee had recommended the suspension, citing Newman's consistent refusal to cooperate.Newman's lawyer, Greg Dolin, criticized the investigation's procedures and called the renewable suspension "unlawful" under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman plans to appeal the council's order and has also filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. She submitted two medical reports affirming her mental fitness, which the council dismissed as inadequate.The case has drawn public attention, contrasting sharply with Newman's recent accolades at a legal conference. Affidavits from court staff depict her as struggling with memory loss and paranoia, adding another layer of complexity to this unprecedented judicial probe.Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Suspended in Disability Probe (2)A high-stakes antitrust lawsuit has been filed against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) by around 1,200 former fighters, including Nate "Rock" Quarry. The suit alleges that UFC confines athletes to perpetual contracts and pays them far less than they would earn in a competitive market. The case has been fast-tracked for trial next spring and is closely watched as it could set a precedent for athletes in various sports to fight for better pay using antitrust law.The UFC, owned by Endeavor Group Holdings, generated a record revenue of $1.14 billion last year and reaches over 900 million households globally. Fighters are required to sign exclusive deals, often including four fights per year. However, the UFC allegedly withholds the last fight in a contract until the fighter agrees to renew, effectively trapping them in a cycle of successive contracts.The fighters argue that the UFC is a "monopsony," a sole buyer in a market, and accuse it of abusing this power. Monopsony cases are rare but have gained attention under the Biden administration. While there are other combat sports promotions, the plaintiffs argue that UFC controls the majority of fighters in nearly all weight classes and has also bought or shut down its rivals.The class action status of the lawsuit increases the risk for UFC, as it could be compelled to pay up to $4.8 billion in treble damages. The case could also encourage athletes in other industries to file similar suits. UFC has petitioned to appeal the class certification, arguing that the court erroneously certified the class.The case also highlights the financial struggles of fighters, who are independent contractors paid per bout. While top fighters can earn millions, most fighters have to fund their own training and equipment, leaving them with little net income. The case aims not just for compensation but also to bring about a change in the sport, offering fighters better terms and ending the cycle of perpetual contracts.UFC Fighters Test Antitrust Law to Escape ‘Perpetual' ContractsThe U.S. federal judiciary has enough funds to operate for at least two weeks if the government shuts down due to a lapse in funding. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated that court fees and other available funds could be used to continue hearing cases. Some case deadlines may be rescheduled if federal agency attorneys are not working during the shutdown. If the funds do run out, the judiciary would operate on a limited basis, retaining only the staff necessary for mission-critical work.Current government funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, putting pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on a short-term funding bill. Infighting among House Republicans and disagreements between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have jeopardized the passage of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. House Republicans have proposed allocating $8.7 billion to the federal judiciary for the next fiscal year, while Senate Democrats have proposed $8.56 billion. Both fall short of the judiciary's request for $9.1 billion.Judge Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expressed that a potential government shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern" and that plans are being considered to keep the judiciary operational. The judiciary, which employs nearly 30,000 people, almost ran out of money during the last government shutdown in 2018. The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, used for electronic filing of documents, remained operational during the previous shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court, which opens its new term on October 2, has used non-appropriated funds in the past to continue short-term operations.Judiciary Has Funds for Two Weeks if Government Shuts Down (1)A legal team that successfully sued Tesla's board of directors for allegedly overpaying themselves is now seeking $229 million in legal fees, amounting to $10,690 an hour. The request was made in a filing in Delaware's Court of Chancery on September 8. If approved, this would be one of the largest fee awards ever resulting from a shareholder lawsuit against a board. The case took several years to build and focused on the compensation paid to Tesla's directors from 2017 to 2020.The 12 director defendants, including James Murdoch and Larry Ellison, had agreed to return $735 million in compensation and forego another potential $184 million. They also agreed to overhaul the board's compensation determination process. The settlement money will be paid to Tesla and indirectly benefit shareholders, making this a derivative lawsuit.The law firms involved in the case estimate the total settlement value at $919 million and are seeking 25% of that sum as their fee. They are also requesting about $1 million in expenses. Partners and staff from the law firms involved have billed thousands of hours on the case.Courts typically review fee requests by balancing the need to reward risk and effort against the risk of a disproportionate windfall that could undermine public confidence in the legal system. David Paige, founder of Legal Fee Advisors, described the fee request as "extraordinary" compared to typical hourly rates for corporate attorneys, which can go up to $2,000.Tesla's directors have not yet objected to the fee request but are expected to do so, according to court filings. A hearing to approve the settlement and the legal fees is scheduled for October 13, and Tesla shareholders have until Friday to file any objections.In 2012, Delaware courts approved an hourly rate that worked out to $35,000 in a Southern Copper shareholder lawsuit, setting a precedent that the outcome achieved should be the focus, not the hourly rate.Lawyers who sued Tesla board for excess pay want $10,000 an hour | ReutersA recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that a majority of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support the ongoing strikes in the auto industry and Hollywood. The poll found that 58% of Americans back the United Auto Workers union's strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis for better pay and benefits. In the entertainment industry, 60% support the strikes by screenwriters and actors for better pay and protections. Among Democrats, the support is especially strong, with 72% backing the auto workers strike and 79% supporting the Hollywood strike. Interestingly, a significant number of Republicans also expressed support for the strikes, despite the party's traditional pro-business stance. The poll reflects a broader trend of increased union activism in the U.S., with 2023 on track to become the busiest year for strikes since 2019.Americans broadly support auto, Hollywood strikes -Reuters/Ipsos pollA U.S. authors' trade group, including renowned writers like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, has filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of unlawfully training its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on copyrighted works from these authors. The Authors Guild, which filed the suit, is also concerned that the training data may have been sourced from illegal online book repositories. OpenAI has defended its actions by claiming that the use of internet-scraped training data falls under "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal landscape where AI companies are facing challenges over the data used to train their systems.John Grisham, other top US authors sue OpenAI over copyrights | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

After almost 40 years on the bench, Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sued her chief, two judge colleagues and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council, following a court committee interview and a medical records request, which she denied, and a suggestion that she should be suspended from work for one year.

After almost 40 years on the bench, Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sued her chief, two judge colleagues and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council, following a court committee interview and a medical records request, which she denied, and a suggestion that she should be suspended from work for one year.

After almost 40 years on the bench, Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sued her chief, two judge colleagues and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council, following a court committee interview and a medical records request, which she denied, and a suggestion that she should be suspended from work for one year.

The Judge Pauline Newman saga reached a tentative end—or a respite—when the Federal Circuit imposed a year-long probation on the 96-year-old federal appellate judge. Aliza Shatzman of the Legal Accountability Project discusses the allegations of cognitive decline and workplace misconduct against her, and how the investigation and report may be a model for more transparency into judicial officers.Aliza notes:There is a kind of “omerta” code among clerks against sharing negative experiences.But Aliza is seeing the beginning of a cultural change in the legal community toward more transparency.Coming Spring 2024, the Legal Accountability Project will offer a database to aspiring clerks with at least 1,000 entries about former judicial clerk experiences.To the calls for more transparency, Aliza is not seeing any opposition from judges.…but there is some resistance from some law schools.Judge Newman has a storied career: pilot, racecar driver, bartender on the Seine River, inventor, maverick IP attorney, and finally, brilliant—and often contrarian—federal appellate judge. How does one assess a complaint that Judge Newman, an extraordinary individual, is acting out of the ordinary? Ultimately, the court based its sanctions ruling not on Judge Newman's cognition but on her refusal to comply with the investigation.This investigation vindicates the rule of transparency in the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act and may serve as a model for future investigations.Why the Judge Newman saga does not portend an opening of a “floodgates” of complaints against judges.Aliza Shatzman's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Our June 2022 interview with Aliza.The Legal Accountability Project's website.Aliza Shatzman's published articles on the subject of Judge Newman in Slate and Above the Law.Aliza Shatman's article with the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, entitled "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it."Our episode 90 on the California Bias Prevention Committee.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

NCLA Asks U.S. District Court to Stop Unconstitutional Suspension of Circuit Judge Pauline Newman Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit have indefinitely suspended highly-respected veteran Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases—and they did so before investigating her. The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act does not authorize such indefinite or pre-investigatory suspensions. Another federal statute requires Federal Circuit panels to be comprised of a fair draw from all the Court's active judges. Hence, suspending Judge Newman also infringes on the right of every Federal Circuit plaintiff and defendant to have their cases heard by a fair draw from all the Court's active judges. Moreover, Judge Newman herself has an interest in fulfilling the duties of her judicial office, which cannot be taken away without due process of law. Judges singling out other federal judges for suspension is not due process and violates Congress' sole constitutional authority to impeach federal judges. Vec and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss NCLA's recent amended Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Newman v. Moore.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kelcee Griffis, Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter, discusses her interview with 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, who has refused to retire, leading to a dispute rarely seen in the judiciary. Martin Edel, Co-Chair of the sports law practice at Goulston & Storrs, discusses the latest developments in the PGA Tour/LIV Golf merger. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kelcee Griffis, Bloomberg Law Senior Reporter, discusses her interview with 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, who has refused to retire, leading to a dispute rarely seen in the judiciary. Martin Edel, Co-Chair of the sports law practice at Goulston & Storrs, discusses the latest developments in the PGA Tour/LIV Golf merger. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this day, June 27th, in legal history, the Federal Housing Administration came into being. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was established in 1934 as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program during the Great Depression. On June 27, 1934, the National Housing Act was passed which functionally created the FHA. The primary goal of the FHA was to stabilize the housing market and increase homeownership opportunities for Americans. It did so by providing mortgage insurance to lenders, enabling them to offer loans with lower down payments and longer repayment terms if those loans complied with certain underwriting conditions.The FHA played a significant role in expanding homeownership, particularly for low-income and first-time homebuyers who were previously unable to secure traditional mortgages. It introduced standardized underwriting guidelines, making it easier for lenders to assess borrower creditworthiness. Additionally, the FHA established regulations for home construction and safety standards to improve housing conditions.During its early years, the FHA primarily facilitated the construction of single-family homes. However, after World War II, it expanded its programs to include multi-family housing, aiding the construction of rental properties and helping address housing shortages.Over time, the FHA's role evolved, and it became a vital institution in the mortgage market, ensuring the availability of affordable home loans. However, it faced criticism for some of its practices, including redlining, a discriminatory practice that disproportionately affected minority communities by denying them access to mortgage loans.Despite its shortcomings, the FHA continues to operate today as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), supporting affordable housing initiatives and promoting access to mortgage financing for a wide range of borrowers.KPMG LLP, one of the Big Four accounting firms, is planning to lay off nearly 5% of its US workforce, amounting to approximately 2,000 positions, citing challenging economic conditions and low turnover rates. This marks the second round of layoffs for the firm in 2023 and deviates from its earlier strategy of offering incentives to retain employees during the "Great Resignation" trend. The job cuts are expected to be completed by late summer, and affected employees will receive severance packages and access to career services and healthcare benefits. KPMG's decision aligns with similar actions taken by competitors like Deloitte, Ernst & Young, and Grant Thornton, who have also reduced their consulting businesses due to declining demand. Despite the layoffs, KPMG reported a 14% increase in revenue for its US affiliate in the previous year and expressed optimism about future growth opportunities. The firm's leaders noted a significant disparity between workforce size and the resources required to deliver services, citing economic headwinds and low attrition rates as contributing factors. While staff in tax and audit practices received immediate notifications, professionals in the advisory business and other areas were told they would have to wait until later in the summer to learn their fate. Unlike its counterparts, PwC has not announced any layoffs driven by market conditions but instead informed its staff to expect bonus pay and merit raises, with increased in-office presence.KPMG Cutting US Workforce 5% in Second Round of 2023 Layoffs (1)The County of Los Angeles has severed ties with law firm Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith following the release of racist, sexist, and antisemitic emails by two former senior partners. The county will no longer assign new matters to the firm and will review existing cases to determine if they should be transferred to other outside lawyers on a case-by-case basis. County counsel Dawyn Harrison emphasized the importance of promoting inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism in law firms contracted by the county. The LA County counsel's office assigns cases to contract law firms for various government departments and has an apportioned budget of around $186 million for the current fiscal year. Lewis Brisbois has represented clients such as the LA County's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Sheriff's Department, and Board of Supervisors. The firm is currently in discussions with the county but declined to provide further comment. This development follows the departure of leaders from Lewis Brisbois' labor and employment group, who left to launch a competing firm and subsequently prompted the release of offensive emails. Lewis Brisbois, known for its work in insurance defense, has undergone leadership changes and is now led by managing partner Gregory Katz.LA County Cuts Ties With Lewis Brisbois After Racist Emails (1)Rite Aid, the drugstore chain burdened by a $2.9 billion debt, has ended its relationships with two law firms, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings and Littler Mendelson, due to personal connections between their partners and Rite Aid's former and current senior executives. The decision was made to ensure that "related persons" do not have a significant interest in the company's legal matters. Rite Aid cited the presence of the sister of its former chief legal officer at Bradley, which represented the company in opioid-related litigation, and a Littler partner who is the brother of Rite Aid's chief financial officer. The company did not disclose the names of the lawyers involved. Rite Aid recently appointed Christin Bassett as its acting legal chief following the departure of its former chief legal officer, Paul Gilbert. Thomas Sabatino Jr., previously the top lawyer at Tenneco Inc., will succeed Gilbert as the legal group leader. Rite Aid is currently dealing with various legal issues, including opioid litigation and a growing debt load. Bondholders have engaged Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as they prepare for discussions on restructuring the company's debt.Rite Aid Cuts Loose Law Firms With Personal Ties to ExecutivesThe U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed a Republican appeal to defend a Louisiana electoral map that was challenged as discriminatory. The map, drawn by the Republican-led state legislature, was accused of unlawfully discriminating based on race. A federal judge had ordered the creation of two congressional districts where Black voters would be the majority, potentially benefiting Democratic chances in the upcoming elections. The Supreme Court's dismissal allows the case to proceed before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans for review before the 2024 congressional elections in Louisiana. Black voters and civil rights groups had sued, claiming that the map disenfranchised and discriminated against Black Louisianans by packing them into one district and diluting their voting power in others. The ruling follows a similar decision in an Alabama case, where the Supreme Court found that the Republican-drawn map violated the Voting Rights Act by diminishing the voting power of Black Alabamians.US Supreme Court tosses race-based dispute over Louisiana electoral map | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an inventor's bid to challenge a patent ruling based on the grounds that one of the judges involved is facing a competency probe. Inventor Franz Wakefield argued that the investigation into Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit raised concerns about due process and warranted a new hearing. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition without providing a written opinion. Wakefield had sued several tech companies for patent infringement, but the patent was invalidated in 2021 by a Delaware federal court and affirmed by a three-judge panel at the Federal Circuit that included Judge Newman. Wakefield claimed that the presence of a judge with a mental disability on the panel undermined the principle of a fair and impartial hearing. Judge Newman, who is 96 years old, has denied the claims and filed a lawsuit to halt the competency probe.US Supreme Court won't reconsider ruling by judge facing competency probe | ReutersIn this week's column, I lay out and compare some tax rates in the United States and Norway, pointing out that the top federal tax bracket in the US for 2023 is 37%, while in Norway, it reaches 55.8% – but the top US rate in 1944 was a staggering 94%, applied to income over $200,000 (equivalent to $3.45 million today). I acknowledge that advocating for such a high rate would be difficult. Instead, I propose a compromise: maintaining the current rate structure but adding a 100% tax rate for individuals earning over $1 billion.The proposed tax would apply to both income and capital gains, without any loopholes or exceptions. At the outset I acknowledge the complexity of implementing such a tax, given the intricacies of the US tax code, but I'd argue that the lack of proper regulation ensuring billionaires pay their fair share is a result of political unwillingness rather than administrative obstacles.There are a limited number of billionaires who earn over $1 billion per year in income, it is an elite group, and taxing just this elite group would generate relatively modest revenue (that is, approximately $6 billion per year). However, there are massive unrealized gains held by billionaires, which amount to around $2.7 trillion in the US. I thus suggest implementing a mark-to-market tax, requiring billionaires to recognize gains and losses on their investments at the end of each tax year.By applying a mark-to-market tax rate of 100% on gains and income above $1 billion, I argue that it would prevent the further growth of billionaires' wealth and could generate significant revenue. For example, if the year ended today, it could raise around $335 billion from the top billionaires alone. I conclude by highlighting the ease of administering such a targeted tax due to the relatively small number of billionaires in the US (724). That said, the main obstacle to implementing a 100% tax rate is not administrative feasibility but rather the political challenges and resistance from a nation that aspires to wealth. It's Time to Slap America's Billionaires With a 100% Tax Bracket Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman v. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore Without citing any legal authority and prior to the conclusion of any investigation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore has removed fellow U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases for an indefinite period. She has also impeded Judge Newman's access to chambers phone and computer, and unilaterally decided that the judicial assistant working for Judge Newman “is no longer an employee of the Newman chambers.” Vec discusses NCLA's new lawsuit, Newman v. Moore, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Update in Federal Trade Commission v. Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc. The Federal Trade Commission, in its initial filing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, falsely accused Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc. and CEO Margrett Lewis of unlawfully marketing and selling a dietary supplement called COVID Resist. The problem for FTC is PPO and Ms. Lewis never sold such a product—and FTC knows that. During six months or more of investigation, PPO provided FTC clear proof such sales never happened. Vec discusses NCLA's latest counterclaims against the Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. PPO.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We have an important “this day in legal history” entry for today. On this day in 1954 the Supreme Court held, in Brown v. Board of Education, that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. The case overturned the previous doctrine of “separate but equal” that had been established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The case was brought by Oliver Brown, whose daughter was denied entrance to a then-white school in Topeka, Kansas. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities were inherently unequal. The decision paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.Briefly, without too much soapboxing, I think right thinking people everywhere would like to imagine the era of segregation as being a distant memory. An unfortunate period of history that is now so sufficiently obscured by time so as to render it devoid of the pain and damage it caused. It simply isn't. I'm an “elder millennial,” whatever that means, born in 1985, 31 years after the decision in Brown was handed down. 31 years from 2023 was 1992 – the first Clinton administration. History it is, ancient history it is not. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has submitted a report to Congress, as directed by the Inflation Reduction Act, evaluating the feasibility of a Direct File option for taxpayers. Direct File is a free, voluntary electronic filing system run by the IRS. The report concludes that many taxpayers are interested in using such a tool and that the IRS has the technical capability to deliver a Direct File program. However, it also highlights the need for sustained budget investment and careful management of the program's operational complexity.The report focuses on taxpayer opinions, cost, and feasibility, and includes an analysis conducted by an independent third party. It outlines the potential benefits and challenges associated with implementing a Direct File program. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel states that the agency is committed to improving services for taxpayers and acknowledges the interest in an optional Direct File program.In response to the Treasury Department's directive, the IRS will initiate a scaled Direct File pilot in the 2024 filing season to gather further information. This pilot aims to assess customer support, technology needs, and overcome potential operational challenges identified in the report. Specific details about the pilot will be announced in the future.The IRS report relied on data from the agency's Taxpayer Experience Survey, which surveyed thousands of taxpayers, as well as an independent survey conducted by the MITRE Corporation. User research and usability testing using an internal prototype were also conducted to gain firsthand taxpayer perspectives. The report includes a separate independent analysis by New America and Professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman on the Direct File concept.The IRS is looking forward to engaging with stakeholders in the upcoming months to discuss this important topic. Commissioner Danny Werfel's letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, accompanying the Direct File report, can be accessed for further information.IRS submits Direct File report to Congress; Treasury Department directs pilot to evaluate key issues | Internal Revenue ServiceHILL TAX BRIEFING: IRS Launching Pilot of Its Own E-File ProgramNew documents from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reveal that Judge Pauline Newman, the court's oldest and longest-serving member, must release her medical records as part of an investigation into her fitness to remain on the bench. Concerns have been raised about observed changes in her behavior, including difficulties with basic tasks, paranoia about being hacked or spied on, and engaging in nonsensical conversations. The court staff reported her agitation and described her behavior as bizarre. Two of her staff members resigned and requested no further contact with her. Judge Newman also failed a mandatory security compliance training and made inaccurate statements about the court's leadership.The Federal Circuit panel ordered Judge Newman to undergo evaluations by a neurologist and neuropsychologist. They demanded that she respond to the committee's examination request and release records of her mental acuity, attention, memory, and other related areas of treatment within 30 days. Judge Newman's request to transfer the judicial complaint to a different circuit was denied.The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing Judge Newman in her lawsuit. The NCLA is a public interest law firm ostensibly dedicated to fighting administrative state overreach. Prominent donors to the alliance include the surviving Koch brother, Charles Koch. Judge Newman's counsel has not yet responded to requests for comment.‘Paranoid' Incidents Necessitate Newman Exam, Fed. Cir. SaysRecent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of federal fraud statutes, raising concerns about ambiguity in their application. Over the past 15 years, decisions such as Skilling, McDonnell, Kelly, Percoco, and Ciminelli have rejected expansive interpretations of these laws. The court's concern is that prosecutors may use the statutes to impose federal ethical standards on state and local governments. Percoco v. United States limited the circumstances in which a private citizen might have a fiduciary duty to the public for "honest services" fraud, while Ciminelli v. United States rejected the "right-to-control" theory of wire fraud. These decisions are seen as steps toward limiting prosecutorial overreach.However, despite these rulings, uncertainty remains regarding the potential applications of fraud statutes. Skilling narrowed the honest services wire fraud statute to bribery and kickback schemes, while McDonnell limited the definition of an "official act" subject to the law. Kelly held that political retribution schemes targeting toll lanes did not constitute wire and federal program fraud. Percoco and Ciminelli further refined the interpretation of the fraud statutes but left some issues unresolved.Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in a concurrence for Percoco, called on Congress to provide clarity in defining "honest services." The court expressed its responsibility in ensuring that the government does not exploit the statutes' broad reach. In Ciminelli, the court rejected the notion that "potentially valuable economic information" constitutes a traditional property interest under the wire fraud statute. The court highlighted that Congress did not explicitly include other intangible interests beyond "honest services" in the statutes.Although the court has consistently narrowed the fraud statutes, many questions about their scope remain unanswered. Percoco and Ciminelli were fact-specific, and the definition of a traditional property interest has yet to be fully explored. The intent to inflict financial harm and the requirement of economic loss in property fraud cases are still being actively litigated in lower courts. The lack of clarity in the fraud statutes raises concerns about separation of powers, due process, and vagueness in their application. It is crucial that courts ensure that ordinary individuals have advance notice of what is prohibited under these criminal statutes. At the same time it is instructive to illustrate how even a concept such as fraud which at first blush may seem relatively straightforward can raise thorny legal questions. SCOTUS Scales Back Fraud Statutes' Reach, but Ambiguity PersistsTheranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and former CEO Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani have been ordered to pay $452 million in restitution to victims of the blood-testing startup's fraud. Holmes, who was convicted last year of misrepresenting Theranos' technology and finances, had also requested to remain out of prison while challenging her conviction but was denied by an appeals court. Judge Edward Davila, who oversaw Holmes' trial and sentencing, held both Holmes and Balwani equally responsible for the restitution amount, rejecting their argument that intervening events contributed to investors' losses. Holmes will now have to report to prison as a new date is set. Included among the investors that Holmes will need to make whole is none other than Rupert Murdoch – defrauding people is never defensible, but sometimes …Theranos founder Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison, hit with huge restitution bill | ReutersLaw firm Proskauer Rose has been ordered by a Massachusetts judge to face trial in a $636 million legal malpractice case. The ruling by Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Kenneth Salinger allows a jury to determine whether the firm's alleged mishandling cost former client Robert Adelman his stake in a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. Adelman sued Proskauer in March 2020, claiming that attorneys from the firm included a provision in a partnership agreement that allowed the fund's manager to remove him. Adelman presented handwritten notes from a Proskauer partner that indicated a mistake in the agreement. Proskauer, represented by lawyers from Williams & Connolly, argued that it shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of Adelman's former colleague. The manager accused of ousting Adelman, is not involved in the lawsuit. A final pre-trial conference is scheduled for July 25.Law firm Proskauer must face trial in $636 million legal malpractice case | ReutersThe Oakland Athletics baseball team is seeking to move to Las Vegas and is requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to finance the relocation. Critics argue that this is a bad tax deal for Las Vegas and Nevada, as it sets a precedent of using public money to benefit private sports team owners. Nevada's lower tax burden compared to California is cited as a positive aspect of the deal, but overall, there are few advantages. The Athletics have a relatively low payroll compared to other teams, so players would benefit little, comparatively, from the lack of income tax in Nevada. However, studies have shown that stadium building has limited positive economic effects, and the revenue generated from player salaries would not benefit Nevada due to the aforementioned absence of income tax. The revised funding plan reduces the amount sought from public funds, but it still puts a financial burden on taxpayers. Critics argue that public funding for sports stadiums would be better spent on projects that directly improve residents' quality of life. The deal also marks the end of the Oakland Coliseum, which is widely regarded as an unattractive venue by just about everyone save for perhaps the opossums that live in the walls.Oakland A's Move to Vegas Is Costly Gamble for Nevada Taxpayers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

JPMorgan Chase, the largest financial institution on Wall Street, reportedly requires its workers to give six months' notice before being allowed to leave for another job. A JPMorgan employee posted on the social media platform Blind, which allows career professionals anonymity, that the lengthy notice period may result in a new job offer being rescinded. The worker claims to earn around $400,000 annually in total compensation after accumulating 15 years of experience. The post stated that the worker was amenable to staying through the notice period but was worried that the new employer would rescind the offer and not wait for six months. Last year, workers at JPMorgan's India corporate offices reported that the Wall Street giant was raising its notice period to 60 days for vice presidents and below and 90 days for executive directors. Some financial professionals say that it is common for banks and hedge funds to include noncompete clauses in employees' contracts that prohibit them from being hired by a competitor for up to six months. The purpose of the notice period is believed to be to prevent staffing shortages when employees leave. However, it has been criticized as an example of an outdated "handcuff" policy that runs against the trend towards worker empowerment. And it may do more than just run against current trends. We have reported in the past on the FTC's increasing attention given to things like non-compete agreements and other employment contract provisions that tend towards the more employee-restrictive end of the management–labor spectrum. Will the FTC be putting JPMorgan in its crosshairs next? We'll see!JPMorgan's Six-Month Notice Rule Is an Old School ‘Handcuff'JPMorgan Chase ‘requires its tech workers give 6 months' notice before they quit'AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. will appear in Delaware's Court of Chancery on Tuesday to face shareholders and a pension fund challenging the movie theater operator's attempts to convert its preferred equity units into common stock. A hearing for AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. previously scheduled for Thursday was canceled, with a new one set for Tuesday, where Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn will discuss "settlement scheduling and logistics." The proposed deal would let AMC move forward with its controversial conversion plan after two months of fast-tracked litigation. The preferred equity units (APE) are fractional units of preferred shares issued in a special dividend to retail investors who previously bailed out the company, but shareholders argue that the vote approving the deal wasn't conducted fairly and sidelines retail investors.Terminally online folks will remember, in early 2021, a group of retail investors on the social media platform Reddit, specifically on the subreddit r/wallstreetbets, organized a buying spree of shares in the struggling movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (AMC). The group coordinated their purchases through online brokerage platforms such as Robinhood, causing a surge in the stock's price. The phenomenon, dubbed the "Reddit rally" or "meme stock" frenzy, garnered widespread media attention and attracted more investors to join in the buying frenzy. The buying spree caused AMC's stock price to soar, rising by over 2,500% at one point. This Week in Chancery Court: AMC's Stock Conversion FightSamsung has been ordered to pay more than $303 million to computer-memory firm Netlist by a Texas federal jury for infringing several patents related to data processing. The court determined that Samsung's “memory modules” for high-performance computing infringed all five patents that Netlist had accused Samsung of violating. Netlist had asked for $404 million in damages. Netlist claimed that Samsung took its patented module technology after the two companies had collaborated on another project. Representatives for the companies have not immediately commented on the verdict.Netlist Inc has claimed that Samsung's memory products specifically used in cloud-computing servers and other data-intensive technology infringe upon the aforementioned. Netlist argues that its technology increases the power efficiency of memory modules and allows users to get useful information from vast amounts of data in a shorter time. However, Samsung countered this by stating that its technology works differently and merely achieves the same result and that, additionally, Netlist's patents are invalid. Allegations have also been made that other companies, including Google and SK Hynix, have violated Netlist's patented technologies related to the handshaking mechanism of various memory chips such as those used in enterprise cloud computing servers. Following the jury's verdict awarding more than $303 million to Netlist, the company's stocks rose by 21%.Samsung hit with $303 million jury verdict in computer-memory patent lawsuit | ReutersIn an update to the Federal Circuit judge competency story – Judge Pauline Newman, the Federal Circuit's oldest and longest-serving judge, is seeking to have her chief judge's complaint about her fitness to remain on the bench moved to a different circuit. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents Newman, has filed a letter requesting the transfer to a potentially more neutral venue. The internal court battle has raised issues about the process for addressing a judge's alleged physical and mental impairments and lifetime judicial appointments. The complaint was initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, questioning Newman's physical and mental ability to remain an active judge. Newman and the NCLA intend to contest the allegations. The group has also asked that Newman be immediately restored to her full capacity as a Federal Circuit judge. Judge Newman Seeks to Move Fitness Complaint From Fed. Cir. (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Judicial ethics expert Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, discusses allegations that 95-year-old Judge Pauline Newman is unfit to serve on the bench. Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses the Supreme Court's consideration of when the government can deport legal immigrants convicted of certain crimes. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Judicial ethics expert Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, discusses allegations that 95-year-old Judge Pauline Newman is unfit to serve on the bench. Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses the Supreme Court's consideration of when the government can deport legal immigrants convicted of certain crimes. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two recent US Supreme Court cases merged in a combined ruling, Axon Enterprise v. FTC and SEC v. Cochran allows the SEC and the FTC's in-house litigation defendants to sue the regulators and is expected to increase the number of constitutional challenges against two of the most powerful regulators, and other federal agencies with a similar structure. The change will allow enforcement targets to challenge the agencies' constitutional authority in federal district court without waiting for an in-house judge's decision, as was previously required. The first direct attack against SEC authority has already been lodged at the Supreme Court. The SEC and the FTC will have to more aggressively defend their use of administrative law judges and in-house courts against accusations that they violate due-process rights. The ruling will allow companies to shop for friendly district courts when they're hit by administrative proceedings, such as an FTC suit attempting to block a merger. The change may also force agencies to expend more resources as they litigate on multiple fronts and is of a piece with some of our earlier reporting wherein courts have used the “major questions doctrine” to resist deferring to agency statutory interpretation where the underlying matter is of major economic or political significance. In sum, we may be on the precipice of seeing a substantially weakened administrative state.Federal Agencies Face Constitutional Fights After High Court LossFood distributor Sysco is arguing that unionized workers cannot strike in solidarity with Sysco workers in the Midwest because they technically don't work for the same company. This follows a recent strike by Sysco workers in Indiana and Kentucky over wages and retirement benefits. Sysco workers belonging to Teamsters Local 117 in Washington state followed suit, but Sysco Seattle filed a complaint in US District Court, stating that its workers could not join the picket because its operation is a separate entity from Sysco Louisville and Sysco Indianapolis. The pending lawsuit raises the question of whether large, multi-pronged corporations are one employer or multiple employers under the law. While the strikes in Indianapolis and Louisville have already ended, the answer is not immediately clear, but will depend on the facts of the case. While federal law allows workers to strike against their employers, it doesn't extend to third parties, although the Labor-Management Relations Act also permits sympathy strikes, which are different from secondary strikes. The outcome in this case, should it be decided against workers, will significantly weaken labor and provide owners with a path forward to minimize the impact of strikes by creating separate regional entities. Sysco Picketing Lawsuit Hinges on Standard for Secondary StrikesThe start of Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion defamation trial against Fox News has been delayed by a day, and sources say that Fox is pursuing settlement talks. The trial is over the network's coverage of the 2020 US presidential election. Dominion is accusing Fox of ruining its reputation by airing baseless claims that its machines secretly changed votes in favor of Democrat Joe Biden, who defeated then-President Trump, a Republican, in the 2020 presidential election. Dominion is asking for $1.6 billion in damages, a figure Fox has said is unrealistic and based on flawed economic modeling. The trial is considered a test of whether Fox's coverage crossed the line between ethical journalism and the pursuit of ratings, as Dominion alleges and Fox denies. Rupert Murdoch, the founder of Fox News, is set to testify, along with a parade of Fox executives and on-air hosts, including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro.Fox defamation trial delayed, network pursues settlement talks | ReutersUS law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe is facing a $10m lawsuit in California over claims that it misled a Hong Kong tribunal when it sought to enforce an arbitration award against a large Chinese real estate developer. Hong Kong-based Global Industrial Investment Ltd, a subsidiary of China Fortune Land Development, filed the lawsuit seeking more than $9.8m in damages for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Orrick's clients won a $9.3m award in 2019, and the firm sought to enforce it in courts in Hong Kong and in the United States. Orrick used Hong Kong-based garnishment orders to freeze bank accounts belonging to Global Industrial Investment as part of enforcing the arbitration award, the lawsuit alleged. The Hong Kong court in 2020 set aside the arbitration order after finding "a deliberate attempt to hide relevant material". In a court filing, Orrick's attorneys denied acting with malice and accused Global Industrial Investment of waging a "retaliatory" campaign against the law firm.Law firm Orrick fights $10 million 'malicious prosecution' case in California | ReutersA federal appeals judge, Pauline Newman, is under investigation by her own court for allegedly failing to carry out her duties and refusing to respond to other judges' concerns, court officials at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said. An order signed by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore said a three-judge committee had determined that Judge Pauline Newman, who is 95, may "suffer a disability that interferes with her ability to perform the responsibilities of her office." Newman is also under investigation for misconduct for refusing to cooperate with the probe or submit to a medical evaluation. Newman is a leading intellectual property law jurist and a prominent dissenter on the patent-focused Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit acknowledged the probe in a statement. It is highly unusual for a US judge to face a complaint from a colleague on the bench, especially on an issue as delicate as their competence to serve.US appeals court judge faces rare probe into competency, misconduct | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

11 million patents issued over 185 years is, on average, nearly 60,000 per year, but we know the real acceleration occurred over the last 20 or so years. This kind of acceleration will only continue as AI drives automation of both creation, filing and even prosecution!  While we are speeding headfirst into the future, something is happening in the patent office that is making older judges like Judge Pauline Newman shake their heads. According to Judge Newman, patent owners are making a strong argument that they are not getting due process when in direct contradiction to Congressional incentives. So, is due process being handled the way it was intended to be set up? Following the issuing of patent no. 11 million, Jack Russo and Jill Riola react to the notion that patents that may have invalidated because due process has been corrupted and what should be done to correct it.