Podcasts about judicial conference

Monday, June 2nd, 2025Today, Ukraine destroyed more than 40 military aircraft in a drone attack deep inside Russia; the new Office of Personnel Management hiring plan includes loyalty essays; ICE raids a restaurant on a Friday night in San Diego and uses flashbang grenades to disperse the protesting crowd; Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to assassinate Trump but that appears to have been a set up; Donald Trump shared a conspiracy theory on Truth Social saying Biden was executed in 2020 and the man that was President until 2025 is a robot clone; top officials overseeing deportations at ICE are leaving their positions; a Women is suing Kansas over a law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy; Dan Bongino and Kash Patel say video shows that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide; Elon Musk denies a report that he took so much ketamine he doesn't pee right; the CDC keeps recommending Covid vaccines for children in defiance of RFK Jr; a Reagan appointed judge orders the Trump administration to fund Radio Free Europe; PBS has filed suit against the Trump regime for first amendment violations; the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reject's Trump's bid to move forward with massive federal government reductions in force; California opens an inquiry into Paramount and Trump; the government has ended a critical HIV vaccine effort; elderly and disabled Californians with more than $2,000 could lose Medi-Cal; a Jeffrey Epstein survivor is suing the FBI for failing to address her claims; Taylor Swift gets her music back; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, DeletMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Thank You, PiqueGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeans Sat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovementMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Paul KieselSpeak Up for Justice  - Speak Up for Justice seeks to bring the country together to voice support for the judiciary at a time when it is under unprecedented attack. It grows out of a shared recognition that the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are the hallmarks of our democracy. Next Webinars - June 26, July 31Stories:Outrage and solidarity after ICE raid shakes South Park restaurant | Fox 5 San DiegoAppeals panel leaves layoff injunction in place as Trump's RIF plans likely head to Supreme Court | Government ExecutivePBS sues Trump over executive order targeting federal funding, following NPR | The Washington PostWomen sue Kansas over law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy | The Washington PostCalifornia opens inquiry into Paramount and Trump | SemaforUkraine destroys 40 aircraft deep inside Russia ahead of peace talks in Istanbul | AP NewsOPM ‘merit' hiring plan includes bipartisan reforms, politicized new test | Government ExecutiveTop Officials Overseeing Deportations Leave Their Roles at ICE | The New York TimesExclusive: Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to kill Trump. Investigators think he was set up | CNN PoliticsFBI leaders say jail video shows Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide | NBC NewsContradicting RFK Jr., CDC keeps recommending covid vaccine for kids | The Washington PostTrump Administration Ends Program Critical to Search for an H.I.V. Vaccine | The New York TimesElderly, disabled with $2,000 in assets could lose Medi-Cal | CalMattersElon Musk Denies Report He Took So Much Ketamine He Doesn't Pee Right | RollingStoneTaylor Swift buys back her master recordings | BBCGood Trouble: Contact ICE and let them know if you've been harmed by an alien.https://www.ice.gov/voice Or call - 855-48VOICEProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and CelebrationSchedule F comments deadline extended to June 7th Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Share your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsThe Resistance Lab - Pramila for Congress1776 - 'Is Anybody There', from the 1972 American musical drama film - YouTubeVisiting | Animals in DistressPostcardsToVoters.orgReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Is Trump, using his proxy, Stephen Miller and his “AF Legal Foundation” to sue Chief Justice Roberts in a new federal suit to send a message back to the Supreme Court to get Roberts back in line and under his thumb, and will it be successful? Michael Popok looks at a little-covered new lawsuit and how Trump and Miller are using it to violate the separation of powers and get control over the Judicial Conference used to administer courts and judges by the Judicial Branch. See if your company qualifies at https://Oracle.com/LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Born in the Bronx, New York, Judge Claire Eagan graduated from Trinity Washington University in 1972 and later from Fordham University School of Law.She began her legal career working as a law clerk to Judge Allen Barrow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and went into private practice at the Hall Estill Law Firm in Tulsa, Oklahoma from 1978 to 1998.Claire served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge from 1998 to 2001 and was then nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. She served as Chief Judge of the court from 2005 to 2012.U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Eagan as the chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference in 2020. She assumed senior status in 2022.Listen to Claire tell her story, how she knew she wanted to be a lawyer as a young girl, the important mentor in her life, and the decisions she made as a judge on the podcast and website VoicesOfOklahoma.com.

We're a bit late this week, because following our recent conversation with Justice Breyer, we had the opportunity to speak at length with Judge William Pryor, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, former Alabama Attorney General, and an important member of the Judicial Conference the “national policymaking body for the federal courts.” Judge Pryor has had a colorful career, having effectively prosecuted another judge for misconduct, had a contentious confirmation hearing, clerked for a titan among judges in Judge Wisdom, and served at the highest level short of the Supreme Court for many years.  We discuss a wide range of matters from judicial safety, to the importance of following Court orders, to enforcing civil rights laws, and much more.  The discussion took place in two parts;  with an audience of undergraduates, and then with an audience of Yale Law School students, many from the Federalist Society chapter at Yale; this produced a great variety of topics. We also have timely information on a new EverScholar program where registration is about to open; be among the first to know about this!  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1801On February 13, 1801, the U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, a controversial law that reshaped the federal court system. Enacted in the final days of John Adams' presidency, the Act reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five and created sixteen new federal judgeships. It also eliminated the justices' duty to "ride circuit" by establishing separate circuit courts with their own judges. The law expanded federal jurisdiction, making it easier for creditors to bring cases in federal courts and granting them broader enforcement powers. Federalists, who controlled Congress at the time, saw this as a way to strengthen the judiciary before Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office.Adams quickly filled the newly created judgeships with Federalist allies, leading to accusations of court-packing and what became known as the "Midnight Judges" scandal. Jefferson and his party viewed the Act as an illegitimate attempt to entrench Federalist power in the judiciary. In 1802, the newly elected Republican-majority Congress repealed the Act, effectively undoing the judicial restructuring. This marked one of the first major political battles over the structure and independence of the federal courts. It also set the stage for future conflicts over judicial appointments and reforms.The Judiciary Act of 1801 played a key role in shaping the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It demonstrated how shifts in political power could influence the courts and foreshadowed later debates over judicial authority. The controversy surrounding the Act also contributed to the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. This episode remains a crucial moment in American legal history, illustrating the judiciary's evolving role in government.Cathy Harris, a Democratic appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), has sued President Trump over her removal from office, arguing that the firing was unlawful. Trump also dismissed Ray Limon, the board's vice chair, and replaced Harris with Republican Henry Kerner as acting chair. The MSPB, an independent agency, hears appeals from federal workers who are fired or disciplined—a role that could become crucial as Trump pushes to shrink the federal workforce.Harris argues that her removal violates legal protections for independent agency officials, citing the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limits a president's ability to fire certain officials without cause. Trump's decision to involve Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency in identifying federal job cuts adds urgency to the case. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle, as Gwynne Wilcox, another Democratic official fired from the National Labor Relations Board, has filed a similar claim.A hearing is set for Thursday before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, where Harris is seeking a temporary restraining order to regain her position. The White House defends Trump's authority to remove officials, setting up a potential Supreme Court fight over presidential power and the future of independent agencies.Member of US government employee appeals board sues over Trump firing | ReutersA federal court in Massachusetts has implemented new rules to curb "judge shopping" as lawsuits against President Trump's policies continue to mount. Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor issued an order requiring that cases seeking to block federal laws or policies be randomly assigned across the entire district, preventing litigants from filing in single-judge courthouses in Springfield and Worcester to secure favorable rulings.This move aligns with a 2024 U.S. Judicial Conference policy aimed at discouraging strategic case filings, a practice criticized when conservatives challenged Democratic policies in Texas courts with Republican-appointed judges. Massachusetts, a frequent battleground for legal challenges to Trump's agenda, has seen its judges temporarily block his administration's efforts on government employee buyouts, research funding cuts, and prison transfers for transgender individuals.With most of Massachusetts' federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, the concern was that plaintiffs could manipulate the system by filing in small courthouses with sympathetic judges. While some federal districts have adopted similar rules, others, including in Texas, have resisted. The issue remains contentious, with Senate Republicans and some conservative judges opposing the policy as unnecessary judicial interference.Massachusetts federal court curbs 'judge shopping' as Trump lawsuits mount | ReutersThe explosive growth of Bitcoin has brought with it a significant environmental toll, with mining now consuming up to 2.6% of U.S. electricity and producing emissions comparable to entire nations. Bitcoin's proof-of-work (PoW) system relies on energy-intensive mining, straining electrical grids, driving up prices, and using vast amounts of water for cooling. Despite these concerns, states like Texas have embraced miners, offering low-cost energy and deregulated markets.The Trump administration's January 2025 executive order on digital assets calls for “responsible growth,” but it remains unclear whether sustainability will be a priority. The order could enable states to integrate eco-friendly policies, such as tax incentives for green mining or licensing tied to renewable energy use. Addressing crypto's environmental impact could also be framed as an issue of energy independence and national security, potentially making it more politically viable.A carbon tax on PoW mining could be one way to push the industry toward cleaner energy, though it would be a tough sell under a deregulatory GOP administration. However, some conservatives, including economist Art Laffer, have supported carbon taxation in the past. If Bitcoin miners want to avoid future crackdowns, they may need to adopt sustainability measures before stricter policies are imposed. Whether the executive order leads to real change remains uncertain, but the environmental costs of crypto mining are only growing.Bitcoin's Boom Comes With Corresponding Booming Environmental Costs 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

Statutes are hard. ----- Apparently, Clarence Thomas just didn't understand how to read the nearly 50-year-old statute requiring him to report massively expensive gifts. That's the Judicial Conference's official take in a new letter to the Senate panel looking into the ethical cesspool. The letter becomes public just as Chief Justice Roberts releases his annual report asserting that most criticism of the Court should be seen as improper intimidation and even violence. Before the holidays, we discussed Biglaw firms bucking the trend and not paying out special bonuses. Happy to report that they've reversed course.

Statutes are hard. ----- Apparently, Clarence Thomas just didn't understand how to read the nearly 50-year-old statute requiring him to report massively expensive gifts. That's the Judicial Conference's official take in a new letter to the Senate panel looking into the ethical cesspool. The letter becomes public just as Chief Justice Roberts releases his annual report asserting that most criticism of the Court should be seen as improper intimidation and even violence. Before the holidays, we discussed Biglaw firms bucking the trend and not paying out special bonuses. Happy to report that they've reversed course. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Monday, January 6th, 2025Today, Congress will certify the 2024 election; Mike Johnson was elected speaker of the House; Trump is complaining about the flags being flown at half staff during his inauguration; Apple CEO Tim Cook has donated a million dollars to Trump's inaugural; Rudy took the stand last Friday in one of his many contempt hearings and it didn't go well; the judicial conference has refused to refer Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice; Judge Juan Merchan has denied Trump's motion to throw out his 34 count felony conviction; a Utah county school board has voted to keep banned books in library shelves; and Allison and Dana delivers your Good News.Thank You To SmallsTo get 50 % off your first order plus free shipping, go to Smalls.com/DailyBeans and use promo code DailyBeans at checkout.Thank You To DeleteMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout.Stories:Judicial body won't refer Clarence Thomas to Justice Department over ethics lapses (Zoë Richards | NBC News)Apple CEO Tim Cook plans to donate $1 million to Trump's inauguration: report (Kelly Rissman | The Independent)Judge orders Trump to be sentenced in hush money case on Jan. 10, but says he won't be incarcerated (Dareh Gregorian and Tom Winter | NBC News)Cache County School Board votes to keep controversial books on shelves (Naomi Cragun | Utah Public Radio)From The Good NewsNet neutrality (Wikipedia)The Daily Beans Podcast (Blue Sky)Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) (studentaid.gov)Expanded Financial Assistance Allows Families to Save Money and Upgrade Health Insurance (Whitehouse.gov)Mose Allison (Wikipedia)Monsters of the ID (YouTube)saferoutestoschools.org Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Tonight on The Last Word: The NOLA terrorist attack shows the stakes for the incoming administration's picks. Also, the Judicial Conference denies Democrats' request to refer Justice Thomas to the Justice Department for ethics violations. Plus, it is unclear if Mike Johnson has the votes to remain Speaker. And President Biden awards 20 outstanding Americans with the Presidential Citizens Medal. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Eric Swalwell join Lawrence O'Donnell.

This Day in Legal History: Cicero is BornOn January 3, 106 BC, Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of ancient Rome's most influential lawyers, orators, and statesmen, was born in Arpinum, a small town southeast of Rome. Cicero's life and work laid the foundations for modern legal and political thought, intertwining law, philosophy, and rhetoric. As a novus homo (the first in his family to achieve senatorial rank), Cicero rose through the Roman cursus honorum, eventually serving as consul in 63 BC. His tenure is most remembered for his decisive action in quelling the Catiline Conspiracy, a plot to overthrow the Republic.Cicero's legal career was marked by his exceptional eloquence and emphasis on justice. His speeches, such as those in defense of Sextus Roscius and against Verres, revealed his dedication to exposing corruption and advocating for fairness. Beyond his courtroom success, Cicero's philosophical treatises, including De Legibus (On the Laws), explored the nature of justice and the rule of law. His writings profoundly influenced thinkers of the Enlightenment and modern legal systems.In one of his letters, Cicero wrote to his friend – one of his most famous quotes:“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even if it enables you to rule the world.”This succinct insight captures his belief in the universality of law as a moral and societal cornerstone.Cicero's life was not without turmoil. His opposition to Julius Caesar's dictatorship and later to Mark Antony cost him dearly. He was executed in 43 BC during the proscriptions. Cicero endures not only as a towering figure in law and politics but also as one of those ancient philosophers whose works people skim through, extract a handful of pithy quotes, and then relentlessly share at dinner parties or on social media. His knack for universal truths ensures his words still resonate, even as they occasionally overstay their welcome in the mouths of exhausting folks.President Biden plans to issue an executive order permanently banning new offshore oil and gas development in specific U.S. coastal waters. This move, based on the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is intended to be difficult for future administrations to reverse and comes as Biden seeks to solidify his environmental legacy in the final weeks of his presidency. The protections aim to safeguard marine ecosystems, protect vulnerable coastal communities, and combat climate change, aligning with calls from environmental groups and congressional Democrats. While Biden's actions will not affect existing leases, the scope of the new protections is expected to include key areas like parts of the Pacific near California and the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida. Conservationists have praised the move as a necessary step to protect U.S. waters, while oil industry advocates argue it jeopardizes energy independence. Former President Donald Trump is likely to attempt reversing the order, though previous court rulings suggest such efforts may face significant legal hurdles. Offshore drilling remains a contentious issue, with opposition particularly strong in coastal regions reliant on tourism.Biden to Ban More Offshore Oil Drilling Before Trump Arrives (1)A group of Tesla shareholders is appealing a Delaware Chancery Court decision that voided Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package, which would have been the largest CEO compensation in U.S. history. Filed on December 31, the appeal also challenges Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick's $345 million award in attorneys' fees. McCormick had ruled that Tesla's board and Musk breached fiduciary duties to investors when approving the massive compensation plan. Despite shareholder approval votes in 2018 and 2024, the court found the deal unfairly tilted in Musk's favor. The plaintiffs, including ARK Investment Management LLC and individual investors, argue the appeal is necessary to restore shareholder voting rights and accountability.Attorneys for the shareholders assert that over 70% of investors supported the pay package in two separate votes, emphasizing the high level of approval. Legal representation for Musk, the board, and opposing shareholders have yet to respond to requests for comment. The appeal seeks to overturn a ruling that has intensified debates about executive compensation and corporate governance.Elon Musk Pay Deal Decision Appealed to Delaware High Court (1)The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 docket includes pivotal labor and employment cases addressing workplace discrimination, wage law exemptions, and employee benefits. Among the key issues is whether workers from "majority backgrounds," like white or heterosexual individuals, face higher hurdles in proving discrimination claims under Title VII. The Court's decision could reshape lawsuits challenging diversity policies. Another case will decide if retirees can sue former employers for disability bias, as exemplified by a Florida firefighter denied benefits. This issue has divided lower courts on whether retirees meet the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirements. Wage law exemptions are also under review, with the Court considering the evidentiary standard employers must meet to prove workers are exempt from overtime protections.Additionally, justices will address the standards for lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), involving allegations of excessive fees in retirement plans. These cases could have broad implications for labor law, corporate practices, and workplace equity, shaping the rights of employees and obligations of employers across the nation.Reverse bias, wage law exemptions top US Supreme Court's 2025 labor docket | ReutersThe U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice over allegations of ethics violations related to unreported gifts and luxury travel from a wealthy benefactor. The Conference cited amendments Thomas made to his financial disclosure reports, addressing issues raised by Democratic lawmakers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced similar scrutiny over omissions in her reports but had also filed corrections, leading to the rejection of a referral request against her.Democratic lawmakers argued that Thomas's failure to disclose violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, but Thomas stated he was advised such disclosures were unnecessary for "personal hospitality." He committed to following updated guidelines in future filings. The Judicial Conference pointed to its recent efforts to clarify financial disclosure rules and noted Thomas's compliance with the new standards.The body also raised constitutional concerns about its authority to refer the matter to the DOJ, further noting the issue was moot since lawmakers had already requested an investigation directly from Attorney General Merrick Garland. Critics accused the judiciary of failing to hold Thomas accountable, while the judiciary emphasized the ongoing improvements to ethical oversight.US Supreme Court's Thomas will not be referred to Justice Department | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss Jr. This week's closing theme celebrates Johann Strauss Jr., affectionately known as the "Waltz King," whose music epitomizes the charm and elegance of 19th-century Vienna. Born in 1825 into a musical dynasty, Strauss Jr. surpassed his father's legacy, becoming one of the most celebrated composers of light music. His works captured the spirit of Viennese high society, turning the waltz from a simple dance into an art form beloved across Europe.Strauss's compositions, such as The Blue Danube and Tales from the Vienna Woods, are synonymous with refinement and festivity, making him a perennial favorite for New Year's concerts worldwide. His waltzes are not merely music for dancing; they evoke vivid imagery, from shimmering ballrooms to idyllic countryside scenes. Known for his melodic genius and rhythmic vitality, Strauss's music remains a joyful celebration of life and beauty.This week, we highlight a medley of Strauss Jr.'s waltzes, a perfect encapsulation of his artistry and his gift for weaving together effervescent themes. It's a chance to immerse yourself in the glittering world of 19th-century Vienna and to reflect on the enduring magic of his music. Whether as a tribute to the New Year or simply an appreciation of Strauss's timeless melodies, this medley invites us to waltz into the weekend with grace and exuberance.Without further ado, a waltz medley by the Waltz King – Johann Strauss Jr.  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

Josh Hammer analyzes Matt Gaetz's abrupt withdrawal from consideration as Donald Trump's attorney general. Was this the plan all along? And regardless, who would be a better pick for attorney general? Also, an update on the Judicial Conference of the United States's planned Article III power grab, Chuck Schumer and John Thune reach a deal on federal judges, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Taiwan experienced an 8.4% increase in exports in October, driven by strong demand for AI applications and semiconductor products, with TSMC playing a pivotal role in the global technology supply chain. A legal dispute between OpenAI and news outlets Raw Story and AlterNet highlights the challenges between AI development and copyright law, with a U.S. judge dismissing the lawsuit but leaving room for future claims. Beyoncé leads the 2023 Grammy nominations with 11 nods, including Album of the Year for her country music debut Cowboy Carter, making her the most nominated artist in Grammy history. Kioxia Holdings Corporation, backed by Bain Capital, has filed for an IPO in Tokyo, aiming to leverage new rules that allow pre-listing investor engagement amid a tight supply of high-performance memory chips. Yandex plans to invest in Indonesia's AI ecosystem, potentially accelerating the country's technological capabilities and positioning it as a regional hub for AI innovation. The U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules is developing regulations for AI-generated evidence, addressing concerns over the reliability and authenticity of such digital content. LATAM Airlines Group and Aeromexico are exploring sustainable aviation fuel alternatives to reduce carbon emissions, leveraging partnerships and innovative systems to secure SAF and improve fuel efficiency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is investigating Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after several incidents raised concerns about its safety and the company's portrayal of the technology as fully autonomous. As the 2024 U.S. presidential election nears, OpenAI has rejected over 250,000 requests for AI-generated images of candidates to prevent AI misuse and ensure democratic integrity. LightOn, a Paris-based AI startup, is set to become the first generative AI company to go public in Europe with its IPO on the Euronext Growth market, signaling a shift in the funding landscape for European AI startups. Thailand is implementing digital policies to enhance cybersecurity and economic growth, aiming for the digital economy to make up 30% of GDP by 2030 under Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's strategy. TSMC has announced it will stop producing advanced AI chips for Chinese companies, aligning with U.S. efforts to limit China's access to critical technologies, impacting Chinese tech firms and pushing them to seek domestic alternatives. Punjab province in Pakistan is facing a severe air pollution crisis, leading the government to impose bans on public access to communal spaces and consider further measures like closing universities to reduce emissions.

The U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules has initiated efforts to develop regulations for AI-generated evidence, addressing concerns over the reliability and authenticity of such digital content. This move underscores the judiciary's need to adapt to rapidly evolving AI technologies, including deep fakes, which pose significant challenges to the legal system. The committee's decision reflects broader efforts to balance the benefits of AI in enhancing legal processes with the risks of misuse and the imperative to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Josh updates us on numerous Donald Trump legal proceedings before today's "deep dive" unpacks an assault on the independence and integrity of the judicial branch that you've probably never heard of: the Judicial Conference of the United States' attempt to end all single-judge divisions. Josh explains why this is something we should all care about. Today's "closing argument" then revisits the federal indictment of NYC Mayor Eric Adams. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Declaration of Independence Signed On August 2, 1776, the formal signing of the Declaration of Independence took place in Philadelphia, solidifying a pivotal moment in American history. Although the Declaration was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, the actual signing by the delegates occurred nearly a month later. John Hancock, serving as the President of the Continental Congress, famously provided the first and most prominent signature. This event marked the official assertion of the thirteen American colonies' intention to separate from British rule. The Declaration, primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson, articulated the colonies' grievances against King George III and expressed the fundamental principles of individual liberty and government by consent. The document became a symbol of American ideals and aspirations, laying the foundation for the nation's democratic framework. The signing involved 56 delegates representing the colonies, each risking their lives and fortunes for the cause of independence. This collective act of defiance against British authority galvanized the revolutionary spirit and united the colonies in their quest for freedom. The Declaration of Independence remains a cornerstone of American identity and continues to inspire movements for liberty and justice around the world.A quick fun fact coda, there are 225 nations spread out across the globe, of which 163 celebrate some form of independence. 63 of them celebrate their independence from Great Britain specifically, lending some sense of scope to the span of the British empire at its zenith. Stretching those out equally across the year, on average every 6 days a country celebrates its independence from British rule.  A U.S. judge in California dismissed a $4.7 billion verdict against the NFL regarding allegations of overcharging for the "Sunday Ticket" telecasts. The decision by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez followed the NFL's argument that the jury's verdict was unjustified. The NFL welcomed the ruling, stating their media distribution model offers various options for fans. The lawsuit claimed "Sunday Ticket" prices were inflated to limit subscriptions and protect broadcast network fees. Judge Gutierrez rejected key witness testimonies and found the jury's damages verdict unsupported by evidence, rendering the case unable to proceed. The ruling can be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Initially, a jury had found that the NFL's exclusive distribution allowed DirecTV to charge higher prices, awarding substantial damages based on residential and commercial subscriptions. The NFL denied the overcharging claims, calling the damages amount baseless, while the plaintiffs accused the NFL of speculating about the jury's decision process.NFL Gets $4.7 Billion Sunday Ticket Jury Award Tossed Out (2)US judge throws out $4.7 billion verdict against NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' lawsuit | ReutersFederal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan is advocating for an investigation into the persistent rise in grocery prices that began during the Covid-19 pandemic and has become a significant issue in the presidential campaign. During a virtual public meeting hosted by the FTC and Department of Justice, Khan emphasized the need to understand why grocery prices and profits remain high despite apparent cost reductions. She stated the FTC's commitment to ensuring Americans are not subjected to inflated prices due to illegal business practices and will formally request the agency to initiate the inquiry, pending a commission vote.The inquiry would involve large grocery retailers and examine their sales, costs, and profits for common products. Grocery prices have surged by about 25% over the past four years, outpacing overall consumer price increases. An FTC study found that major grocery stores gained a competitive edge over smaller rivals during the pandemic and may have leveraged inflation to boost profits. Khan's remarks were made during the first meeting of the Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing, aimed at addressing business practices that elevate consumer prices. The FTC is also investigating pricing practices related to the use of personal data, algorithms, and AI to set individualized prices.FTC Chair Khan Pushes for Inquiry Into Elevated Grocery PricesThe U.S. Senate unanimously approved a bipartisan proposal to create 66 new judgeships for federal district courts over the next decade, marking the first major judiciary expansion since 1990. The bill, known as the JUDGES Act, aims to address increasing caseloads by adding judges in 25 district courts across 13 states, including California, Texas, and Delaware. The legislation will now move to the U.S. House of Representatives. No new judgeships have been established since 2003, with previous attempts stalled due to partisan concerns over filling vacancies. The JUDGES Act proposes adding new judicial seats incrementally, starting in January 2025. The bill is designed to handle the surge in court filings since the last comprehensive judgeship bill in 1990. The judiciary currently has 677 authorized district court seats, with 10 temporary ones set to become permanent under separate legislation. The JUDGES Act also has support from House Republicans, with Representative Darrell Issa backing the measure. The Judicial Conference, represented by Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., expressed gratitude for the Senate's approval and urged the House to pass the bill when they reconvene.US Senate approves bill to create 66 new federal judgeships | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Franz Liszt.This week's closing theme features the music of the renowned Hungarian composer and virtuoso pianist, Franz Liszt. Born in 1811, Liszt was one of the most influential figures in the Romantic era of classical music. He was celebrated for his extraordinary skill at the piano and his innovative compositions, which pushed the boundaries of music during his time.Our spotlight this week is on Liszt's most famous piece, "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2," S. 244/2. This composition is part of a larger set of 19 Hungarian Rhapsodies, which are inspired by Hungarian folk music and showcase Liszt's technical prowess and expressive depth. The "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" is particularly known for its dramatic contrasts, lively rhythms, and virtuosic demands on the performer, making it a beloved piece in both classical and popular music spheres. This piece has also been famously orchestrated, adding rich textures and vibrant colors to Liszt's original piano composition. Liszt's connection to August 2 is marked by his passing on this date in 1886. His legacy continues to inspire and captivate audiences around the world. As we close this week, let the spirited and captivating melodies of "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" transport you to the heart of Liszt's musical genius. 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

Special guest Professor Alan Trammell of Washington and Lee University School of Law joins us today for a deep dive into universal injunctions and the related topics of associational standing and judicial forum shopping, and how these elements come into play in litigation challenging regulations and other government policies and actions. Recent developments in litigation critical to the consumer financial services industry have brought universal injunctions into the spotlight. We begin today's episode by providing a working definition of a universal injunction, some historical background, and examples that illustrate the benefits, effects and power of this sweeping remedy. We then turn to an in-depth discussion of objections raised by detractors; real-world concerns that may flow from universal injunctions, including a “one and done problem” cited by Professor Trammell; and various circumstances where Professor Trammell argues universal injunctions are and are not appropriate. We also cover associational standing and its interaction with universal injunction: whether and when a trade association should have standing to bring an action seeking relief for its members, and how and when the outcome of the action might expand into a universal injunction that also would benefit non-members. Our next areas of focus are forum shopping and judge shopping, particularly in the context of such litigation brought by an association. We then turn to speculation as to whether and how the U.S. Supreme Court may proceed to bring some uniformity to how the courts are dealing with these issues. Our episode concludes with comments on recent input on these topics from sources such as Congress and the Judicial Conference of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week's episode.

Today, Hunter spoke with the Chief Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas to discuss independence, or the lack thereof, for federal public defenders. Unlike many state systems, the federal system is at the mercy of the federal judiciary. As a result of this judicial oversight, the federal public defenders can be hesitant to be as vocal and aggressive in their public advocacy. Over the past year, the hiring freeze for federal public defense demonstrated the pressing need to remove the federal public defenders out from the control of the bench.     Guests: Melody Brannon, Chief Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas Resources:     Annual Federal Defenders Reports https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/defender-services-annual-report-2022 https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/defender-services-annual-report-2023 NACDL Coverage on Lack of Independence https://www.nacdl.org/Article/August2015-InsideNACDLAFundamentalFlawint 2017 REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2017_report_of_the_ad_hoc_committee_to_review_the_criminal_justice_act-revised_2811.9.17.29_0.pdf NACDL Testimony to Judicial Conference https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/84b11595-12a0-43d9-89ed-6af4fd732d84/gerry-morris-testimony.pdf Hiring Freeze https://rollcall.com/2023/10/13/federal-public-defenders-warn-proposed-funding-would-cause-layoffs-court-delays/ Eval of Interim Recommendations from the Cardone Report https://cjastudy.fd.org/sites/default/files/Evaluation-of-the-Interim-Recommendations-from-the-Cardone-Report_9.7.23_NoID.pdf     Contact Hunter Parnell:                                             Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN  *As a reminder, any statements made on the show do not reflect the views or policies of the Colorado Office of the State Public Defender*

This Day in Legal History: Former President Taft Becomes Chief JusticeOn July 11, 1921, William Howard Taft was sworn in as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making history as the only person to have held both the presidency and the chief justiceship. Taft had previously served as the 27th President of the United States from 1909 to 1913. His appointment to the Supreme Court was a lifelong dream come true, as he had always preferred judicial work over executive duties.During his tenure as Chief Justice, Taft made significant contributions to the federal judiciary. He advocated for judicial reforms and was instrumental in the creation of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which helped improve the administration of the courts. His leadership was marked by efforts to enhance the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.Taft's unique perspective as a former president provided him with a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the branches of government. This experience enriched his contributions to the Court's decisions and its operations. His tenure as Chief Justice lasted until his retirement in 1930, leaving a lasting impact on the American legal system.A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has impacted two significant Illinois public-corruption cases involving former state House Speaker Mike Madigan. The ruling in Snyder v. United States clarified that federal law criminalizes bribery when officials accept bribes before performing official acts, but not when they accept gratuities after the fact. Following this decision, defense lawyers in the cases involving Madigan and his associates are seeking acquittals or new trials.Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District of Illinois requested updates from the lawyers involved. Meanwhile, attorneys in U.S. v. McClain indicated they would file motions to acquit or seek new trials for four defendants convicted of conspiring to solicit favors for Madigan. Michael McClain's lawyer argued the Supreme Court's ruling showed the jury was misinformed on the law, potentially invalidating the conviction.Madigan's legal team plans to file motions related to the Snyder decision, while prosecutors maintain their original allegations. Even if some convictions are vacated, the government argues that other charges, such as falsifying records under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, are likely to stand. Former prosecutor Rachel Cannon noted that these additional charges might withstand the impact of the Snyder ruling.The Snyder decision might also influence other prosecutions connected to the Madigan scandal. Besides McClain, Jay Doherty, John Hooker, and Anne Pramaggiore were also convicted and await sentencing, which has been postponed pending the Supreme Court's decision. These cases underscore the significant legal repercussions following the high court's interpretation of bribery statutes. SCOTUS Bribery Ruling Offers Chance to Undo Illinois ConvictionsA California judge has granted Tesla more time to prepare its defense against a proposed class action alleging it overcharged customers for insurance. The case, overseen by Judge Michael Markman of Alameda Superior Court, now has a hearing scheduled for October 2025 to determine whether it will proceed as a class action. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of drivers in 11 states, accuses Tesla of inflating insurance premiums based on false crash warnings instead of actual driving behavior, violating California's unfair competition law and breaching contracts with drivers.Tesla's attorney, Min Kang, cited delays in gathering defense information due to the involvement of multiple states and the recent departure of a key Tesla employee. This personnel change has complicated the process, with Tesla in the midst of hiring a replacement.Tesla, which denies any wrongdoing, previously attempted to dismiss some claims but was unsuccessful. The company's insurance program bases premiums on a "safety score," factoring in vehicle data such as hard-braking and forward collision warning alerts. Plaintiffs argue these scores are unfairly increased by false warnings, raising their premiums. This lawsuit has drawn attention from state regulators and plaintiffs' lawyers, highlighting broader concerns about Tesla's insurance practices.Tesla gets more time to defend against driver class action over insurance | ReutersHarvard University has appointed Jennifer O'Connor as its new general counsel, effective July 29. O'Connor previously held senior roles at Northrop Grumman and the US Department of Defense. This move comes as Harvard faces scrutiny over its policies on antisemitism and calls from some students to sever financial ties with military contractors. O'Connor brings extensive experience from large, complex organizations and has served as general counsel for the Department of Defense and held roles in the White House Counsel's office. She is an alumna of Harvard College and earned her law degree from Georgetown.Interim President Alan Garber praised her experience, emphasizing her readiness to manage Harvard's legal strategy amid congressional probes and lawsuits related to campus antisemitism and the aftermath of Hamas's attack on Israel. O'Connor will also address issues related to Harvard's admissions policies after a recent Supreme Court defeat. Neil Eggleston, who worked with O'Connor during the Obama administration, highlighted her familiarity with Washington's political landscape, which will aid Harvard in navigating upcoming challenges.O'Connor succeeds Eileen Finan, who has served as interim general counsel since March 1, following the retirement of Diane Lopez. This appointment aims to stabilize Harvard's legal department and address ongoing campus controversies.Harvard Hires New Lawyer From Weapons Maker Northrop Grumman (1)Rudolph Giuliani's personal bankruptcy case is likely to be dismissed by a federal bankruptcy judge by the end of the week after nearly seven months of inactivity. Judge Sean Lane of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York indicated during a hearing that he is inclined to dismiss the case entirely, with a final ruling expected on Friday. This dismissal would leave Giuliani without court protection from creditors, to whom he owes over $150 million. Giuliani's lawyers have consented to the proposed dismissal.The bankruptcy case has been fraught with disputes over missed deadlines and transparency issues regarding Giuliani's financial affairs. Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in December, reporting $10.6 million in assets after a $148 million defamation judgment for false accusations against Georgia poll workers in the 2020 election. Wandrea' Arshaye “Shaye” Moss, one of the poll workers, sits on an official creditors' committee that has requested a trustee's appointment.If dismissed, creditors would return to civil court to recover debts, and Giuliani would face continued lawsuits that were paused by his Chapter 11 filing. Attorney Rachel Strickland, representing the Georgia plaintiffs, criticized Giuliani's lack of cooperation and suggested he might commit bankruptcy crimes. This prompted a heated exchange during the hearing, with Giuliani interrupting to refute Strickland's claims.The creditors' committee opposes the dismissal, arguing that resolving the case within bankruptcy would benefit more creditors than civil court proceedings. Despite these arguments, the dismissal seems imminent, leaving significant creditors, particularly the Georgia poll workers, to seek recovery through other means.Giuliani Bankruptcy Is Heading Toward Dismissal, Judge Says (1) 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

This Day in Legal History: Eight States Ratify Articles of ConfederationOn July 9, 1778, eight American states—New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina—ratified the Articles of Confederation, marking a significant milestone in the establishment of the United States' first constitution. The Articles of Confederation served as the foundational legal framework for the fledgling nation during the Revolutionary War. This initial ratification by eight states paved the way for the Articles to take full effect once Maryland, the last holdout, signed on March 1, 1781.The Articles of Confederation aimed to unify the thirteen original states under a national government with limited powers, primarily to manage war efforts, conduct foreign diplomacy, and handle territorial disputes. However, the Articles granted most powers to the individual states, reflecting the colonists' fear of a strong central authority reminiscent of British rule.Despite its significance, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses, such as the lack of a strong central government, no executive branch, and the inability to levy taxes or regulate commerce effectively. These limitations eventually led to the drafting of the current U.S. Constitution in 1787, which created a more robust federal structure and addressed the shortcomings of the Articles.The ratification of the Articles of Confederation on July 9, 1778, remains a critical event in American legal history, symbolizing the early efforts to create a unified nation and laying the groundwork for the Constitution that governs the United States today.Federal judge Joshua Kindred, who recently resigned, engaged in a sexual relationship with a former law clerk and misled an investigating judicial panel about it, according to a Ninth Circuit judicial council report. Kindred, a Trump appointee, was found to have sexually harassed clerks and created a hostile work environment. The council's report describes his behavior as abusive, pervasive, and unprofessional, noting that his interactions with clerks were inappropriate and oppressive.Kindred submitted his resignation without explanation on July 5. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit publicly reprimanded him and urged his resignation. The council also referred the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States for potential impeachment.The report highlighted an "unusually close relationship" between Kindred and a former clerk, involving inappropriate physical contact and over 278 pages of personal text messages. Kindred's actions included discussing vulgar topics in the workplace and belittling clerks who raised concerns. The council expressed doubts about his ability to conduct himself appropriately in the future.Kindred initially denied the allegations but later admitted to crossing professional boundaries, attributing his behavior to personal turmoil, including a divorce. The investigation also found he was drinking excessively, sometimes in his chambers.This case comes amid broader scrutiny of judicial misconduct, particularly concerning judges' treatment of clerks. The judiciary has implemented new measures, such as the Office of Judicial Integrity, to address these issues. Jaime Santos, an advocate for judicial reforms, emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in such cases to encourage clerks to report misconduct. Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge, noted the thoroughness and unanimity of the council's order against Kindred, highlighting the serious concern over his lack of honesty during the investigation.US Judge Resigned After ‘Sexualized Relationship' With Clerk (2)The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report highlighting that concentration and vertical integration among the top pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are driving up drug costs and financially straining independent pharmacies. The report stems from a study launched in June 2022, investigating the practices of the six largest PBMs. FTC Chair Lina Khan emphasized that these PBMs, which manage 94% of prescription drug claims, significantly influence drug access and pricing.The report noted that the top three PBMs—CVS Caremark, Cigna's Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx—control nearly 80% of the market. Their integration with health insurers and pharmacies allows them to exercise considerable power over drug prices and availability. The FTC found that pharmacies affiliated with these PBMs received reimbursement rates for certain cancer drugs that were 20 to 40 times higher than the national average drug acquisition cost, leading to an additional $1.6 billion in revenue over three years.These high reimbursement rates contribute to increased out-of-pocket costs for patients, including those on Medicare Part D. The FTC also pointed out that PBMs may engage in anticompetitive practices by negotiating rebates with drug manufacturers to exclude cheaper competitor drugs from their formularies.The FTC's study faced challenges due to some companies' failure to provide required data and documents. The agency is prepared to take legal action against non-compliant companies. Despite the findings, PBMs argue that they help reduce prescription drug costs and blame high manufacturer list prices and patents for the rising costs.The FTC voted 4-1 to issue the interim report, with one Republican commissioner opposing it. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the leading PBM trade group, remains confident that the FTC's examination will ultimately show that PBMs reduce drug costs for patients and employers.FTC Blames Pharmacy Benefit Managers for Inflating Drug CostsLegal experts believe Donald Trump faces slim chances of overturning his conviction on charges related to hush money paid to a porn star, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that broadly recognizes presidential immunity from prosecution. Trump's lawyers have argued for setting aside the May 30 guilty verdict, citing the Supreme Court's decision that former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts under their "core constitutional powers."However, experts point out that much of Trump's conduct in question occurred before his presidency and involved personal matters, not official acts. Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University, noted that falsifying business records to pay off a porn star does not fall within presidential duties. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal reimbursement to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for paying $130,000 to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump has denied the encounter and claims the case is politically motivated.Prosecutors argue the payment was part of a scheme to influence the election by avoiding a sex scandal. Trump's legal team contends that evidence related to his presidency, such as social media posts and an ethics form, should not be considered official acts. Legal experts like Steven Cohen from New York Law School believe these activities are unofficial and unlikely to lead to a reversal.While Trump's lawyers declined to comment, a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney's office did not respond. There are precedents for overturning convictions following new Supreme Court decisions, but Cardozo Law School professor Gary Galperin notes that even if some evidence should not have been presented, the judge may still uphold the conviction if it did not deprive Trump of a fair trial, known as a "harmless error."Trump's defense is expected to fully present their arguments in a court filing by Wednesday, with prosecutors responding by July 24. Judge Juan Merchan will decide by September 6, and if the conviction stands, Trump will be sentenced on September 18. Trump hush money conviction reversal is unlikely, experts say | ReutersTaxing carbon emissions from livestock in the US could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as cattle contribute 10% of the nation's agricultural emissions. Implementing a livestock tax would not only promote sustainable agricultural practices but also generate revenue for reforestation and responsible land use. This measure could provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing greenhouse gases compared to the gradual phase-out required for the fossil fuel industry.Currently, the US government spends about $30 billion annually on agricultural subsidies, a practice that effectively supports both carbonization and decarbonization of the economy. Agriculture's contribution to greenhouse gases, especially from methane emitted by cattle, is substantial yet often overlooked. Methane has a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, accounting for around 30% of the observed global temperature rise since the 18th century.Denmark's successful implementation of a livestock carbon tax demonstrates the feasibility of such policies. Starting in 2030, Denmark will tax livestock emissions, with rates increasing by 2035. This policy includes subsidies for carbon capture and reforestation, balancing environmental goals with farming realities. However, Denmark's policy focuses mainly on carbon dioxide, missing the full impact of methane emissions.The US could enhance this model by including both carbon dioxide and methane emissions in a per-head livestock tax. This would more accurately reflect the environmental cost of raising livestock, though it would likely increase meat and dairy prices. To make this tax more politically acceptable, the US could adopt a system similar to Austria's Klimabonus, which compensates residents for the costs imposed by a general carbon tax.In summary, a well-calibrated livestock tax in the US, incorporating the cost of both carbon dioxide and methane emissions, could drive sustainable agricultural practices, balance environmental and economic interests, and potentially gain public support through consumer compensation mechanisms. Taxing Cows a Pragmatic Step Toward Mitigating Climate Change 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

This Day in Legal History: Flag Statutes in Public SchoolsOn this day in legal history, June 14, 1943, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, profoundly impacting the rights of individuals in public schools. The case arose when Jehovah's Witnesses challenged a West Virginia mandate requiring students to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, actions contrary to their religious convictions. The Court ruled that forcing students to participate in patriotic rituals violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the majority, asserted that compelling students to salute the flag was a form of coerced speech that infringed upon their individual liberties. The decision overturned the 1940 ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which had upheld mandatory flag salutes. Jackson famously stated, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."This ruling reinforced the principle that the government cannot force individuals to express beliefs they do not hold. It underscored the protection of individual freedoms against state-imposed conformity, significantly shaping the interpretation of First Amendment rights in the educational context. The Barnette decision remains a cornerstone in American constitutional law, symbolizing the enduring protection of individual liberties in the face of governmental authority.Large national law firms are increasingly establishing offices in Boston, potentially overshadowing local firms that have operated regionally for decades. This year, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Paul Hastings, and Blank Rome announced new Boston offices, while Covington & Burling, Arnold & Porter, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld did so last year. In a notable move, Goodwin Procter recently recruited a five-partner tech and life sciences team from Cooley in Boston, signaling a consolidation trend in legal services within these sectors. The health and energy industries have remained strong in a sluggish deals market, bolstered by the financial strength of health care giants and incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.The number of law firm openings in Boston has surged over the past decade, with over 40 firms establishing a presence since 2016. This influx includes regulatory-focused firms like Covington and UK-based Magic Circle firms such as Allen & Overy. As large firms move in, regional firms face the risk of losing talent and clients.Despite these developments, the efforts of new Big Law entrants in Boston remain in their early stages, with firms like Simpson Thacher planning deliberate growth to tap into the city's talent pool.Big Law Firms Eye Boston to Tap Hot Tech, Health Care MarketsThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has three new commissioners, which could influence the review process for natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Industry advocates argue these projects are essential to meet rising electricity demand, while environmental groups push for rejection due to the long-term climate impacts of fossil fuels. The newly confirmed commissioners—Democrats David Rosner and Judy Chang, and Republican Lindsay See—join FERC at a critical time. With Commissioner Allison Clements' upcoming departure, FERC will regain a 3-2 Democratic majority for the first time in 18 months.Historically, FERC's decisions on natural gas have been contentious, with a 2022 policy to scrutinize gas projects leading to the end of former Chairman Richard Glick's tenure. The new commissioners have indicated a focus on gas infrastructure, despite past environmental concerns. Chang, for example, moderated her previous stance against new gas pipelines during her confirmation hearing.FERC's decisions are crucial amid growing electricity demands, driven by factors like artificial intelligence and increased manufacturing. Natural gas consumption is at record highs, and new power generation, particularly from gas, is necessary to meet future needs. However, permitting reviews and litigation have slowed the expansion of pipeline capacity. Industry experts stress the need for regulatory certainty to align infrastructure with demand, a sentiment echoed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. The new FERC commissioners face the challenge of balancing these competing interests as they begin their terms.Divisive Gas Reviews Pose Early Test for New FERC CommissionersOn June 13, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee advanced bipartisan legislation to create 66 new judgeships in federal district courts across states like California, Delaware, and Texas. This marks the first major judiciary expansion in over three decades. The committee's unanimous 20-0 vote moves the JUDGES Act to the full Senate for consideration. If enacted, it will be the first comprehensive authorization of new judges since 1990, addressing longstanding requests to manage rising caseloads in 25 district courts nationwide.The last time new judgeships were created was in 2003, but efforts to expand the federal bench have since stalled due to partisan concerns. The current bill mitigates these concerns by incrementally adding the new judicial seats over ten years, starting in January 2025, after the 2024 presidential election. This phased approach aims to prevent any single party or president from gaining an advantage.Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a co-sponsor of the bill, emphasized the urgency of expanding the federal bench to address the growing backlog of court filings since 1990. The JUDGES Act aligns with recommendations from the Judicial Conference, seeking to add judges in districts facing a "genuine crisis of workload."U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad expressed the judiciary's appreciation for the Senate's efforts. The judiciary currently has 677 authorized district court seats and 10 temporary ones, which another Senate-passed bill aims to make permanent.Initially opposed to adding more judges, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley supported the bill after amendments spread the additions over time. The JUDGES Act now plans to introduce the 66 new judgeships in five stages through 2035, with three temporary judgeships in Oklahoma.A companion bill is pending in the Republican-led House of Representatives, backed by Representative Darrell Issa, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's panel on courts.US Senate panel advances bipartisan bill to create new judgeships | ReutersThe proposed $30 billion antitrust settlement between Visa and Mastercard to limit credit and debit card fees for merchants is in jeopardy. U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie in Brooklyn indicated she is likely to reject the settlement, citing her intent to write an opinion detailing her decision. Both Visa and Mastercard expressed disappointment, describing the settlement as a fair and appropriate resolution to the nearly 19-year-old litigation.Announced on March 26, the settlement aimed to address most claims from nationwide litigation, with small businesses making up over 90% of the settling merchants. Businesses have long argued that Visa and Mastercard's swipe fees, which totaled $172 billion in 2023, are excessive and that the card networks illegally prevent them from steering customers to cheaper payment methods. The settlement proposed reducing swipe fees by at least 0.04 percentage points for three years, capping rates for five years, and removing anti-steering provisions.However, objectors, including the National Retail Federation, criticized the settlement as insufficient, arguing that it would still allow Visa and Mastercard to control swipe fees and prevent future claims by merchants. The case, known as In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.Visa, Mastercard $30 billion fee settlement in peril | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by John David Davis.John David Davis (22 October 1867 – 20 November 1942), often known as J. D. Davis, was an English composer born in Edgbaston, near Birmingham. Although he was born into a musical family, Davis was initially sent to Frankfurt to prepare for a commercial career. However, his passion for music led him to study under Hans von Bülow. Davis completed his education in Germany before furthering his studies in Brussels with Léopold Wallner, Arthur De Greef, and Maurice Kufferath.Upon returning to Birmingham in 1889, Davis began teaching music, notably at the Birmingham and Midland Institute from 1893 to 1904. In 1905, he joined the Guildhall School of Music as a professor of harmony and composition and also served as Professor of Solfège at the International Conservatoire in London.In 1919, Davis married Helen Winifred Juta, the daughter of South African judge Henry Juta. The couple lived in Earls Court, London, before moving to Lisbon in 1936. Davis passed away in Estoril, Portugal, in 1942, and his wife later returned to South Africa, where she died in 1952.This week's closing theme is John David Davis' evocative piece, "Summer's Eve at Cookham Lock, Op. 50." Composed in 1916 for the London String Quartet, this work captures the serene beauty of a summer evening at Cookham Lock. Known for its lyrical quality and gentle atmosphere, "Summer's Eve at Cookham Lock" offers a tranquil auditory experience.The piece, also known as an Idyl for string quartet, demonstrates Davis' ability to paint a vivid picture through music. Its delicate melodies and harmonies reflect the calm and reflective mood of a summer evening by the water. This composition stands as a testament to Davis' skill in creating evocative and picturesque musical landscapes, making it a fitting and soothing choice for this week's closing theme. 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

NCLA President Mark Chenoweth recently attended the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference in Austin, TX, where he served as a panelist in a discussion on constitutional challenges to the administrative state and upcoming developments in this area. The panel was so widely attended that the conference scheduled it twice! In this episode, Mark discusses the conference and its highlights with Jenin.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been raked over the coals for his criminality and corruption. Well, he's feeling the pressure and while speaking at a Judicial Conference in Alabama. He spent most of the time whining and crying about the lies people are telling about him and his wife. It's funny with all the evidence I'm not seeing the lies. Let's get into it. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rational-boomer/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rational-boomer/support

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Bill Monahan, Head of S&C's Products Liability & Mass Torts Group, and Shane Palmer, an associate in the Firm's Litigation Group, examine the new proposed Rule 16.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Judicial Conference of the United States' Advisory Committee on Civil Rules recently voted to adopt as the first rule governing multidistrict litigation. They discuss the original proposal for Rule 16.1 that was published last year, the defense and plaintiffs bars' reaction to the proposed rule, and the final proposed rule that was adopted last month and its implications for MDLs.  Since Congress passed the Multidistrict Litigation Act in 1968 and created the MDL process, there have been no specific rules dictating how judges should manage MDLs, beyond the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that apply in every federal civil case. In 2017, the Advisory Committee established an MDL Subcommittee to consider whether new rules should be added to address the unique challenges of MDLs. Rule 16.1, which is designed to guide MDL courts in addressing the various and complex issues unique to MDL proceedings, is the first proposed rule to come out of the MDL Subcommittee's efforts.

This Day in Legal History: Republic of Ireland ActOn April 18, 1949, a significant transformation in Ireland's political and legal landscape occurred with the enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act. This pivotal legislation marked the culmination of Ireland's progressive move towards full sovereignty, severing the last formal ties with the British monarchy. Previously, the Executive Authority Act had designated the King of England as the head of state in Ireland, a symbolic vestige of the colonial relationship that had long influenced Irish governance.The Republic of Ireland Act, passed by the Irish parliament, Dáil Éireann, in 1948, came into effect on Easter Monday, 1949, resonating symbolically with the 1916 Easter Rising, a key event in Ireland's struggle for independence. By declaring Ireland a republic, the Act definitively removed the role of the British monarch in Irish affairs and also led to Ireland's exit from the British Commonwealth. This move was both a statement of national identity and a reflection of Ireland's desire for complete self-governance.The Act also had profound implications for the legal system in Ireland. It entailed the establishment of a presidential office, replacing the governor-general, a representative of the crown. The first President of Ireland, Douglas Hyde, thus assumed a role that was more clearly defined in terms of national rather than imperial allegiance. Furthermore, the Act necessitated adjustments in the Irish constitution and prompted a series of legislative revisions to align national law with the newly affirmed republic status.Internationally, the Republic of Ireland Act altered Ireland's position on the world stage, allowing it to establish and maintain foreign relations as a fully sovereign state. It represented a shift towards non-alignment and neutrality in international affairs, a stance that Ireland has maintained since.The enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act was met with mixed reactions. While it was a moment of patriotic pride for many, symbolizing a definitive break from colonial rule, it also provoked concerns among unionists in Northern Ireland, exacerbating tensions that were already present.Today, the Republic of Ireland Act remains a cornerstone of Irish constitutional law and a testament to Ireland's enduring commitment to self-determination and independence. Its anniversary serves as a reminder of the long and often tumultuous path to establishing a republic that stands as an equal on the international stage.The criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump in New York faced a significant development when a juror was excused after expressing feelings of intimidation due to her identity being partially exposed by the media. This incident highlights the intense scrutiny and pressures surrounding this high-profile case, which marks the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president. The judge, Justice Juan Merchan, took steps to protect jurors' anonymity and issued a partial gag order on Trump following his criticism of court officials and witnesses.The trial centers on allegations that Trump falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Trump, who is concurrently facing three other criminal prosecutions, has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts in the Manhattan case. His legal team argues that no willful violations of the gag order have occurred, despite accusations from prosecutors of repeated breaches by Trump, particularly on social media.The jury selection process reveals the polarized opinions about Trump, complicating the search for unbiased jurors in heavily Democratic Manhattan. The trial's outcome holds significant political stakes, with a Reuters/Ipsos poll indicating that a conviction could sway voters' opinions in the upcoming election. As the trial proceeds, the focus is on forming a complete jury, with opening statements anticipated next week if the jury is fully seated. The entire trial is expected to last six to eight weeks, potentially concluding before the November presidential election.Trump hush money trial loses juror who felt intimidated, judge says | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled that U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett does not need to recuse himself from a case involving a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that caps credit card late fees, despite his son owning stock in Citigroup. The ruling came after concerns were raised about a potential conflict of interest given Citigroup's stake in the outcome of the case, as the company is significantly involved in the credit card industry and is a member of the groups challenging the CFPB's rule.The issue surfaced when Politico reported on Willett's financial interest following a court decision he authored, which moved the case from Texas to Washington, D.C. In response, Willett disclosed that the contested stock was part of his son's education savings account, valued around $2,000. The Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, after reviewing the matter, advised that the connection to Citigroup's performance in the stock market was too indirect to necessitate Willett's recusal.The committee's opinion, authored by U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh, emphasized that the potential effect on Citigroup's stock was speculative and did not directly impact Willett's impartiality in the case. The CFPB rule at the heart of the case seeks to limit what it terms "excessive" late fees charged by credit card issuers, which reportedly cost consumers approximately $12 billion annually. It mandates that issuers with over a million accounts can charge no more than $8 for late payments unless they justify higher fees. This significant reduction from the previously allowed fees aims to curb financial burdens on consumers. The legal battle continues as part of broader discussions about regulatory oversight and consumer rights within the financial sector.US judge in credit card fee rule case doesn't have to recuse, panel says | ReutersCorizon Health Inc., a distressed prison health-care company, has utilized a controversial bankruptcy strategy known as the Texas Two-Step, affecting inmates who face legal challenges due to limited access to resources. This maneuver involves spinning off liabilities to a new entity, Tehum Care Services Inc., which then filed for bankruptcy, impacting hundreds of inmates with pending personal injury claims. These inmates are now in a precarious position as they await Tehum's decision on how to handle their claims, further complicated by their confinement and limited legal knowledge.A recent judicial decision underscored the challenges faced by these inmates; a judge rejected a proposed $54 million settlement for medical malpractice claims, noting that it was unclear if the affected inmates were even aware of the settlement. This situation highlights the broader issue of inmates' difficulty in accessing timely and accurate legal information, a problem exacerbated by their reliance on the prison's mail system, which is notoriously slow and unreliable.Additionally, the case brings attention to the broader implications of such bankruptcy strategies on the prison health-care sector. If Tehum's strategy succeeds, it might set a precedent for other troubled medical providers to follow suit, potentially affecting more inmates. Critics argue that approving such settlements without proper consent from all parties involved is unfair and deprives inmates of their rights to seek further legal recourse.The case also reflects the systemic issues within prison healthcare services, as other companies like Armor Health Management LLC and YesCare Corp face similar challenges with legal claims and financial instability. The ongoing legal battles and the potential setting of a precedent with Tehum's bankruptcy case highlight the urgent need for reforms in how medical care and legal issues are handled in the prison system, ensuring fair treatment and access to justice for incarcerated individuals.Prison Health Company Bankruptcy Poses Unique Hurdles to InmatesA Texas federal jury has determined that Samsung Electronics must pay $142 million to G+ Communications for infringing on G+ patents related to 5G wireless technology used in Samsung's Galaxy smartphones. The jury specified the compensation amounts as $61 million for one patent and $81 million for another. This verdict follows a retrial on damages ordered by Chief U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who questioned the clarity of the previous $67.5 million award given in January, debating whether it should be a lump sum or a running royalty.The lawsuit was initiated by G+ in 2022, accusing Samsung of using its patented technology in 5G-capable Galaxy phones without obtaining the necessary licenses. G+ holds patents that have been recognized as essential for meeting international 5G standards. In defense, Samsung contested the validity of these patents and argued that G+ had not offered licensing terms that were fair and reasonable as required by standards organizations.The case underscores ongoing legal battles over patent rights in the rapidly advancing field of 5G technology, highlighting the significant financial stakes involved. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for technology companies and the enforcement of standard-essential patents. This verdict marks a notable development in intellectual property law, especially concerning the telecommunications industry.Samsung owes $142 mln in wireless patent case, jury says | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day:  An El Paso magistrate judge, on Easter Sunday, let the rioting illegal border crosser go free on personal recognizance bonds and blamed the local district attorney.  More.Also, one of our great historians points out that Mexico's president has become an outright enemy of the United States and has no respect for Biden and his weak administration.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Federal Northern District of Texas will not adopt Judicial Conference guidance on judge-shopping. This is great news! For more, see the collection of stories here.Texas' Third Court of Appeals upholds perverted ruling of Austin judge that the state cannot investigate, for child abuse, parents using pharmacology or medical procedures to attempt to change the sex of their child.Texas Ethics Commission, a.k.a. Clown Court or Unethical Commission, adopts rule to require reporting for paid posts to social media by so-called “influencers.”Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas: The chief judge of the Northern District of Texas says his court will not follow new rules from the Judicial Conference designed to curb "judge shopping": https://www.commondreams.org/news/judge-shopping-texas A Starr County woman has sued the Starr County prosecutor's office over false murder charges they pressed upon her over a self-induced abortion in 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/30/us/texas-abortion-murder-charge-lawsuit.html Severe emotional trauma for an East Texas family whose matriarch was forced to carry a baby with a fatal brain anomaly to term by Texas' draconian abortion limits: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/03/health/texas-abortion-law-mother-cnnphotos/ A Rockwall Southern Baptist Convention pastor is under fire over a misogynistic joke he told at Lakepointe Church recently: https://www.chron.com/culture/religion/article/texas-sbc-pastor-marriage-joke-19376274.php Our state's own data shows that immigrants are less likely to commit homicide than citizens: https://www.latintimes.com/how-us-media-coverage-contributes-polarization-immigration-debate-across-country-552552 Seeking to solidify gains among Latino voters in Texas, a group of Hispanic GOP lawmakers has founded a new caucus: https://www.chron.com/politics/article/texas-hispanic-republicans-19375625.php Progress Texas invites progressive candidates to share their views with us - which we'll then share with our statewide audience - via our Certified Progressive questionnaire: https://progresstexas.org/blog/progress-texas-certified-progressives-2024-progressive-values-questionnaire Instagram users: be sure to enable political content on that platform, which has begun opting users out: https://x.com/ProgressTX/status/1771276124498100667?s=20 Thanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work this election year at https://progresstexas.org/.

This week: Trump catches a break and gets his bond reduced by almost 70%. Hears arguments on the mifepristone injunction that came from Judge Kacsmaryk in Texas. The Judicial Conference puts an end to judge shopping. Plus, we find out what kind of nerd Renato was before his glow-up. For a limited time, save up to 35% at CozyEarth.com and enter COMPLICATED at checkout.Trump Court Cases Cheat Sheethttps://asharangappa.substack.com/p/your-trump-court-cases-cheat-sheet?r=3od4c&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=postWatch us on YouTubehttps://youtu.be/nidx0H8ptcMSubscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Its.Complicated/Subscribe to our podcast https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_Asha's Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Follow Renato on Twitter: https://twitter.com/renato_mariottiFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Follow Renato on Threads: https://www.threads.net/@renato.mariottiOpening Theme and Bumper music provided by eitanepsteinmusic / Pond5 Subscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Its.Complicated/ Follow Asha on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_Asha's Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Follow Renato on Twitter: https://twitter.com/renato_mariottiFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Follow Renato on Threads: https://www.threads.net/@renato.mariotti Opening Theme and Bumper music provided by eitanepsteinmusic / Pond5

This week the Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's expansion of access to the abortion drug mifepristone. GianCarlo discusses that case, oral arguments, and the mess of standing doctrine. After that, Zack interviews Professor John Yoo who gives his expert take on the Trump immunity case and makes his case that originalism is moral. Last up, trivia about the judiciary's own administrative state.You can find Zack's articles about the Judicial Conference here and here. Follow us on X @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this double-guest special, David Lat shares his original reporting on the exodus of Judge Aileen Cannon's clerks and its implications for Trump's classified documents case. Judge David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama then joins to explain the history and function of the federal judiciary and its committees, including the Judicial Conference. The Agenda: —Do younger clerks just not understand hard work? —Judge Cannon's declining reputation —Delays in Trump's documents case —How the federal judiciary came to be —Rule-making process for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure —Multi-district litigation and its criticisms Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

#SistersInlaw LIVE: Get tickets now - politicon.com/tour May 2 - Chicago - Athenaeum Center May 9 - Detroit - Royal Oak Music Theatre May 30 - Boston - Shubert Theatre politicon.com/tour Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to weigh recent developments in Trump's cases, spanning Judge McAfee's ruling on Fani Willis' relationship with Nathan Wade, Judge Cannon's consideration of the Espionage and Presidential Records Acts, and Alvin Bragg's delay in Manhattan.  Then the #Sisters discuss the U.S. Judicial Conference's policy change to limit judge shopping by assigning broadly-reaching challenges to larger, randomly chosen pools of judges.  They also examine the SCOTUS ruling allowing public officials to block people on social media under certain circumstances. Get your #SistersInLaw gear or the perfect gift at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast #SistersInlaw LIVE: Get tickets now - politicon.com/tour May 2 - Chicago - Athenaeum Center May 9 - Detroit - Royal Oak Music Theatre May 30 - Boston - Shubert Theatre politicon.com/tour Get Barb's New Book:  Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Barb's Book Tour  Please Support This Week's Sponsors: Thrive Causemetics:  For 20% off incredible clean and cause focused beauty products, go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters Calm: Perfect your meditation practice and get better sleep with a 40% off a premium subscription when you go to calm.com/sisters  Helix:  Helix is offering 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners! Go to helixsleep.com/sisters and use code: HELIXPARTNER20 Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters Get More From #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Author of Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Patreon subscribers are the backbone of the show! If you'd like to help, here's our Patreon Link:https://www.patreon.com/themarkthompsonshowMaybe you're more into PayPal.  https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=PVBS3R7KJXV24And you'll find everything on our website: https://www.themarkthompsonshow.com#Trump #McConnell #Judgeshopping #Politics#documents #espionage #MichaelShure #MichaelSnyderIt seems Mitch McConnell supports judge shopping. The Judicial Conference of the United States has a new rule that if a case seeks a national injunction to reverse or block a federal government policy, the judge has to be randomly assigned within the district court where the case was filed. McConnell calls the rule an unforced error by the Judicial Conference that will do Washington Democrats' bidding. He want's them to reconsider.Trump's judge slaps him down on dropping espionage charges. US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon was asked by Trump's lawyers to toss out the classified documents case against him. In one motion, they argued the charges against him were too vague.  She disagreed.  She has yet to rule on a second motion that the Presidential Records Act requires the case to be dismissed.  We'll talk to journalist and political analyst Michael Shure about all of this and more.  Here comes Friday Fabulous Florida in all it's glory.  It's like People Behaving Badly infused with a special sauce only Florida can create.  Culture Blaster, Michael Snyder, will be in to talk entertainment from the coolest live shows to the movies and sports too.  He's packing up his bag full of ding words to bring along for his ride on the rainbow.  The Mark Thompson Show3/15/24

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Beware misleading national news service headlines: SpaceX's test of Super Heavy and Starship from Texas this morning was a huge success as well as a big step forward.Space historian Robert Zimmerman of behindtheblack.com joins us to discuss the big test. See: SpaceX's Superheavy/Starship successfully launches. “The flight achieved almost all of its test goals, and far exceeded what was accomplished on the previous test launch in November.”Here is an example of misleading and negative headlines: AP: Third Test Flight of SpaceX's Mega Rocket Ends With Loss of Spacecraft Reuters: SpaceX Confirms Loss of Starship at End of Third Test Flight More local media got it right: KVEO: “Furthest and fastest”: SpaceX successfully launches third Starship Austin Statesman: SpaceX's Starship successfully enters space in third test flight Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Texas' fastest-growing counties in 2023, according to Census Bureau estimates.Bush appointees and others on the U.S. Judicial Conference sellout federalism and conservative states by adopting a rule on “judge shopping” that does nothing but assist Leftists. Justice Ho is right, “Judges are supposed to follow the laws enacted by Congress, not bend the rules in response to political pressure.” Even the turtle, McConnell gets how bad this is. Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

This Day in Legal History: Lots of Things On March 13th, various significant events have unfolded in the realm of legal history, reflecting the ever-evolving landscape of law and justice across the globe. On this day in 1781, Sir William Herschel's discovery of Uranus led to international legal discussions on the naming rights of celestial bodies, a precursor to modern space law debates. In 1868, the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson began, marking the first time a U.S. president faced such proceedings, underscoring the constitutional checks and balances in American governance.Fast forward to 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico established significant precedents regarding states' rights and the commerce clause, affecting how businesses and state regulations interacted. On March 13, 1989, the Internet's precursor, ARPANET, was hit by one of the first major digital security incidents, leading to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 being amended to address such modern challenges, illustrating the law's attempt to keep pace with technological advancements.Moreover, on this day in 1996, the Dunblane school massacre occurred in Scotland, leading to stringent gun control laws in the United Kingdom, a pivotal moment in the global debate on gun regulation. This tragic event underscores how legal systems can rapidly evolve in response to societal tragedies.In more recent history, March 13, 2013, saw the election of Pope Francis, which brought to the forefront discussions about canon law, the legal system governing the Roman Catholic Church, highlighting the intersection of law and religion.These events, spanning centuries and continents, illustrate the dynamic nature of legal history and its profound impact on societal norms, regulations, and governance. As we reflect on these milestones, it becomes evident that the law is a living entity, constantly adapting to the complexities of human civilization.The federal judiciary has introduced a new policy to combat "judge shopping," a tactic where litigants select specific courts hoping for a favorable ruling, particularly noted in challenges to Biden administration actions in Texas. This practice, prevalent in cases aimed at barring or implementing state or federal actions, will now see civil actions randomly assigned to judges within a district, countering any local practices of case assignments to a single judge. This move, according to Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Judicial Conference's executive committee, is a response to the increasing use of national injunctions that have seen district judges block nationwide policies across various administrations. While the policy's full implementation details remain unclear, it represents a significant shift aimed at ensuring impartiality and reducing the perception of the judiciary as politically influenced. The policy has drawn attention to judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk and Alan Albright, who have been focal points for conservative cases and patent cases, respectively. Despite these changes, challenges in areas not affecting state and federal law may still experience judge shopping. The judiciary's move is seen as a step towards fairness, although its effectiveness and scope are yet to be fully understood.Federal Courts Aim to Curb Judge Shopping With New Policy (3)US federal judiciary moves to curtail 'judge shopping' tactic | ReutersThe push towards unionizing student athletes, notably highlighted by Dartmouth College's men's basketball team's vote to unionize, has sparked significant controversy and concern among Republicans and university athletics representatives. This development comes amid debates in Congress, particularly focused on whether student athletes should be classified as employees, a question intensified by the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) decision to allow Dartmouth students to hold a union election. Critics, such as Rep. Burgess Owens, argue that recognizing student athletes as employees poses an "existential threat" to college sports, fearing widespread unintended consequences that could extend beyond NCAA Division I to impact Division II and III, as well as high school athletes.University representatives worry about the implications of employment status on issues ranging from tax exemptions for scholarships to visa eligibility for international students. They also fear the potential for the NLRB's stance to fluctuate with political changes. Proponents of the NLRB's decision, however, argue that past decisions, like the one involving Northwestern University football players, have been misinterpreted and that circumstances have evolved to warrant a reevaluation of student athletes' rights. They advocate for student athletes having a "seat at the table" to negotiate conditions pertinent to their dual roles as students and athletes. This debate gains further complexity considering the recent legal milestones, such as the Supreme Court's NCAA v. Alston case and the NLRB's Columbia University decision, both favoring expanded rights and compensation for students. Amidst these divided opinions, there's consensus on the need for a new approach to how student athletes are treated, with unionization seen as a potential catalyst for change.Unionizing Student Athletes Called ‘Existential Threat' by GOPIn the climax of New York's budget discussions, state Senate and Assembly Democrats have proposed tax increases on high earners and corporations, diverging sharply from Governor Kathy Hochul's stance against income tax hikes. This move aims to address concerns over New York's high tax burden and the outmigration of taxpayers, with progressive factions advocating for these tax hikes to fund education and Medicaid, contrary to Hochul's budgetary constraints. The legislative bodies' budget resolutions, contrasting with Hochul's $233 billion plan, also suggest restrictions on social media for minors and the establishment of an AI research consortium, amongst other priorities.While supporting the enhancement of housing construction and tech regulations, Hochul's budget seeks to manage future deficits through spending limits on public schools and Medicaid, positions not endorsed in the legislative proposals. Despite agreeing on a commercial security tax credit and extending a cap on itemized deductions for the wealthiest, the chambers reject Hochul's approach to school funding, Medicaid spending, and tech governance, indicating a significant battleground.The contention extends to technology policies, where both the Senate and Assembly resist Hochul's proposed AI and social media regulations, though they do introduce other data privacy initiatives. With a looming April 1 deadline and the complexities of Easter timing, achieving consensus appears challenging, especially given Hochul's constitutional leverage and the political implications for upcoming elections. Hochul, emphasizing the urgency to protect children from digital harms, faces a delicate balance between her tech policy goals and securing an on-time budget amidst these divergent legislative priorities.NY Lawmakers' Budgets Oppose Governor's Plans on Taxes, HousingSecuring a summer associate position at a major law firm was significantly more challenging in 2023, with the offer rate to law students at its lowest since 2012. Law firms made 19% fewer offers compared to the previous year, decreasing the average number of offers from 28 in 2022 to 22 in 2023. This reduction in offers resulted in a record-high overall acceptance rate of 47%, as law students found themselves with fewer options to choose from. The decline in summer associate hiring is attributed to a decrease in client demand and the high number of summer associates hired in 2022, leaving firms cautious about adding new talent amidst uncertain client demand. Furthermore, the competition was intensified by a 12% increase in the law student class size for 2024, exacerbating the challenge of securing these coveted positions.Large law firms typically use summer associate programs as a key recruitment tool, offering students six- to 14-week positions that often lead to permanent job offers upon graduation, sometimes with starting salaries up to $225,000. These programs serve as an economic indicator for the legal industry, with firms adjusting their hiring based on anticipated demand. Additionally, the practice of "precruiting," or extending offers ahead of official on-campus interview programs, has risen, with 47% of offers made before these formal events in 2023, up from 23% in 2022. This shift indicates a change in how law firms are approaching recruitment, with most of the decline in offers occurring through school-sponsored interview programs.Law firm summer associate recruiting hits 11-year low in 2023 | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Thursday, January 18th, 2024Today, the Judicial Conference may be investigating the financial disclosure forms of Justice Clarence Thomas; Alina Habba's very bad no good day in court; Democrat Tom Keen has won the special election for Florida's 35th State House District; nearly 50K veterans used free emergency suicide prevention at the VA in 2023; German Chancellor Scholz pledged to provide Ukraine with more than €7 billion in military aid after a phone conversation with US President Joe Biden; Rep Daniel Goldman has filed a censure motion against Elise Stefanik for referring to insurrectionists as hostages; Senate Republicans warn the House that they won't get a better immigration deal under Trump. Plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news. Rep. Goldman Files Censure Motion Against Stefanik for Calling Jan 6 Defendants 'Hostages'https://www.meidastouch.com/news/rep-goldman-files-censure-motion-against-stefanik-for-calling-jan-6-defendants-hostagesJudge threatens to boot Trump from courtroom over loud talking as E. Jean Carroll testifieshttps://apnews.com/article/trump-carroll-defamation-lawsuit-70d4477120399373934253c7e450643eJudicial Conference Indicates Ethics Review of Justice Thomashttps://campaignlegal.org/update/judicial-conference-indicates-ethics-review-justice-thomasDemocrat Keen wins state House 35 special election over GOP's Boothhttps://www.orlandosentinel.com/2024/01/16/democrat-keen-wins-state-house-35-special-election-over-gops-boothSenate Republicans warn House they won't get a better immigration deal under Trumphttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-warn-house-wont-get-better-immigration-deal-trump-rcna134348 How We Win The House 2024!https://swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin2024Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/products/fani-t-willis-teeSubscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily BeansFrom the Good Newshttps://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-servicehttps://www.charlesgadeken.com/elder-mother Have some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily BeansHow We Win The House 2024!https://swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin2024Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/products/fani-t-willis-tee Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.com Subscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewrote

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The products and fuel are going to rise in the new year. The ships are being diverted and they are spending more money on war insurance. Retailers are reporting that they are not seeing the bump in holiday purchases. The economic narrative is falling apart. The [DS] is making moves against Trump, but the more they do the worse it is getting. The people are now being shown who the real dictators are. Colorado decided to remove Trump from the ballot, but did you see what they really did? Trump wants the people to know who the enemy of the people really are. They are interfering in the election which means these same people cheated in the 2020 election.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy 100 Container Ships Diverted, Insurance Surges As Red Sea Chaos Worsens Global transport and logistics company Kuehne + Nagel International AG reports more than 100 container ships have been rerouted from the Red Sea around Africa to avoid Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen who attack commercial vessels with missiles and drones. For commercial vessels still transiting the vital waterway that connects to the Suez Canal, Bloomberg noted in a separate report that the cost of insuring jumped this week from about .1% to .2% of the hull value to .5%. A $100 million vessel must pay about $500,000 per voyage. Increased insurance costs plus more extended travel around the Cape of Good Hope only suggest snarled supply chains and increased prices of goods.   Source: zerohedge.com Majority Of Small Businesses Not Seeing Holiday Bump As Consumers Run Out Of Cash: POLL In a poll of small business owners, 76% said that they had not seen an increase in sales during the holiday season as inflation and other economic conditions constrict consumers' cash, according to Goldman Sachs. Of small business owners surveyed, 55% said that their profit margins decreased this year, and a further 70% said that their own personal spending plans for their families were negatively impacted following their own assessment of the state of the economy, according to a poll by Goldman Sachs conducted from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8 of 337 small retail business owners. Consumer spending previously slowed in October as the Americans' savings declined to $768.6 billion in the month, down from the over $1 trillion held in May and even further from the all-time high of almost $6 trillion held in April 2020  Around 67% of small businesses surveyed noted the decline in relative sales was due to consumers having less disposable income, and around 31% noted the hardship the rise of online shopping has had on brick-and-mortar businesses, according to Goldman Sachs. Another 67% noted that the economy in 2023 is tougher than in previous years. Source:  dailycaller.com  Political/Rights Ketanji Brown Jackson slapped with ethics complaint over husband's income Group says Supreme Court justice omitted portions of husband's income on disclosure forms for years — A conservative policy group has filed an ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for "willfully" omitting required income disclosures for years while serving on the federal bench. The Center for Renewing America, a think tank led by former senior Trump White House official Russ Vought, sent a letter to the Judicial Conference with allegations that Jackson "willfully failed to disclose" required information about her husband's malpractice consulting income for more than a decade.

On November 14th, in the context of legal history, the story of Ruby Bridges stands out as a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, particularly in the desegregation of American schools. Born on September 8, 1954, in Tylertown, Mississippi, Ruby Bridges became a symbol of the civil rights movement on November 14, 1960, when she became the first African American child to integrate an all-white elementary school in the South, specifically William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans, Louisiana.At the tender age of six, Bridges' entry into the school was not just a simple walk through its doors. Escorted by federal marshals amidst a hostile crowd, her brave step was a significant action following the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional.Bridges' integration of the school was the result of hard-won legal battles led by the NAACP, which sought to enforce the Supreme Court's decision. Her courage became a national symbol of the struggle to end segregation, challenging the status quo and societal norms of the time.Despite facing daily harassment and isolation (she was the only student in her class as others were pulled out by their parents), Ruby's perseverance was remarkable. Her teacher, Barbara Henry, from Boston, was the only one willing to teach her, and together they spent a year in a classroom, just the two of them.Her story highlights not only the legal struggles associated with civil rights but also the human element within these battles. The image of young Ruby, depicted in Norman Rockwell's painting "The Problem We All Live With," has become an iconic symbol of the civil rights movement.Ruby's journey was not just a legal milestone but also a deeply personal story of courage and resilience. It underscored the power of law to bring about social change and challenged Americans to confront their prejudices and work towards a more equitable society.In later years, Ruby Bridges has continued to be an active voice in the civil rights movement. She established the Ruby Bridges Foundation in 1999, promoting the values of tolerance, respect, and appreciation of all differences.On November 14th, we remember not just a legal victory in the annals of American history, but also the extraordinary courage of a little girl who stood up against racial segregation and in doing so, helped to change the course of history. Her legacy serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for racial equality and the importance of education in shaping a more just society.The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted its first-ever code of conduct in response to recent ethics controversies involving its justices. The code primarily consolidates existing principles and doesn't significantly change how the justices operate. It lacks a public complaint system or external review for alleged violations, aiming instead to clear up misconceptions about the justices being exempt from ethical rules. The move follows reports of Justice Clarence Thomas receiving extravagant gifts from a Republican megadonor, raising questions about the court's impartiality.Critics, like Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, have welcomed the step but point out the need for enforceable mechanisms to ensure compliance. The new code incorporates some rules from the Judicial Conference, like broader disclosure requirements for private plane flights and commercial property lodging, but stops short of a complaint system like that for lower federal judges.Chief Justice John Roberts has directed a review of best practices, but no concrete enforcement process or timeline has been established. All nine justices, including Thomas, who has faced intense scrutiny for his financial dealings and conduct related to the 2020 election, have signed the new code. The court's decision reflects ongoing discussions among the justices, with some expressing support for the initiative in recent months.Supreme Court Adopts Code of Conduct Amid Ethics Revelations (2)Under fire, US Supreme Court unveils ethics code for justices | ReutersU.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith accused former President Donald Trump of trying to create a "carnival atmosphere" at his trial over charges related to the 2020 election defeat. Smith argues that televising the trial, as Trump supports, would lead to distractions from the charges and a public relations campaign. This accusation follows Trump's behavior during a recent civil fraud case in New York, where he often evaded direct answers and made political statements. Trump's lawyers claim that not broadcasting the trial is part of a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration. Prosecutors oppose televising the trial, citing a longstanding rule against broadcasting criminal cases in federal court. Trump, facing four criminal prosecutions, has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including conspiring to illegally subvert the 2020 election results.Special counsel says Trump seeking 'carnival atmosphere' at 2020 election trial | ReutersThe Texas law firm Jackson Walker claims it was misled by former partner Elizabeth Freeman about her relationship with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones, who handled cases for the firm. Freeman had initially assured the firm that her relationship with Jones had ended, but it was later revealed they had been living together. This conflict of interest led to Jones' resignation in October after it became public. The U.S. Trustee is now seeking the return of millions of dollars Jackson Walker earned in cases presided over by Jones. The firm, however, did not disclose the relationship even after learning of it in March 2021, violating bankruptcy rules that require extensive disclosures of connections. Jackson Walker's lack of standard checks for relationships between its staff and judges has raised questions about the integrity of the bankruptcy system, with the U.S. Trustee arguing that the undisclosed relationship compromised the fairness of all cases involving the firm and Judge Jones. The situation further escalated when Freeman, after leaving Jackson Walker to start her own practice, was appointed by Jones to a lucrative position in a mediation case, without disclosing their relationship.Law firm tied to bankruptcy judge resignation says former partner lied | ReutersA lawsuit filed in Manhattan accuses the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and over two dozen brokerages, including the Corcoran Group and Douglas Elliman, of conspiring to artificially inflate real estate agents' commissions in Manhattan residential sales. This follows a recent Missouri federal jury verdict awarding $1.78 billion in a similar case against the National Association of Realtors, which could potentially be tripled. The lawsuit claims that commissions in Manhattan remain at a stable 5% to 6%, despite soaring home prices, contrasting with more competitive markets like Brooklyn where commissions are lower and negotiated separately. The plaintiff, Monty March, argues that REBNY's listing service unfairly requires sellers to pay high commissions to buyers' brokers, citing his own experience of selling an Upper East Side apartment with inflated commissions. REBNY plans to change its rules from January 1, requiring sellers to directly pay commissions to buyers' brokers, aiming for more transparency. However, March questions if this will actually lead to lower commissions or create delays in sales negotiations. The lawsuit seeks damages for sellers who paid buyer brokers' commissions under REBNY rules in the last four years.Manhattan real estate brokerages are sued for inflating commissions | ReutersAmazon is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that it engaged in an "illegal internet gambling enterprise" by distributing casino-style apps and processing payments for virtual chips. The suit, filed by a Nevada resident who claims addiction to these online slot games, accuses Amazon of partnering with virtual casinos to offer over 30 illegal casino apps. This follows a 2018 U.S. appeals court ruling that deemed "social casino" apps illegal under Washington state law. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon, by offering these apps, effectively brought slot machines into consumers' homes continuously. Amazon has not yet responded to the lawsuit.Edelson, the law firm representing the plaintiff, is experienced in such litigation, having secured substantial settlements in related cases. The firm's Todd Logan, leading the gambling practice, expressed eagerness to bring the case before a jury. The games in question are free to play, offering virtual chips instead of cash payouts, but require users to purchase more chips to continue playing. The lawsuit contends that Amazon is aware of the illegality of these social casinos yet maintains a 30% financial interest in them. The plaintiff's lawyers estimate the class size to be tens of thousands, seeking damages and restitution. This case adds to ongoing legal challenges against tech giants like Apple, Meta, and Google over their roles in processing payments for social casino apps.Amazon sued over 'dangerous partnership' with virtual casino apps | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this day, June 9th, in legal history Warren Burger succeeded Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.On May 21, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon put forth the nomination of Burger to become Chief Justice of the United States. This appointment received confirmation from the Senate on this day, June 9, in 1969, and Burger assumed office on June 23, 1969. The Burger court, in addition to being the court that convicted and sentenced the Hamburgler, was the last liberal court to date. It was the court under which Roe v. Wade and the New York Times v. United States, which permitted the Pentagon Papers to be published, were decided.In July 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed Burger to lead the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. Throughout his tenure as Chief Justice, Burger also held the positions of Chairman of the Judicial Conference of the United States and Chairman of the Federal Judicial Center from 1969 to 1986. After serving for seventeen years, Burger retired from the Court on September 26, 1986. Even after his retirement, he continued to direct the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution from 1986 to 1992. On June 25, 1995, at the age of eighty-seven, Burger passed away.It's like Groundhog Day but way lamer, Donald Trump is indicted again.Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on seven counts in the special counsel's classified documents probe, marking the first time a former president has faced federal charges. The charges against Trump include obstruction of justice, destruction or falsification of records, conspiracy, false statements, and a charge under the Espionage Act. The investigation focuses on Trump's handling of classified documents brought to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after leaving the White House. The indictment came as a surprise to law enforcement officials, and preparations are underway for Trump's expected court appearance in Miami. This federal indictment adds to Trump's legal challenges, as he already faces criminal charges in New York. Trump's allies have rallied to his defense, while Democrats and some Republicans believe the indictment demonstrates that no one is above the rule of law. The investigation into Trump's actions regarding the classified documents began when the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and seized thousands of documents, including some marked as classified. The probe has included the testimony of multiple witnesses before grand juries in Washington, DC, and Florida.Trump Indictment in Florida Heads Off Defense Attack on VenueDonald Trump indicted on 7 counts in classified documents probe | CNN PoliticsThe US Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit brought by Jack Daniel's Properties Inc., the maker of Jack Daniel's whiskey, in a trademark dispute over a dog toy called "Bad Spaniels" that mimics the design of the whiskey bottle. The Supreme Court's unanimous ruling is a victory for Jack Daniel's and a setback for VIP Products LLC, the company behind the toy. The case explored the boundaries of trademark rights and First Amendment claims. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of VIP Products, stating that the toy was an expressive work protected by free speech. However, Justice Elena Kagan, writing the opinion for the Supreme Court, overturned that ruling and stated that the so-called Rogers test, which allows trademark use in expressive works if it is artistically relevant, did not apply in this case. The case will now go back to the lower courts, where the focus will be on whether consumers are likely to be confused by the Bad Spaniels toy and mistake it for a product of Jack Daniel's. The decision could potentially make it easier for trademark holders to sue companies that create parodies of their marks on commercial goods.Jack Daniel's Wins Supreme Court Bid to Sue Over ‘Bad Spaniels'OpenAI LLC, the organization behind the artificial intelligence program ChatGPT, is facing a defamation lawsuit filed by a Georgia radio host named Mark Walters. Walters claims that ChatGPT generated a false legal complaint through its chatbot feature, accusing him of embezzling money. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT provided this false information to Fred Riehl, the editor-in-chief of AmmoLand, a gun publication, who had requested a summary of a real-life legal case involving the Second Amendment Foundation. Instead, ChatGPT allegedly provided a summary falsely stating that Walters was being sued for defrauding and embezzling funds from the foundation. Walters, who is not involved in the actual case, asserts that every statement pertaining to him in the summary is false. The lawsuit highlights the growing concern over the truthfulness and reliability of AI-generated outputs, as similar cases of misinformation and fabricated information have arisen recently. OpenAI has not yet commented on the lawsuit.OpenAI Hit With First Defamation Suit Over ChatGPT HallucinationThe American Bar Association (ABA) has approved a new law school entrance exam developed by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. The JD-Next program, which includes an eight-week online course, aims to provide prospective law students with a taste of law school and assess their ability to learn the material. The approval currently applies only to applicants to the University of Arizona law school, but other schools can seek ABA permission to use the exam. The University of Arizona was the first to incorporate the GRE alongside the LSAT for law school admissions in 2016. JD-Next seeks to address racial score disparities often observed in standardized tests like the LSAT. The Law School Admission Council, which produces the LSAT, emphasized the LSAT's effectiveness as a predictor of law school success and its role in promoting diversity. JD-Next participants have shown improvement in their first-year law school performance, with a .2 increase in grade-point averages compared to non-participants. The program is currently free, and plans are underway to establish JD-Next as a separate testing entity.New law school admissions test developed by Univ of Arizona gets ABA approval | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We have an interesting this day in colonialism, I'm sorry legal, history today: on May 19, 1848 Mexico ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, ending the Mexican–American war and ceding about half of Mexico's territory to the United States. The treaty did not explicitly list the territories to be ceded and avoided addressing the disputed issues that led to the war, such as the validity of Texas's independence and its boundary claims. Instead, it established the new U.S.-Mexico border, describing it from east to west as the Rio Grande northwest to the southern boundary of New Mexico, then due west to the 110th meridian, and north along the 110th meridian to the Gila River. From there, a straight line was drawn to one marine league south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego.Mexico conceded about 55% of its pre-war territory in the treaty, resulting in an area of approximately 1.97 million km². The region between the Adams-Onís and Guadalupe Hidalgo boundaries, excluding the territory claimed by the Republic of Texas, is known as the Mexican Cession. It includes present-day California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, and parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming.The treaty protected the property rights of Mexican citizens living in the transferred territories and required the United States to assume $3.25 million in debts owed by Mexico to U.S. citizens. Mexican residents were given one year to choose American or Mexican citizenship, with over 90% opting for American citizenship. Article XI of the treaty addressed Indian raids into Mexico, but it proved unenforceable, leading to continued raids and later annulment in the Treaty of Mesilla.The land acquired through the treaty became part of nine states between 1850 and 1912, including California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The cost of the acquisition was $16,295,149, or about 5 cents per acre. The remainder of New Mexico and Arizona was later peacefully purchased through the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, which aimed to accommodate a transcontinental railroad. The construction of the railroad was delayed due to the American Civil War but was eventually completed in 1881 as the Southern Pacific Railroad.Five TikTok users from Montana have filed a lawsuit in federal court to challenge the state's ban on the Chinese-owned platform. The ban, signed into law by Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, is set to take effect on January 1, 2024, and prohibits TikTok from being offered on app stores operated by Google and Apple within the state. The users argue that the state is overstepping its authority by attempting to regulate national security and suppress speech, which they believe violates their First Amendment rights. They compare the ban to banning a newspaper due to its ownership or published ideas. Montana's attorney general, Austin Knudsen, who is responsible for enforcing the law, expressed readiness to defend it against legal challenges. TikTok, owned by China's ByteDance, has faced calls for a nationwide ban in the United States over concerns of Chinese government influence. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include a swimwear designer, a former Marine Corps sergeant, a rancher, a student of applied human physiology, and a content creator who earns revenue from humorous videos. TikTok has denied sharing data with the Chinese government and condemned Montana's ban as an infringement on First Amendment rights. The case has been assigned to Judge Donald Molloy, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1995. Violations of the ban could result in fines for TikTok, but not users (for now).TikTok users file lawsuit to block Montana ban | ReutersThe US Supreme Court has issued a ruling in a patent dispute between Amgen Inc. and Sanofi/Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., clarifying the scope of the patent law requirement known as enablement. The decision affirms a narrow interpretation of the requirement, allowing more pharmaceutical companies to compete in the same areas of research and development. The ruling prevents a single company from monopolizing an entire research area through broadly defined patents and raises questions about the validity of certain antibody patents. The court upheld a lower court's decision to invalidate two Amgen patents related to its cholesterol drug Repatha, emphasizing the need for patent applications to provide enough information to enable others in the field to make and use the claimed invention. The decision cites historical cases to support its interpretation of the enablement standard. The ruling is expected to have implications for the biotech industry, potentially de-risking projects for companies with antibody intellectual property and encouraging more research and development. Inventors are likely to file longer patent applications and focus on concrete examples to avoid invalidation of their claims. The decision also casts doubt on the convention of conservative amino acid substitutions being covered by patent applications.In Amgen-Sanofi Decision, High Court Sticks to Patent Law ScriptThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 7-2 decision that state militias, including the Ohio National Guard, can be compelled to engage in collective bargaining with unions by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that state militias function as federal agencies when employing technicians who have both civilian and military roles. As a result, the FLRA has jurisdiction over them concerning those employees. Ohio had argued that the U.S. Department of Defense, rather than state militias, should be responsible for negotiating with unions representing technicians. The decision upholds the power of the FLRA to hear disputes between the National Guard and unions, based on a ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, contending that the FLRA's authority is limited to federal agencies and that National Guards do not become federal agencies solely through delegated tasks.U.S. labor agency has power over state militias, Supreme Court rules | ReutersCrypto exchange FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in November, has initiated legal action to recover over $240 million it paid for stock trading platform Embed. FTX has filed three lawsuits in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, accusing former FTX insiders, including founder Sam Bankman-Fried, Embed executives, including founder Michael Giles, and Embed shareholders of misconduct. FTX alleges that Bankman-Fried and others misused company funds to acquire stakes in Embed without conducting proper investigations. FTX closed the Embed acquisition just weeks before its bankruptcy, and the current CEO described the actions leading to the collapse as "old-fashioned embezzlement." FTX's recent attempt to sell Embed resulted in an offer of only $1 million from Giles, indicating a significant disparity between the acquisition cost and the company's actual value. FTX claims that Embed's software was essentially worthless and alleges that little investigation was conducted before the purchase. FTX seeks to recover $236.8 million from Giles and Embed insiders and $6.9 million from Embed minority shareholders.FTX seeks to claw back over $240 million from Embed acquisition | ReutersThis is a bit of news that actually dropped last week, but kind of flew under the radar. The Judicial Conference's Executive Committee has determined that the COVID-19 emergency no longer impacts the operation of federal courts. As a result, a 120-day grace period will begin on May 24, during which federal courts can maintain remote public audio access to civil and bankruptcy proceedings, similar to the arrangements made during the pandemic. However, the grace period does not extend to virtual criminal proceedings, which ceased on May 10 as permission granted under the CARES Act expired. The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management will continue to assess potential changes to the broadcasting policy for civil and bankruptcy proceedings based on data collected during the pandemic and is expected to present a report in September.Judiciary Ends COVID Emergency; Study of Broadcast Policy Continues | United States CourtsDeutsche Bank has agreed to pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit filed by women who claimed they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier. The settlement resolves a proposed class action and addresses accusations that Deutsche Bank facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking activities by failing to identify red flags in his accounts. Epstein was a client of the bank from 2013 to 2018. The settlement is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who has scheduled a preliminary hearing for June 1. Two similar lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase & Co, another bank associated with Epstein, remain unresolved.Deutsche Bank to pay $75 million to settle lawsuit by Epstein accusers | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It appears law firm financials are heading in a positive direction. The Thomson Reuters Institute's Law Firm Financial Index rose 14 points in the first quarter of 2023, marking the first increase since Q2 2021. The index found that billing rate growth remained healthy, up almost 6% over the past year, and law firm direct expenses grew more slowly in Q1. Practices such as litigation and labor and employment saw increased demand in Q1 compared with the previous quarter. However, the index also noted a decline in profits-per-lawyer and lawyer productivity over the past 12 months. The report found a divergence between the largest and midsize law firms, with midsize firms seeing an increase in demand and headcount growth but also an increase in direct expenses. In contrast, Am Law 100 firms saw direct expense growth kept to less than 5% but experienced a decline in demand for their services.Law firm financials heading in the right direction, report finds | ReutersPeter J. Schwartz, a Pennsylvania man, has been sentenced to 14 years in prison for assaulting police officers with pepper spray outside the U.S. Capitol during the January 6 riot. Schwartz, who was convicted last December, was found to have been at the forefront of the mob that attacked police at the lower west terrace of the Capitol. He boasted later that he had "started a riot" by "throwing the first chair". Prosecutors said Schwartz seized a police duffle bag full of pepper-spray canisters and handed them out to others in the mob, including his wife, so they could turn them against police officers. Schwartz was found guilty on four counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and six other charges, including obstructing an official proceeding and entering a restricted building with a dangerous weapon. His 170-month prison term surpasses the previous longest sentence yet handed down in a case related to the Jan. 6 attack. At least 950 people have been charged and more than 600 convicted for their roles in the Capitol rampage.Man who pepper-sprayed police gets 14 years in longest Jan. 6-related sentence | ReutersFlorida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a bill that grants a new board he controls the authority to void development agreements its predecessor signed with Walt Disney. The bill passed the Republican-controlled legislature largely along party lines. The Central Tourism Oversight District Board, whose members are appointed by DeSantis, can cancel any deals signed up to three months before the board's creation. The move comes after Disney and DeSantis have been in a feud since last year when Disney criticised a new state law banning classroom instruction of sexuality and gender identity with younger children. I anticipate this will be a topic of discussion on Esquiring Minds later this week, so don't forget to jump over to there if you're interested in hearing an actual expert, Jacob Schumer, discuss the latest news on the Disney–DeSantis brouhaha. DeSantis signs bill allowing Florida board to cancel Disney deals | ReutersThe governance arm of the federal judiciary is being called upon to investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas again following recent reports on his undisclosed financial ties to Texas billionaire Harlan Crow. The move has brought the judiciary's process for enforcing financial reporting rules under scrutiny, with long-running concerns that it is inadequate for such matters. A red flag had previously been raised about the handling of public allegations of wrongdoing against Thomas over a decade ago, sparking internal process changes. US District Judge Mark Wolf raised concerns in 2012 that the Judicial Conference of the United States was being kept in the dark and shut out from reviewing complaints against Thomas. Wolf's objections led to changes in the process that should now formally notify the conference of complaints against Thomas and how they're handled. This latest controversy, like the one in 2011, has caused a national debate about how the judiciary enforces ethics rules and the Supreme Court's lack of a binding code of conduct.Justice Thomas Ethics Review Questioned by US Court Leader in 2012The US Justice Department has reached a settlement on antitrust concerns surrounding Swedish lockmaker Assa Abloy's $4.3bn purchase of Spectrum Brands' Hardware and Home Improvement unit, allowing the deal to proceed. The Justice Department had sued to block the acquisition in September 2022, arguing that it would limit competition in the residential door hardware industry and raise prices. The settlement requires Assa Abloy to divest some of its brands to Fortune Brands Innovations, which will acquire Emtek, Schaub, Yale and August brands from Assa Abloy. The deal still needs to be approved by a judge. Spectrum Brands' CEO David Maura said the agreement was a "critical milestone toward putting HHI [Spectrum's hardware unit] in the hands of Assa Abloy".DOJ Settles Antitrust Case, Clearing Way for Assa Abloy Deal - WSJA National Labor Relations Board judge has ruled that Starbucks Corp. broke US labor laws when it fired five union activists who appeared in a news report filmed inside a closed store in Memphis, Tennessee. Starbucks terminated the workers in February 2022, alleging that their meeting with the news crew had taken place without the company's approval. But prosecutors alleged that the firings had been motivated by retaliation against workers' attempts to form a union. The judge also found that the coffee giant had committed other unfair labor practices in the Memphis store, including the temporary closure of the site to frustrate a union demonstration. However, the judge found that the termination of two of the workers was lawful. The company said that it was evaluating the decision. Exceptions must be filed by June 1.Starbucks Illegally Fired Union Activists, NLRB Judge Rules (2) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, reflected on his career and work as a judge at the Tenth Circuit Bench-Bar Conference Fireside Chat on September 2, 2022. This podcast features excerpts from that discussion. Incoming Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes and outgoing Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich interviewed Justice Roberts for this program.  Justice Roberts began by responding to news media comments about the Supreme Court's legitimacy after decisions during the 2021-22 Term changing established precedents. Those decisions included the Court's landmark ruling overturning abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. __ (2022).  This podcast also features Justice Roberts' comments about: 1)         his role presiding over the Judicial Conference of the United States and serving as Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution; 2)         his work in the early 1980's as a law clerk for Justice William Rehnquist, including law clerks' basketball games in that era with Justice Byron White; 3)         his work in private practice and the U.S. Solicitor General's office as an appellate specialist before becoming a judge; 4)         why he enjoys the job as Supreme Court Chief Justice, and his explanation of the behind-the-scenes collegiality which exists among the current justices;  5)         how he seeks to write court decisions that are clear for both lawyers and non-lawyers; and6)         how he deals with welcoming new justices to the Court and its decision making process, and with the stress of deciding complex cases.

The IRS plans to use more than half of its $80 billion in new funding to increase enforcement efforts on large corporations and wealthy individuals who are not paying their fair share of taxes. The agency will devote $47.4 billion to auditing “taxpayers with complex tax filings and high-dollar noncompliance,” including large corporations and complex partnerships. The agency has seen a decline in its staff of auditors working on large, complex cases, which has reduced its ability to maintain sufficient audit coverage. However, the new funding will enable the agency to hire more accountants, attorneys, data scientists, and specialists, and boost the size of its enforcement workforce by more than 7,200 by fiscal 2024. The IRS will also increase its scrutiny of digital asset transactions, listed transactions, and certain international issues that it has not had the resources to fully examine in the past. The stepped-up audits will not affect those earning less than $400,000 a year, as promised by the Biden administration. The increased enforcement efforts are not only important in their own right, but they will also increase people's willingness to pay the taxes they owe and maintain their trust in the fairness of the tax system.IRS to Devote Much of $80 Billion to Auditing Rich Taxpayers (1)Students at New York University School of Law are demanding pay or academic credit for working on law journals. Currently, students who work on law reviews, which are considered a stepping stone to elite legal circles, do so without pay or academic credit. The students argue that the lack of compensation limits access to law review membership, as only those who can afford to work for free are able to participate. The students also contend that the reflected prestige of law journals benefits the university, and that the cost of paying students is reasonable given the high tuition fees at NYU Law. The administrators have met with students to discuss the issue, but no decisions have been made. While NYU does offer academic credit to third-year students for checking citations, it does not compensate students for their journal work. Law firms value law review experience as a training ground and as a way for budding lawyers to distinguish themselves from their peers, and students at NYU hope that paying law students for journal work will become a precedent at other law schools.Making Law Review Is Career Gold. NYU Students Want Cash TooSenate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin has announced that his committee will take action following a ProPublica report that revealed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury trips from a Dallas-based GOP donor. The report detailed gifts of trips on private yachts and jets and luxury accommodations over two decades, which Thomas never reported. This appears to violate a Watergate-era law requiring justices and other federal officials to disclose most gifts they receive. The nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges who aren't formally bound by a code of conduct. Durbin called the report a “call to action” and said it shows the high court needs a statutory code of conduct. Another Democratic senator, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, said the report will give fresh momentum to his long-standing drive for legislation that would require the Judicial Conference of the United States to create a code of ethical conduct for the Supreme Court.More specifically, the ProPublica report outlines how Clarence Thomas has taken luxury trips every year for over two decades with Dallas businessman and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, without disclosing them. If he had chartered the plane and yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Thomas is a public servant with a salary of $285,000. He has vacationed on Crow's superyacht, flown on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet, and spent about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks. The extent and frequency of Crow's apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Through his largesse, Crow has gained a unique form of access, spending days in private with one of the most powerful people in the country. By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges' conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said. ProPublica uncovered the details of Thomas' travel by drawing from flight records, internal documents distributed to Crow's employees, and interviews with dozens of people.Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor — ProPublicaClarence Thomas Luxury Gift Report Prompts Ethics Code Talk (1)Global mergers and acquisitions activity has declined to its lowest level in over a decade in the first quarter of 2023, with the total value of global announced M&A deals reaching $580bn, down 44% from the same period last year, according to data from Refinitiv. The decrease in activity is due to rising interest rates, high inflation, and recession fears, leading companies to be cautious in dealmaking. Leading law firms have been impacted by this decline, with fewer deals being advised on and a smaller combined value of deals.Law firms share the pain as global M&A deals dry up | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) is reportedly considering directing a significant portion of the costs related to recent bank failures towards big banks. The FDIC is facing around $23bn in costs related to the recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, which have reportedly left the deposit insurance fund set to take hits. Officials are believed to be looking at limiting the strain on community lenders by shifting a sizeable portion of the expense towards much larger institutions, some of whom could already face multi-billion-dollar bills. This approach is being seen as the most politically acceptable option. Questions have been raised about who will pay for the failures, particularly after a decision to backstop all of the banks' deposits. These moves saved tech start-ups and wealthy customers, whose balances far exceeded the FDIC's typical limit on coverage. Talks about the size and timing of an assessment are in the early stages. FDIC Considers Forcing Big Banks to Pay Up After $23 Billion HitA proposed new rule change for the management of multidistrict litigation proceedings (MDLs) has been met with a lukewarm reception from plaintiffs' attorneys. The proposed new Rule 16.1 outlines procedures for an initial management conference and advises the court to order parties to meet and provide a report before the first management conference. It also allows the court to enter a management order that controls the proceedings. However, some plaintiffs' attorneys have questioned the need for new rules, saying that judges already have the tools to manage mass litigation effectively. They also argue that the proposed rule would replace judicial education with rigid standards, limiting the creativity of judges and parties to craft orders and procedures. Defense attorneys have also criticized the proposal for ignoring real problems with MDLs, such as appointing leaders and ensuring adequate representation of all plaintiffs. Some have said that MDL judges prefer to avoid rules with teeth to force settlement rather than engaging in pre-trial proceedings. The proposed rule is currently open for public comment, pending approval from the Judicial Conference's Standing Committee in June.Multidistrict Litigation Rules Proposal Gets Chilly ReceptionThe Senate has approved a Republican-led resolution to overturn President Biden's “Waters of the US” (WOTUS) rule that expanded the definition of bodies of water protected by the Clean Water Act. The House had earlier passed a similar resolution. Neither chamber's vote was large enough to override a presidential veto, which the White House has confirmed will happen. The Biden rule essentially reinstated an Obama-era regulation that gave a broader definition of navigable waters and wetlands, which are subject to federal environmental protections. The interpretation of what qualifies as a body of water has been debated for 15 years, with the definition being narrowed or expanded according to the administration in power. Republican lawmakers argue that the WOTUS rule unfairly penalizes Americans and hinders growth. Democrats argue that the resolution will only increase uncertainty over water regulation, threatening the economy, agriculture, and clean water. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue this year. Republicans have introduced a bill that would narrow the WOTUS regulation by excluding rain-induced "ephemeral waters" and other small waterways from federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.Senate Reverses Biden Water Rule, Courts White House Veto (1)Weds 3/22 - Global Lanham Act Reach, Federal Waters in Texas and Idaho, Justice Delayed for Trump and Arkansas StinksA New York grand jury investigating former President Donald Trump's alleged role in a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels is expected to take a pre-scheduled break in April and is not expected to reconvene on the matter until after Easter. If indicted, Trump, who denies an affair took place, would become the first U.S. president to face a criminal charge in court. Trump faces several other criminal investigations, including one tied to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. He maintains his false claims that his 2020 defeat was the result of fraud. N.Y. grand jury probing Trump to break for most of April -reports | ReutersIn the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, Prosecutors have requested that US criminal charges be dropped against two former SocGen bankers for allegedly trying to rig the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR). The former head of SocGen Treasury desk in Paris and her boss were charged in 2017 with preparing inaccurate Libor submissions in 2010 and 2011. The US Attorney did not provide reasons for the request to dismiss the case.By way of very brief background, the LIBOR scandal refers to the manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a benchmark interest rate used in financial markets around the world, by a number of major banks. The scandal broke in 2012 when it was discovered that traders at banks including Barclays, UBS, and Deutsche Bank had colluded to manipulate the LIBOR rate, artificially inflating or deflating it in order to benefit their trading positions. LIBOR was supposed to reflect the interest rate that major banks in London charged each other for short-term loans. It was used as a benchmark rate for financial products such as mortgages, loans, and derivatives. The rate was set daily by a panel of banks, and it was supposed to represent the average interest rate at which banks could borrow money from one another. However, the scandal revealed that some of the banks on the panel were manipulating the rate to benefit their own trading positions and profits, leading to a loss of trust and credibility in the financial industry. The banks were fined billions of dollars by regulators and faced public backlash, leading to reforms of the benchmark rate-setting process. The scandal highlighted broader issues of misconduct and lack of accountability in the financial industry.U.S. prosecutors move to drop Libor case against ex-SocGen bankers | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Thanks for reading Minimum Competence! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX, has been charged with foreign bribery by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, adding to the 13 criminal counts he is already facing, including securities fraud, money laundering, and campaign finance violations. The charge stems from an alleged $40m bribe that Mr. Bankman-Fried instructed his employees to pay to Chinese officials in 2021 to unfreeze accounts held by FTX's sister company, Alameda Research. The accounts held roughly $1bn in cryptocurrency. The payment was allegedly made in cryptocurrency and was successful in getting the accounts unfrozen. The charge was brought under the Foreign Corrupt Business Practices Act. Mr. Bankman-Fried was released on bail, but he is confined to his parents' home in Palo Alto, California. Three former executives who worked closely with Mr. Bankman-Fried have already pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the authorities.Sam Bankman-Fried Is Charged With Foreign BriberyThe US federal judiciary has introduced tighter financial disclosure guidelines for Supreme Court justices and other judges relating to gifts, meals and personal hospitality paid for by others. The changes, which took effect on 14 March, were outlined by the Judicial Conference and aim to clarify regulations around financial reporting exemptions. The exemption now only applies to gifts of a personal nature such as meals, entertainment or lodging, and not to travel or gifts received at properties or facilities owned by businesses. The rules also require justices and federal judges to disqualify themselves where impartiality could be questioned, including conflicts of interest related to financial holdings. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has welcomed the new regulations and called for more transparency around the personal ties of justices.New Gift Disclosure Rules Extend to Supreme Court Justices (1)US Supreme Court justices get tougher rules for reporting free trips, gifts | ReutersAdnan Syed, the subject of the 2014 podcast "Serial," had his conviction reinstated after the brother of murder victim Hae Min Lee won an appeal vacating a Baltimore court's decision to release him from prison. Syed has maintained his innocence since his 2000 conviction for the murder of Lee, his ex-girlfriend, and Maryland prosecutors vacated his convictions and life sentence in 2019 after an investigation found undisclosed evidence in support of alternate suspects. However, Lee's brother appealed after the circuit court vacated the convictions, alleging that the state violated his right to attend the hearing by giving him only a day's notice. The decision vacated the circuit court's decision, thereby reinstating Syed's original convictions and sentence pending a new hearing. Syed's counsel has pledged to take the case to the state's highest court, the Supreme Court of Maryland.‘Serial' Subject Adnan Syed's Convictions Reinstated (2)The New Jersey State Bar Association, along with the deans of Rutgers and Seton Hall law schools, are calling on the judiciary to remove question 12B from the character and fitness application for bar admission. The question requires applicants to disclose any mental health issues they have and the treatment they receive. Those who seek to change the rule claim that the disclosure requirement prevents law students with mental health issues from seeking help. A survey of mental health among 1,537 New Jersey attorneys found that 10% of respondents reported suicidal ideations, a rate three times higher than other working populations. New Jersey State Bar Association President Jeralyn Lawrence has directed her request to Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, saying that 26 other states have either eliminated, substantially modified, or never used mental health status questions on their bar applications. Rutgers Law School said that it has seen a "marked increase" in the incidence of students reporting to school with mental health concerns. Seton Hall Law added that research showed that "mental health and treatment questions are unrelated to the competent practice of law."Judiciary Urged to Eliminate Mental Health Question From Bar Application | New Jersey Law Journal Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Do you think Judges who hate Black people should be allowed to decide cases? What about Judges who hire law clerks who–allegedly– “hate black people”; is that okay? The U.S. Judicial Conference reopened investigations into Judges William Pryor and Corey Maize regarding the hiring of Crystal Clanton, who purportedly sent a text message that said she “hates black people.”  I bet you never thought about the influence law clerks have over the cases that come before the Judges they serve. It is time to break the unwritten lawyer code of not talking about the power and influence of Judicial Law Clerks. Georgia State University Law Professor and author Eric Segall joins host Mary Whiteside to peek behind the bench and talk about what law clerks really do and how much silent power they wield.  Find the podcast on Twitter @courtpod or drop an email at mayitdispleasethecourt@gmail.com. We would also love to rate and review the show. It helps others find the program. Sources Cited Supreme Myths Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/supreme-myths/id1523903890  Supreme Myths - Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780313396878  https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/author/ericsegall/ https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2021/10/15/law-professor-calls-for-mea-culpa-from-judge-and-law-clerk-over-racist-rant/?slreturn=20220012161752 https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/judge-pryor-cleared-of-allegations-involving-hiring-of-controversial-clerk/X3JAHI2TQBCUBMTQ5MDHO56FU4/  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/08/crystal-clanton-racist-comments-william-pryor-clerkship/  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/18/clerk-texts-appeals-court-clanton/  https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/federal-judges-cleared-misconduct-after-hiring-clerk-accused-racism-2022-01-14/  https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judicial-panel-orders-probe-into-hiring-clerk-accused-racism-2022-07-08/

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure. States may determine their own rules, which apply in state courts, although 35 of the 50 states have adopted rules that are based on the FRCP. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

NCLA Files Brief in License Plate Data Collection Case NCLA has filed a reply brief in Raul Mas Canosa v. City of Coral Gables, Florida, et al., the lawsuit challenging the city's use of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to collect and store geographic location data of drivers. The city's warrantless surveillance infringes the privacy rights of residents like Raul Mas Canosa, who is suing over the use of ALPRs. 4 Ill-Considered Decision Revives Judicial Misconduct Complaint The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States revived a judicial misconduct complaint against 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' chief judge, William Pryor, and U.S. District Judge Corey Maze, over their hiring of a clerk accused of making discriminatory statements. Vec discusses the charges against Judges Pryor and Maze. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, January 28, 2020 The Left Takes Aim at Conservative Judges https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-chief-justice-roberts-must-overrule-the-judiciarys-outrageous-assault-on-the-federalist-society Josh Hammer, Editor at Large of The Daily Wire writes: “The Judicial Conference of the United States, an arcane body established by Congress and led by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, is responsible for helping establish the national policy guidelines that govern the administration of the federal courts. Alas, the Conference is arcane no longer. Over the past week, the Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, which oversees federal judicial ethics, has forced a national conversation by launching an absolute wrecking ball of a draft advisory opinion. The Committee, which is chaired by Judge Ralph Erickson of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, has 15 total members: Eight Democratic presidential nominees, five Republican presidential nominees, and two others. The Committee's advisory opinion, if formally implemented by the Committee, would “advise[] that formal affiliation” with both FedSoc and the American Constitution Society (ACS), FedSoc's (much) more overtly political progressive counterpart, “is inconsistent with” the governing Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Specifically, the Committee states that “although neither [FedSoc nor ACS] is a ‘political organization'” under the Code, “their activities nevertheless implicate [the Code's] broad prohibition against political activity” — whatever that is supposed to mean. What's worse, the draft opinion also holds that federal judges' law clerks and staff attorneys must not join either FedSoc or ACS. But on the other hand, membership with the leftist, remarkably biased American Bar Association (ABA) “does not raise these same concerns and is not necessarily inconsistent with the Code.” Hammer points out that the Federalist Society takes no positions on political issues, but exists solely in defense of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, that is, that words have definite, objective meanings, and should be interpreted according to those meanings at the time of writing. This shared commitment leaves room for much discussion and debate among originalists. By contrast, the left-leaning legal associations, the American Constitution Society and American Bar Association frequently publish many legislative opinions across the political policy spectrum and generally hold that the Constitution is a “living document,” and may be interpreted according to the changing whims of American culture. Hammer finds the notion that the ABA does not raise these same concerns “ludicrous.” He also points out that the long term effect of something like this will discourage young conservative law students from joining the Federalist Society, leaving them with fewer networking opportunities, generally fewer jobs, and likely additional pressure to keep their opinions or questions to themselves.  No doubt all of this is a result of Trump's aggressive work to re-balance the American judicial landscape. To date, he has nominated 239 individuals, of whom 187 have been confirmed by the Senate. As of January 2, 2020, there were 80 vacancies, and 35 had pending nominations. Most, if not all, of Trump's judicial nominations have been members of the Federalist Society.  Sanctuaries for the Unborn https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/us/sanctuary-cities-for-unborn-anti-abortion-texas-trnd/index.html CNN: Ten towns in Texas have voted to declare themselves "sanctuary cities for the unborn," with most adopting ordinances that outlaw abortion within city limits. At least 13 cities are considering such ordinances, and three -- Mineral Wells, Omaha and Jacksboro -- have already voted against them.  Most of the towns that have enacted the pro-life ordinances have populations of less than 6,000 people. None have abortion clinics. The town of Waskom, with a population of 1,900, became the first "sanctuary city for the unborn" last June, according to the movement leading the charge across Texas. The town of Gary, with a population of 300, became the latest one last week. While Mark Lee Dickson, leader of the Sanctuaries For the Unborn movement and the director of Right to Life of East Texas was quoted by CNN, claiming that criminal penalties would be retroactively applied if Roe v. Wade is overturned, I don't really trust CNN's ability to report news, but it hasn't generally been considered lawful to prosecute people retroactively.   But regardless, there are at least two things to applaud here and encourage: First, the goal for sanctuary cities should initially be something like the underground railroad, and this means that cities that pass these ordinances should be thinking broadly about how they will support these ordinances as communities. The goal should be to have as many citizens and local businesses and lawyers and law enforcement officers committed to defending life and providing for those in need. These important steps toward resisting unjust laws need the support of entire communities. This support should be thought out in terms of providing for mothers in need, sort of city-wide Pro-life network that can provide shelter, counseling, prenatal care, food, clothing, and even assistance after the birth of children, and so on. Sanctuary cities need to give thought to how they will actually be sanctuaries for the unborn.  It may not be long before mothers are literally running for help and support to these cities, and if that happens, you better believe that the legal pressure will come against these cities with even more force. And that leads to the second point, which is that we really do need civil magistrates who are willing to play chicken with the judges and federal enforcers of unjust laws. This need not come to violence, but there is a long and venerable history of peaceful civil disobedience that needs to be cultivated in our cities, with regard to abortion, sexual morality, and marriage, among other things. To our great shame, only Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk stood her ground in 2015 following the Supreme Court's hilarious Obergefell decision, claiming that two dudes can get married.  Citing personal religious objections to homosexual marriage, Davis began denying marriage licenses to all couples to avoid issuing them to homosexual couples.[2][3] A lawsuit, Miller v. Davis, was filed, and Davis was ordered by the U.S. District Court to start issuing marriage licenses. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but her application was denied. Davis continued to defy the court order by refusing to issue marriage licenses "under God's authority";[2] she was ultimately jailed for contempt of court. Davis was released after five days in jail under the condition that she not interfere with the efforts of her deputy clerks, who had begun issuing marriage licenses to all couples in her absence. Davis then modified the Kentucky marriage licenses used in her office so that they no longer mentioned her name. May the Lord be pleased to raise up thousands of Kim Davises who are willing to cheerful defy the insanity of our courts. This is what I mean by playing chicken with them. Make them come and stop us. Make them come and arrest us. And if whole cities and counties, and perhaps, Lord willing, whole states stand together, peacefully resisting the murder of unborn babies, and sodomite mirage, and drag queen story hours, it will at least make their lives really difficult. Which, I think is a very godly thing to do.  The Wuhan Coronavirus is Making Headlines https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-01-27-20-intl-hnk/index.html The US State Department has ordered personnel working at the US Consulate General in Wuhan to depart for the United States, a State Department official told CNN in a statement, with a flight currently scheduled to leave on Wednesday. As of now 82 people have died and more than 2,700 cases have been confirmed, including 13 places outside of China. Nearly 60 million people are affected by full or partial lockdowns in Chinese cities. 5 cases have been confirmed in the U.S. China's health minister reported Sunday that the virus can spread even before symptoms show, making it even more difficult to contain.  Coronaviruses are common in many different species of animals, including camels and bats. Rarely, these coronaviruses can evolve and infect humans and then spread between humans.  This is why Coronaviruses are called “zoonotic,” meaning they are transmitted between animals and people. Common signs of infection include fairly ordinary cold and flu symptoms, with somewhat more intense respiratory issues. And now everyone listening with a cold wonders if they're infected.  Moments like these are good reminders that human beings are but a breath. The Lord took Kobe Bryant and his daughter and their friends in an unexpected moment this last weekend, and God rules every atom, every germ, every virus in His perfect wisdom. God has struck nations with plagues before, and there is no reason why He couldn't again. Despite all of our medical advances, for which we ought to be very grateful, God is still sovereign and men are smoke in the wind. While God has sent plagues in judgment on men for their wickedness, plagues have also been moments of glorious opportunity for followers of Christ to serve and love the sick and dying. In the early church, Christians became famous for their care of the sick and dying in various Roman plague outbreaks. When pagans left their family members behind, Christians cared for the abandoned, no doubt leading many to a saving knowledge of Christ in the process, and of course many succombed to the sicknesses themselves, not considering their own lives more valuable than the glory of laying them down for the cause of Christ.  Whatever becomes of this Wuhan coronavirus, may the Lord find us faithful at our tasks each day, gladly laying our lives down in obedience to our King, fearless of death, because our King has suffered in our place and now He holds the keys of Death and Hades, and we can never die.  This is Toby Sumpter with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, January 28, 2020. You can find this show and past episodes and all the shows on the Fight Laugh Feast Network at CrossPolitic dot com. If this is a helpful resource for you, please consider sharing it with a friend and becoming a club member. Not only will you be supporting this work, you will also get exclusive access to a number of behind the scenes interviews, master classes, and more. See you tomorrow. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States reenacts proceedings around this seminal case over commerce regulation. Show notes available in the post at https://coyote.works/2021/Gibbons.html.

The Judicial Conference of the United States reenacts proceedings around this seminal case over state's rights. Show notes available in the post at https://coyote.works/2021/McCulloch.html.

The Judicial Conference of the United States reenacts proceedings around this seminal case over treason. Show notes available in the post at https://coyote.works/2021/Burr.html.

The Judicial Conference of the United States reenacts proceedings around this seminal case. Show notes available in the post at https://coyote.works/2021/Marbury.html.

On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Freedom of Association in the Legal Profession."The Code of Judicial Conduct for federal judges and the Code of Judicial Conduct template for state judges, as modified by the States, both recognize the propriety of judges engaging in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with their role as judges, and counsel judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in those activities. The federal and state templates differ, at least in part, because federal and state judges are selected in different ways. Put simply, we do not want our judges to hide in an ivory tower, but we also want them to behave as judges when providing the benefit of their experience. And, while we want judges to interact with the bar and the public, lawyers must be aware on the limitations on such judicial contacts. As a result, the notion of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary will be evaluated and enforced in different ways in each arena.In January 2020, a draft advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct suggesting that federal judges ought not to be members of the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, but may be members of the American Bar Association, became public. That draft advisory opinion was based less on the actual activities of those organizations than on a belief that the public participation of judges in those organizations would further contribute to a public perception that judges are not non-partisan actors. The draft opinion was withdrawn, but its effects have lingered as lawyers, judges, law clerks, and law students have had to tiptoe around its implications.This panel will consider some fundamental questions that swirl around the extrajudicial activities of judges, including those raised by the now withdrawn draft advisory opinion. For example, what are the core values that support the federal and state rules, and how do they differ? To the extent that we focus on public confidence in the judiciary, how should we evaluate it? Is public confidence in the judiciary capable of empirical evaluation or a matter of a priori judgment? Whose judgment matters: That of an average person? A reasonable person? A reasonable lawyer? A regulator applying one of those artificial constructs? What rules apply to a judge’s membership, holding office in, or participation in an organization, or writing and speaking?Featuring:Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.)Mr. W. William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law FirmHon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Chris Newbold:               Hello and welcome to episode five of our podcast series, The Path to Well-Being in Law, an initiative of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being. I'm your co-host, Chris Newbold of ALPS Malpractice Insurance and our goal here is simple. To introduce you to cool people doing awesome work in the space of lawyer well-being and in the process, build and nurture a national network of well-being advocates content on creating a culture shift within the legal profession. I'm joined by my incredible tag team partner, Bree Buchanan. Bree, welcome.Bree Buchanan:             Thanks. How are you?Chris Newbold:               Good. Today, we're going to turn to a critical element of the well-being picture and that's judicial well-being. So often when we think about well-being, we think about it through the lens of practicing lawyers under the guise of lawyer well-being. But today we're going to look at the judge side of the equation and we have a recognized leader in our space and a fellow member of the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being, Judge David Shaheed of Indiana. Bree, would you be so kind to introduce our guest?Bree Buchanan:             Absolutely, I'd be delighted and I'm truly honored. Judge Shaheed is such a wonderful person that I've gotten to know over the past six or seven years, and he's a delight to work with. So, let me introduce everybody to him. Judge Shaheed is a judge in the Marion Superior Court, Civil 1. He came into that position in August of 2007. Prior to that, Judge Shaheed preceded over the Drug Treatment Diversion Court and Re-entry Court. He served on the Court Alcohol and Drug Programs Advisory Committee and was former chair of the Problem-Solving Courts Committee for the Judicial Conference of Indiana. In addition to serving on the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program in Indiana, he's a former member of the ABA's Commission on Lawyer's Assistance Programs and former co-chair of the Judicial Assistance Initiative for CoLAP. Judge Shaheed, welcome, we're so glad you're with us.Judge  David S.:              Thank you very much. It's an honor to be here.Chris Newbold:               Yeah. Judge Shaheed, I think one of things we love to do with our guests is just an introductory question which is what brought you into the well-being movement? Were there experiences in your life or other drivers that led you to have a passion for this kind of work?Judge  David S.:              Yes. Well, I think, for most people, at least in my community, there's always been somebody in the broader community not in my immediate family that's struggled with issues of depression, sometimes with substance use problems. So, I knew first hand how difficult that could make life for a person. The human dimension to the story. And so when I became a judge and was assigned to a criminal court and then I also had the opportunity to work with a drug treatment diversion court and then later was able to start a re-entry court of ex-offenders. It was a way to take life's personal experiences and build on those personal experiences to hopefully change the lives of people that I came in contact with in the courts.Bree Buchanan:             Terrific. Judge Shaheed, we heard in our last couple episodes from the author of the lawyer research study, Patrick Krill and then we heard from the author of the law student research study, David Jaffe. Now, we're rounding out the third leg of the three legged stool and hearing from you about the critical research that's been done in a sphere around judicial stress and resilience and you've been at the center of that national research project. So, could you tell us a little bit about that?Judge  David S.:              Yes. Well, that research associated with the National Task Force as most people may remember had a number of recommendations and one of those recommendations is that there be a survey of judges, especially with respect to stress, the effects of stress and also with respect to resiliency. There had been a survey with prospective law students. There had also been a survey done with respect to lawyers. It was one of the key recommendations especially with the judiciary, that there be a survey of judges dealing [inaudible 00:04:54] and also resiliency.Bree Buchanan:              So, what was the purpose of the research? What did you all set out to find?Judge  David S.:               Well, the purpose of the research was to actually get involved with judges and try to determine the sources of stress, the effects of that stress and then also to have a positive part, not just talk about the things that were going wrong and the things that were difficult, but also to get feedback from judges as to techniques or tools that they were using to work to try to deal with that stress. We know that when people are stressed out, when people are suffering from difficulties related to their work, sometimes there are unhealthy habits that take hold. And so since wellness is an important [topic 00:05:58] across all professions and the legal profession is also a part of that, the resiliency part with respect to what judges are doing in a positive way to deal with wellness and to deal with stress in a positive way.Bree Buchanan:           And there was a coalition of groups. Who all was involved in getting that project together because it was a big one?Judge  David S.:               Yes. It was a big project and probably the principal researcher, the person that I listen to the most, the expert was Professor Swenson. He is with the St. Scholastica College in Minnesota and also another minister of contact was Joan Bibelhausen, who is the Executive Director of the Lawyers Concern for Lawyers program in Minnesota. Yourself as representative of CoLAP during that period of time, and then also Katheryn Yetter, who is with the National Judicial College. There're perhaps premier organization associated with the education of judges. They put on many programs for judges throughout the year. And they had the role associated with having the judges that participate in their programs to respond to the survey so that we had good results. There are over 18,000 judges across the country, and we were fortunate to have over a 1000 judges in fact, 1034 judges participate in our survey.Bree Buchanan:              Wow. That is great.Chris Newbold:                Wow. Yeah, that's a great response.Judge  David S.:               Yes, very good.Chris Newbold:                Very good. Yeah. I'm curious what some of your key findings were and from your perspective, were there anything surprised you in the findings?Judge  David S.:              Well, the resiliency activities and interests, those were probably something that I hadn't really suspected when we initially thought about the survey, it's obvious you wanted to quantify as best as possible the sources of stress. So the ranking of the sources of stress [inaudible 00:08:47] and then also the effects of stress, there were about 34 effects of stress that were listed. But then there were also about 13 activities or interest including meditation, walking, exercises that judge were relying upon to effectively deal with stress in a positive way.Bree Buchanan:              And judge, I've read the research and I helped out on that some, and the thing that struck me was it seemed that judges overall compared to lawyers generally were fairing a little bit better than lawyers. But was there anything in the research that caused alarm?Judge  David S.:               Yes. Two things. It was not [inaudible 00:09:46] percentage, but 2.2%, and the figures sticks out in my mind because you have to remember there were over a 100 participants in the survey, but of that number 2.2% had [inaudible 00:10:03] aside. In other words, the stresses of the job were so significant that they had actually considered suicide. So to me, that was a big concern. A then also we all know about the availability of alcohol in our society. And so about 9.5% of the judges, especially in 2019 identified problematic drinking as one of the effects of stress.                                          And actually the 9.5 is a little higher than what is found in the general community of people over the age of 25, because it's around 6%. It's a little higher for lawyers, but the 9.5 is still problematic when you consider the stresses of the job and that some of our colleagues in the judiciary are using alcohol to cope with the stresses of their work.Bree Buchanan:             Right. And that is concerning. Absolutely. I remember another thing that was found out of the research was that there was data gathered of what judges were doing to improve their resiliency and what they wanted to know more about. And we looked at that gap there and where there was a big gap between what they were doing and what they wanted to do. We're thinking about honing in on that. Can you talk about a couple of those practices or things that judges wanted to do more?Judge  David S.:              Yeah. Well, one of the troubling and I'll just mention two, for a new judge because becoming a judge in the US especially a trial judge, I'll just speak of that in most states involves an election of some type. And so it's not like in Europe where they have a track or where you are a solicitor or whether you are on the ban, but in the US, the judge typically comes from the lawyer ranks. And so there's no real training to become a judge. So that's a concern especially for new judges, because they feel ill-equipped for the task of being a judge. They don't really feel that there is the proper support to help them be successful, and judges work in a silo. And so [inaudible 00:12:53] in a practice group law office, there's always a senior associate or partner that you may be able to go to. So you're on your own with respect to that.But another aspect that we have found to be helpful is the judicial round tables. There's an excellent report out of Texas about the success of the round tables. They started for the most part in New York because they've had a lot of success with round tables, but the round tables are just an opportunity for judges to get together and talk about the work that they do, not so much in terms of cases and case law and statutes and procedures, but mainly about the work itself and how you cope with that work, how you deal with that work. So that's an important part of the discussion as well.Bree Buchanan:              Absolutely. And just one more thing. When will the study be published? When can we expect to see that?Judge  David S.:               Yeah. The study is going to be published in the ABA Professional Lawyer, and we're in the process now of ABA review, I think for many who are aware and familiar with the American Bar Association, it's quite a bureaucratic institution. And so we're in the process of, they're completing their review but we're hoping to have it published in The Professional Lawyer of the ABA by the end of the year.Chris Newbold:                Got you. And one of the things I think is interesting particularly for any of our non-lawyer listeners is just how all the different types of judges that are out there. I mean, when you really think about the breadth of the judiciary, I mean, you've got municipal judges and justice [crosstalk 00:15:01]. You got district court judges, you got appeals judges, you got specialty court judges. And so I'm just curious on your perspective of whether there are... My sense is that there are certain types of positions on the bench that are more prone to the stress and the interaction with clients.Obviously, the higher you go up on the appellate side, probably the less interaction you have with real people. And so I'm just curious on whether the findings of the report or your personal experience tend to steer toward your judicial well-being being more of a challenge in certain parts of the judiciary.Judge  David S.:               One of the concerns, and it's talked about in the literature, and it's also found in the research is secondary trauma, or post-traumatic stress disorder and we tend to associate that with combat situations and our service people who are in military situations, but trauma can be experienced in a variety of ways. We know that there is trauma that the children experience. If they're in a household where there is domestic violence, that's a trauma. If they see violence in the family, that's trauma. So that kind of drama and trauma that is seen in the family situation, sometimes bubbles into the courts in cases of abuse or neglect. And there are judges that have to look at the probable cause, they have to look at reports with respect to how children are being mistreated and abused and cumulatively, seeing that kind of information on a daily basis, a daily diet of abuse and neglect takes a toll on the individual.Also, we're familiar with criminal courts where there are absolutely horrific events that take place. They cause the loss of life or the injury to people or the assault of individuals. And again, judges have to hear that information, sometimes have to see a horrific scenes that are part of the evidence associated with the death of a person. And so that's just part of the job. And so a stale, a daily diet of that kind of information eventually takes its toll on a human being. Takes a toll on a person. So one or two things happen, a person sometimes becomes numb to what they're seeing, so they become somewhat detached. In other words, the daily diet of that kind of information just numbs and individuals. So they see it, but then they block it out.And that's not good because then they become almost robotic in terms of doing the technical parts of the job. But to those who are a part of that court system with that kind of judge, they notice that there's something missing and that's not a good thing. So one of the other parts or one of the other aspects that is causes problems for the judiciary is burnout, because after so long, a daily diet or that kind of information causes one to just burn out. And so they start pulling away from the job and jobs satisfaction goes down and many of them are just looking for an exit or a way to get out of that kind of a court.I can recall recently elections in my county where I heard stories about one judge who was really suffering from burnout in a criminal court, basically just started continuing cases because he knew that he was going to be leaving the court at the end of the year. So there became about a six month backlog of cases that got continued. And so for those individuals who were trying to have their cases resolved, they basically suffered because the judge was burned out. So those are just a couple of ways that it manifests itself when judges are overwhelmed by the ugly side or the ugly aspects of their job.Chris Newbold:                Yeah. And it seems like such an interesting challenge both on the front end, because you're elevated out of the lawyer ranks. You're elevated to the bench and there's got to be a shock to the system at that point of just, "What am I doing?" You're trying to figure this out. There's all these new emotions that are coming your way. We know there are schools that try to help judges adapt to that, but there's really emotions there. And then as you said on back end of their career you suffer the burnout side of things where this means you figure it out, you start to then go down and put down the road of just, "This is just being tough." And it's such an interesting as you think about it from a... I'm at an age right now and soon approaching 50 that a lot of my friends are elevating to the bench. And a lot of times you elevate to the bench and you go under an island a little bit. Right? And-Judge  David S.:              Right. Yeah. And that's another aspect you've really touched on is the isolation because we're collegial people. One of the things that has been pointed out by the pandemic is that in many places in the world, people have become familiar with the idea of quarantine. And we have learned most of us, at least that that's not really a comfortable idea to just isolate yourself. And we've been told as much as possible, we should isolate ourselves. And my age group pretty much the mantra. For anybody over 60 isolate yourself, don't be in contact. And so it's a little unnatural because we like to be in community, we like to be able to interact with people.So one of the downsides of becoming a judge is the isolation, because the collegial aspect of life when you're in a practice group or when you're with a law firm, or when you're with any kind of legal work in an organization, you can ask for advice, you can just kind of bounce ideas off people, sometimes about cases that you have, but when you become a judge and you have your own caseload that you're responsible for, it's not like you can go to another judge and say, "Hey, look, I've had this case, what do you think I should do?" Because for the most part, they have their own case load and so you don't want to seem weak and not up to the job. So you basically go to your office or on the bench, you try to figure it out as best you can, but it is an isolating proposition.And so that takes a toll as well. And it's not like you can go home and share the details of your troublesome caseload with your family. So it's a rather lonely job. And then when you have to make monumental decisions, life-changing decisions about people, typically those are made by yourself. It's not like you take a committee vote, you have to make the decision and then you have to live with the decision, both with respect to appeal but also with respect to the emotional toll that it takes on yourself. And then thinking about the consequences of your decision on the lives of other people. So it's a weight that doesn't go away, and it's a weight that is unlike a lot of other professions, especially in the legal profession.Chris Newbold:                It certainly feels like a heavyweight of a job from an emotional perspective, a lot of weight on those shoulders-Judge  David S.:               Yes it is.Chris Newbold:                There’s obviously glory in the role, but real world, real family ramifications in both the decisions and the contemplation. Let's take a quick break here and hear from our friends at ALPS. And I'd like to come back on the conversation and talk about why the judicial system should to be paying close attention, not just to the judiciary totality of the profession more generally.Bree Buchanan:              Welcome back everybody. We're here with Judge David Shaheed, who is a member of the National Task Force and a member of the Judiciary. And he's talking to us about wellbeing among the judiciary in the United States. And Judge Shaheed, I think particularly with the task force report, we're really starting this well-being movement across the country. And a piece of that is for the judiciary. Could you talk a little bit about why the judicial system should be paying attention to wellbeing? What happens when wellbeing is not really addressed?Judge  David S.:               Well, the role of the courts in our life in America is one of the most important roles that there are. I mean, just the number of TV shows that focus on judges in terms of reality shows and then also drama that involve the courts. There's always been a fascination with the courts. And the rule of law in a very serious sense, is probably one of the hallmarks or most significant aspects of our democracy. And so most people don't spend their lives in course. We have professionals of course, lawyers and judges and so forth, but the average person may not ever get to a court, but if they come to a court that is going to be an experience that they seldom forget. And so the interaction that they have with the judge is going to mark them and influence what they think about the courts and the rule of law in America.So we want everybody to be at their best. When we go to a doctor's appointment, we want the doctor to be at their best and any kind of interaction that we have, we want the person that we're interacting with at their best. And since judges are making life-changing decisions, the wellness of those judges is an essential concern for all of us. And we know that if judges are well, their decisions reflect that. A part of the study has shown that with research that depending upon the time of day that judges make decisions, they're more positive in the early parts of the session and they trail off toward the end.But we want to have judges at their best during that entire process because that forms what the average citizen thinks about our courts, and about our judiciary, and about this principle of justice of being fair to everyone that comes before the courts. And so the rule of law and the administration of justice through the courts is one of the hallmarks of our democracy and that's the reason why it should be of concern that we have judges who are well and healthy on the bench.Bree Buchanan:              Wow. That's a great answer. I've never heard it put so clearly in such dramatic terms.  That's great. And now of course, we're in the midst of a pandemic. We're hitting the sixth month of this. And you're still presiding over cases in court. What is it like right now in the judicial system to try and carry on justice during a pandemic?Judge  David S.:               Yes. Well, since late February, early March everybody's life all over the world has changed and the courts and judges are not immune to that. For a period of time, basically from March, maybe until mid-May, there were basically only emergency court hearings and definitely not hearings where people were coming to court. In many cities, in many communities, the courts have been for the most part closed, and they're gradually starting to open up. And so just like we're on a Zoom call for this podcast, the courts have been using Zoom primarily at least in Indiana as the primary mechanism to have non-emergency hearings. So that has been a tremendous change because two quick points about this for judges.The second source of stress for judges is heavy dockets. So when you consider that for two and a half months or most, there were no court activities at all. There's a backlog that has developed in the criminal courts and civil courts all throughout the court system. And so I can tell you right now, the judges are stressing of how are they going to get that backlog work down. So that's one concern for judges and that adds to stress. The other part is that judges like routine, all of us like routine. And so within a short period of time, all of us as judges have had to become familiar with the technology of operating a court for the most part electronically.In most states there is e-Filing, which helps somewhat but for the most part judges have had to adapt and the staffs have had to adapt to the technology associated with conducting a hearing remotely. Where the judge is in one place, maybe in one location in one state, and then the parties may be in other states at least in other locations and still the business of the court has to get done. So this adjustment causes additional stress because we know how to do things the way we did them in 2019, but the reality is the way we operated as judges in 2019 is not the same way we're operating as judges toward the end of 2020. So those kinds of adjustments are additional stressors as they say, but that's the reality of the work that we're doing.Chris Newbold:                Yeah. Change, change, change, change, right?Judge  David S.:               Yes, absolutely.Chris Newbold:                I mean, backlogs and new technologies and new ways of operating a courtroom. I am curious Judge Shaheed, as you think about the courtroom, I think your answer was so eloquent I think on the role of the judge, you also preside over the totality of the courtroom and that includes the attorneys that are before you ultimately are officers of the court. I'm curious on your perspective with respect to them and what you generally see in the courtroom. When you see hints of attorneys who are before you who might be struggling in terms of [inaudible 00:33:40] situation, we've even seen essences of alcoholism in courts and strange behavior. I'm just curious on your perspective on the interplay between your role on the bench and then those officers of the court and what role you have in terms of both identifying challenges and then being part of the solution.Judge  David S.:               Well, I can remember over the Drug Court in Marion County, an incident where a lawyer who showed up for a hearing had cocaine drop out of his pocket before he was able to get into the court room. So that part was easy because he ended up getting arrested right there in court before the court session started. But sometimes you see impairments. A judge wants to have a fair trial in particular, if you're over a criminal court you have to be concerned about the defendant having a fair trial because from two respects, you want to have a fair trial because you don't want to have an appeal based upon the lawyer representing the defendant not being affected, but also from the standpoint of fundamental fairness. You want to make sure that as much as possible there's an equal playing field and both sides or both parties are being properly represented.So it does create a problem and an immediate problem with respect to how you get through that hearing, but then there's other ethical problem for you as to what you do when you witness signs of impairment. Fortunately, in all states there are lawyers assistance programs. And so those lawyers' assistance programs are a vital asset to the legal community, because if you see a sign of impairment or something that doesn't look exactly right, and many times lawyers you've seen them over not only months, but over years. And so you can call the Lawyers Assistance Program, mention what you have observed and then the Lawyers Assistance Program can reach out to that lawyer or sometimes a judge and to volunteers, I've done it myself just check on the person and say that you're just there to see or to ask them if everything was okay.And again that's when the real benefits of Lawyers Assistance Programs so that judges or any other professional can alert the Lawyers Assistance Program in their state that there may be an impairment or there may be some other issue that is interfering with that legal professionals' performance of their professional duties.Chris Newbold:                We should note that Judge Shaheed is an active leader in the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. And thank you for your contributions there, because I think your perspective is particularly important. Now, let's maybe wrap it up with one final question Judge Shaheed, which is overall, are you optimistic are you pessimistic about judge resiliency and then the ability to cope with the stressors of the bench obviously with the pandemic going on right now? What have you seen, what do you think we are now and where do you think we're going?Judge  David S.:               Well, let me give a formal plug for the article that's going to come out this year, Stress and Resiliency in the US Judiciary. That represents, I think a milestone or a high watermark with respect to information that will guide in particular those judges who are presiding judges over their courts or those judges who are administrators for the judges in their district or circuit so that they have concrete information from which they can tailor programs to assist the judges. Without the data, it's hard to have a justification to have a wellness program for the benefit of judges in district, for example.But with this report coming out, once it becomes public, then those presiding judges, those chief judges of those districts can say, "Now I have information that can guide me to start around table for judges on a monthly or quarterly basis or to have programs on wellness." So it gives judges and the judiciary the tools and information necessary to help promote and support the wellness of judges across the country.Bree Buchanan:              Wonderful. So well said.Chris Newbold:                It is. When that report obviously is published, we'll make sure to include that on our website @lawyerwellbeing.net because I think that that is... Again, a really important part of the equation that we talked about lawyer wellbeing, but it really is more of a holistic look at wellbeing in the law more generally and we certainly thank you for your contributions, your leadership, your perspective. It certainly feels like awareness is a big part of the game right now for more judges and with awareness brings vulnerability support amongst each other, and those all seem to put us more in a sense of we're trending in the right direction than the wrong direction.Judge  David S.:               Yes, yes. Well, trending is very important. We've learned with social media and depending in the right direction with respect to wellness for lawyers, the legal profession, and also judges.Chris Newbold:                Yeah. Well said, and again, thank you Judge Shaheed.Judge  David S.:               Yeah, absolutely.Bree Buchanan:              Thanks so much.Chris Newbold:                This was a great conversation again, I think sometimes we don't step back and take a look at the role of judges and just... Again, what tough jobs those are, what important jobs they are for again, of the underpinnings of a well-functioning democracy, but they don't come without emotional and stress and real problems that affect real people. And so we appreciate your perspective and bringing it on the podcast today.Judge  David S.:               Well, thank you so much for launching this podcast. I know it's going to be a big help to the legal profession. And so it's not a small step, it's a significant step and we just need to have the need to support it as best we can and years from now, people will look back on this moment and say they can remember when Chris and Bree started this. So you'll be in the hall of fame on national wellness.Chris Newbold:                That's right.  Well, again, thank you so much-Judge  David S.:               Sure, absolutely.Chris Newbold:                in a couple of weeks where we start to look at... I always think of states as laboratories of democracy and one of the states that has been really doing some incredible work is the Commonwealth of Virginia. And we're going to have a couple of the leaders of Virginia come in and talk about some of the great work that's happening there on wellbeing. And so stay tuned for that. Thanks, Judge Shaheed.Judge  David S.:               All right. Thank you. Thanks to both of you.Chris Newbold:                All right. Take care.Bree Buchanan:              Thank you. Good bye.Judge  David S.:               All right.

Franciscan University of Steubenville recently announced a new way it will help students: covering tuition costs for the fall 2020 semester for all incoming full-time undergraduate students enrolled in its on-campus programs.Father Dave Pivonka, president of Franciscan University of Steubenville, joins the podcast to talk about how and why Franciscan University chose to do this during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plus he discusses what he thinks of Generation Z, and how to keep hope in these times.We also cover these stories:Attorney General William Bar said he does not anticipate a criminal investigation into President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden in regards to a Justice Department probe, but says the investigation is looking at others. Barr also said there are “significant ties” between al-Qaeda and the shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani, who last December killed three U.S. sailors and injured eight others at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida.Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio has concerns about whether the Judicial Conference’s Committee should determine if federal judges can be part of the conservative Federalist Society or liberal American Constitution Society. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What Should I Know About the Pre-sentence Investigation Report? After a person pleads guilty or is found guilty, the presentence investigation will be the next step. For more details, check out Rule 32 of the U.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure in the federal system. Each state system has a similar rule in the book of criminal procedure. In federal cases, probation officers conduct these investigations to help sentencing judges and others evaluate the background of the person. The investigation culminates with an all-important presentence investigation report (PSI or PSR—used interchangeably). The report will include recommendations, based on guidelines and the probation officer’s opinion. Sentencing judges will consider recommendations from the PSR when imposing sentence. Besides the importance of the PSR for sentencing, people should pay close attention to the process because the report also will play a significant role in the person’s life if he is sentenced to prison.  Information in the PSR influences how authorities classify the prisoner, when he will be released, and what level of liberty he will have after he gets out of prison. To preserve rights and to self-advocate once inside, it’s crucial to understand everything about the presentence investigation before it begins. Best-practice preparations require a person to invest the time and energy to understand the process well before the sentencing hearing, or even the investigation begins. If a defense attorney fails to stress the importance of the PSR, be wary. In prison, the PSR will be the main document administrators will use to make assessments, especially at the start of the journey. Case managerswill use the document to consider the severity of the offense; Counselors will use the document to determine who can visit the offender; Educational administrators will use the PSR to determine whether the prisoner is required to participate in programs; Psychologists will turn to the PSR to see whether the individual is eligible for beneficial programs; and Medical personnel will turn to the PSR to determine whether the prisoner merits medical attention Once the court accepts the PSR, it will follow the person until his journey concludes. If there are errors in the PSR, and the probation officer refuses to make adjustments, then it’s absolutely critical to ask the judge to address these errors in the Statement of Reasons, which we’ll describe below. Beginning the Investigation: The probation officer assigned to the case will begin the investigation by becoming familiar with the government's version of the offense. Then, the probation officer will schedule a face-to-face. The meeting may take place at the person’s home, in the probation office, over the phone, or in the facility holding the person if he’s in custody. Prior to the meeting, the probation officer will have insight on the case from the prosecutor and the investigators. The purpose of the meeting is to collect information from the person being investigated, if he’s willing to offer it. The probation officer will ask the person what he has to say about the offense. He’ll also ask about the offender's personal background. Among other things, the probation officer will ask about: Family history, Education, Criminal background, Employment history, Substance-abuse background, Medical condition, and Financial status. Anyone going through a PSR investigation should remember probation officers are law-enforcement officers. If the probation officer believes the person lied, or provided misleading information, or if he believes the offender tried to influence others inappropriately, the probation officer may make things worse. The probation officer could charge the offender with obstruction of justice if he believed the offender tried to interfere with, manipulate, or subvert his investigation. With such a recommendation, the judge may add additional time to a defendant's sentence. Probation officers have huge caseloads and it may feel as if they’re cynical. The investigator will interview the offender's family members, check the offender's school records, and obtain official records of the offender's previous legal problems. The probation officer also will speak with previous employers, check with creditors, and search for information to verify the offender's statements about his medical condition. A person may reserve his right to remain silent during the investigation. But if he chooses to communicate, he should understand that any lies or attempts to mislead the probation officer could result in a longer or more severe sentence. We recommend honesty and good preparation before the PSR interview. Some people refuse to provide any information to the probation officer. They may have valid reasons for wanting to remain silent. But if the person doesn’t participate in the PSR investigation, the probation officer's writing will only reflect the government's version of events. Appellate strategy may influence a person’s strategy. He may choose not to answer questions about the offense. If that is the case, the offender should be courteous, explaining that for appellate reasons, he cannot discuss the case. He may want to cooperate with the investigation in ways that will not jeopardize his rights. We recommend that unless the offender has good reason, he ought to cooperate with the investigation. In fact, we urge defendants to prepare the sentence-mitigation strategy long before the PSR interview, and to provide as much documentation as possible to the probation officer. By giving the officer the personal narrative, the person makes the probation officer’s job easier. He may cut and paste entire paragraphs or pages into the report. This strategy allows the person to influence a document that will prove enormously influential while the person serves his sentence. The PSR will influence administrators that the prisoner may never meet. For example, when making the initial classification of where a person serves the sentence, administrators will rely upon the PSR. Others will use the PSR to determine who can visit. On top of all that, the PSR will include information that determines whether the person gets a lower-bunk pass, qualifies to participate in beneficial programs, and for other crucial issues that can influence release dates. Once inside prison, a Unit Team will meet with the prisoner. Administrators on the team—case managers and counselors—will consider the PSR and the record a person accumulates during his confinement. For those reasons, prior to going inside, people should invest time to understand the myriad ways a PSR will influence the prison term. Then he can make a more competent decision on whether to provide more, rather than less information. Those who’ve pled guilty should understand that the probation officer has the authority to recommend a significant downward adjustment from the sentencing guidelines. If the person convinces the officer that he provided a full and candid description of his criminal actions and demonstrates genuine remorse for his criminal behavior, the officer may recommend that the person gets credit for “acceptance of responsibility.” The probation officer's recommendation in the PSR isn’t binding on the judge, but it is influential. In our experience, people that express remorse for their actions help themselves. If they can persuade the court that their criminal behavior was an aberration rather than a pattern of behavior or a criminal lifestyle, they usually receive lower sentences than those who refuse to cooperate with the presentence investigation. Likewise, those who choose to exercise their rights to silence may be portrayed as unremorseful. Judges would likely take a lack of remorse into consideration at sentencing. The PSR Report Itself: Once the officer finishes the investigation, court rules require him to write his complete report "in a non-argumentative style." After describing the details of the offense and other identifying data, a model PSR from the Southern District of New York contains headings as follows. Offense Conduct: In this section, the probation officer writes the government's version of events and may describe discrepancies that the offender wanted inserted in the document. Victim Impact Statement: If the crime had an identifiable victim, the probation officer may give the victim an opportunity to describe how the offense impacted him (or her). Defendants' Participation: If the offender was convicted along with others in the offense, the probation officer may detail the conduct of each defendant in the case under this heading. This can be prejudicial, because some participants may be much more culpable than others. Offenders ought to ask the attorney to challenge any information that suggests or insinuates that he participated in the same behavior of others if he did not. Prison staff members who evaluate an offender may not make any distinction between participants. If the PSR indicates that one member of the offense was violent and predatory in nature, that information may have a material influence on all members of the offense as far as prison classifications are concerned. Obstruction of Justice Adjustment: If the person obstructed justice in any way, the probation officer may recommend a sentencing enhancement. Examples of obstruction of justice include when an offender tries to influence what others will say during a government investigation. If the offender calls an individual and says, "Don't talk, or else...." the officer may charge the individual with obstruction of justice and with threatening violence. If so, prison administrators may characterize the offender as being violent in nature, which will prohibit participation in certain beneficial programs. Acceptance of Responsibility Adjustment: If the offender is candid about his responsibility, the probation officer may recommend a downward departure from sentencing guidelines. The level of the downward departure will depend upon when the offender accepted responsibility. People that plead guilty early in the criminal justice procedure receive the largest downward departures for acceptance of responsibility. It’s a reward for saving the government the time and expense of preparing for trial. Those who proceeded through trial will have a higher burden to meet in order to receive this benefit. But going to trial does not necessarily preclude a person from receiving this sentencing adjustment. Remember, the judge has discretion, and it’s important to build an influential case on why you’re worthy of mercy. Acceptance of responsibility can weigh heavily on the judge’s decision to grant mercy. Offense Level Computation: Criminal statutes and guidelines influence this objective score. Offenders may read about these scores by studying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual which is available in all federal prison law libraries.  Those who do not have access to prison law libraries may review online or order the book from a bookstore. Guideline manuals may be too complicated to read for those that do not have a legal background. Our courses at ResilienceCourses.com offer some video tutorials. Criminal History: This information comes from past criminal convictions. Points are assigned to those who have been convicted for other offenses, and each prior conviction counts against the score. Chapter Four of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual explains how probation officers count the points. Offender Characteristics: Probation officers use this section to describe what he learned about the offender through his presentence investigation.  It's a subjective description. The offender's family responsibilities also will be discussed as well as the offender's community ties. If the offender engineered a sentence-mitigation strategy earlier, he may want to share his personal narrative during the PSR interview. Probation officers may cut and paste parts of the narrative into this section. That strategy can prove extremely useful to the person as he goes through the system, both in sentencing and while in prison. Substance Abuse: This section describes whether the person suffered from any substance abuse problems in the past. It is an extremely important section. In the federal prison, the BOP has authority to reduce a person’s by as much as 12 months if the offender completes a 500-hour drug treatment program during his incarceration. To qualify for this year off, the BOP will require the offender to provide documentation that he suffered from substance-abuse prior to imprisonment, ideally, during the 12 months that preceded arrest. The substance-abuse section of the PSR report is an excellent place to document a history of drug abuse or alcoholism that would benefit from treatment. During the PSR investigation, defendants that suffered from alcoholism or abused other drugs should report those experiences. If those reports meet certain criteria, the defendant may qualify for participation in a drug-treatment program. If he completes the program successfully, he may get out of prison earlier. People that do not understand the PSR sometimes conceal their history of substance abuse. They mistakenly believe substance abuse of any kind will reflect badly on them at sentencing. Hiding a history of substance abuse may limit access to beneficial programs that could result in a sentence reduction. Physical Condition: Here the probation officer describes health problems or medical conditions.  If the person suffers from a bad back, has weak knees, or any ailments that may have an impact on his ability to climb onto a top bunk or perform certain duties, he should detail those ailments. If the probation officer documents health conditions in the PSR, it may influence housing assignments. If possible, it’s helpful to get a letter from a physician and medical records.  Good preparation includes documentation to support a medical condition. That documentation can help a prisoner self-advocate once his term of imprisonment begins. For example, a doctor's letter verifying a bad back or weak knees will help an offender secure a coveted lower-bunk pass. That pass can be a blessing for an individual who lacks the strength to climb onto a top bunk. Education and VT Skills: The probation officer will ask about education and credentials. To avoid complications, help the probation officer get the information necessary to confirm diplomas and degrees. Administrators in prison will require those that do not have a verified high school education to attend prison-sponsored GED courses for at least 240 hours. They will receive lower wages from their prison work details. Participation in GED classes may have an impact on an ability to earn good time or earned time. Prison administrators frown upon prisoners who have extensive computer experience. If the PSR indicates that an individual has computer programming skills, administrators may deny that individual access to coveted clerical jobs by placing computer ban on his file. Administrative rules may deny camp placement for defendants that have crimes related to sophisticated computer programming and wireless networks. Employment Record: Probation officers will check with prior employers to obtain an evaluation of the person’s work habits. A good work history may influence the sentencing judge. Also, an extensive work history may help a person advocate for himself if he is seeking a specific job in the prison. Financial Condition: Consider all financial liabilities and responsibilities when meeting with the probation officer who is preparing the report. Most criminal convictions result in monetary fines or restitution orders. All felony criminal convictions result in criminal-assessment fees. For some defendants, sentencing courts impose cost-of-confinement fees. Sentencing judges may choose not to impose fines and cost-of-confinement fees if the person is incapable of paying. Judges are less forgiving when it comes to restitution. Laws may require judges to impose felony-assessment fees. If the court imposes a monetary penalty, BOP staff members will demand monthly payments. They will consider any funds that pass through the offender's commissary account as being available for such payments. These charges can make life more difficult inside. If a monetary sanction becomes part of a person’s sentence, the offender's attorney ought to ask the judge to specify that the fine is not to be collected until after the offender's release from confinement. If the judge’s commitment order specifies that the offender doesn’t have to pay the monetary portion of the sanction until the person is released, the BOP will not be able to pressure the person for payments during confinement. Sentencing Options: The probation officer discusses options the judge may consider when imposing sentencing. The options are rather limited in that they only offer a monetary fine, probation, or incarceration in some form—either house arrest, a community confinement center, or imprisonment. Many crimes, particularly offenses related to the distribution of drugs, require mandatory-minimum sentences that preclude sanctions less than imprisonment. One can develop a better understanding of federal sentencing options by reading the most current edition of the very detailed Federal Sentencing Law And Practice by Thomas W. Hutchison, et al, and published by West Group. Factors that May Warrant Departure: In the federal system, judges must consider sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are not mandatory, but most judges use them as a starting point. If the judge chooses to depart from established guidelines for a specific offender, the judge must articulate his reasons during the sentencing hearing. The probation officer will describe factors that may warrant either a downward or upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The most common downward departure is when an offender cooperates with the government in the investigation and provides assistance in the prosecution of others. People that place the highest value on getting out of prison at the soonest possible time may choose to cooperate with prosecutors. Such decisions may influence where a person serves his time, and whether that person is ostracized by others in prison. In rare instances, probation officers may recommend downward departures for other reasons. They may find that a person’s situation is markedly different from others that were convicted of the same type of offense. It is a high burden, but in rare cases, people receive downward departures for issues other than cooperating in the prosecution of others. Upward departures are more common. Judges issue sentences that are harsher than the guidelines when they’re convinced that the sentencing guidelines do not reflect the seriousness of the offender's conduct. The Completed PSR Report: Following the completion of the PSR, the probation officer will deliver copies of the report to the prosecutor and the offender's attorney. Both parties will have time to review the document.  If inaccuracies appear, each party will have an opportunity to object to the perceived errors. Once the objections are noted, the probation officer will determine whether the objections are valid.  If so, changes to the PSR will follow. If the probation officer refuses to make changes that either party wants, that party can bring the matter up with the sentencing judge. The judge will listen to both sides and each side may present evidence to bolster its position. After hearing the arguments, the judge will make a determination. Sometimes, though, the judge may sentence the offender according to his findings at the hearing, but not order changes to the written PSR. Defense attorneys should be vigilant in efforts to get a PSR that accurately reflects the judge's findings. The BOP will use the PSR for classifications and to make other decisions, which can have a huge influence on how and where the person serves the sentence. If the judge chooses not to order the probation officer to correct a PSR, the defense attorney may ask the judge to make specific findings in the commitment order, and also in a Statement of Reasons for the sentence. Statement of Reasons: In addition to the PSR, the court will submit a Statement of Reasons to the Bureau of Prisons. See Title 28 United States Code Section 994(w)(1)(B), which tells us: the written statement of reasons for the sentence imposed (which shall include the reason for any departure from the otherwise applicable guideline range and which shall be stated on the written statement of reasons form issued by the Judicial Conference and approved by the United States Sentencing Commission); In February 2016, the Judicial Conference issued, and the Sentencing Commission approved, Form AE 245B. Section IB4 of the revised form tell us that: “comments or factual findings concerning any information in the presentence report, including information that the Federal Bureau of Prisons may rely on when it makes inmate classification, designation, or programming decisions.” The United States Sentencing Commission published a video at the following location that offers more insight into the Statement of Reasons: https://www.ussc.gov/education/videos/sentencing-and-guidelines-revised-statement-reasons-form The Bureau of Prisons will review both the Statement of Reasons and the PSR when classifying a person. For that reason, attorneys should make a strong case to persuade the judge to put specific language in the Statement of Reasons that may help a person qualify for specific BOP programs. That Statement of Reasons could potentially influence an earlier release date. Program Statement 5322.13 requires the BOP to consider the Statement of Reasons when calculating each prisoner’s security level. For that reason, some may argue that the Statement of Reasons may be an excellent remedy to overcome problems with an inaccurate PSR.

On August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued a decision in which, among other things, it affirmed the order of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council directing a federal judge to undergo a mental health examination and to submit to any treatment or counseling deemed necessary. The Committee found that part of the order to be “warranted and permissible.”The Constitution establishes the judicial power in Article III and provides, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The constitutional remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. In 1980, though, Congress enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which provides authority to a special committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C § 353(c).As one commentator has noted, “The investigation ... appears to move into uncharted territory for disciplinary cases.” Does a Circuit Judicial Council have the authority to require a federal judge to submit to psychological testing? If so, what showing is necessary? Simple cantankerousness can’t be enough, but where is the line between being a curmudgeon and being mentally ill? Do the federal courts have a mechanism for figuring that out?Featuring: Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of LawProf. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law; Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law

On August 14, 2017, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States issued a decision in which, among other things, it affirmed the order of the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council directing a federal judge to undergo a mental health examination and to submit to any treatment or counseling deemed necessary. The Committee found that part of the order to be “warranted and permissible.”The Constitution establishes the judicial power in Article III and provides, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” The constitutional remedy for bad behavior is impeachment. In 1980, though, Congress enacted the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which provides authority to a special committee to “conduct an investigation as extensive as it considers necessary.” 28 U.S.C § 353(c).As one commentator has noted, “The investigation ... appears to move into uncharted territory for disciplinary cases.” Does a Circuit Judicial Council have the authority to require a federal judge to submit to psychological testing? If so, what showing is necessary? Simple cantankerousness can’t be enough, but where is the line between being a curmudgeon and being mentally ill? Do the federal courts have a mechanism for figuring that out?Featuring: Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of LawProf. Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law; Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law Prof. Ronald Rotunda, Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law

Examining Controversial National Chapter 13 Plan Form Proposal ABI Resident Scholar Prof. Anne Lawton talks with Chief Bankruptcy Judges Rebecca Connelly (W.D. Va.) and Brian Lynch (W.D. Wash.) about the proposed national chapter 13 plan form being considered by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Judges Connelly and Lynch, who testified at a Jan. 23 public forum before the Committee on the proposed plan, also discuss points raised by sides supporting the national plan form, and those critical of the proposal. Submissions on the proposal are being accepted until Feb. 17. To submit a comment on the proposal, please follow these instructions.

Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker discussed the economic outlook during the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit on June 28 in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.

Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker discussed the economic outlook during the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit on June 28 in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va.

Part 40. Practice and Procedure--Law-- Adjective or Remedial Law. Roman Municipium; Latin Right; Missouri Bar--Young Lawyers Section; Rules Enabling Act; Judicial Conference of the United States; news and much more.

hris Jay Hoofnagle is senior staff attorney to the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic and senior fellow with the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. His focus is consumer privacy law. He is admitted to practice law in California and the District of Columbia. Mr. Hoofnagle was the former director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's West Coast Office in San Francisco, California. He has testified before Congress on privacy and Social Security Numbers, identity theft, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Security Breaches and before the Judicial Conference of the U.S. on public records and privacy. Chris' past work has focused on financial services privacy, gender and privacy, commercial profiling and telemarketing, commercial data brokers, and the privacy implications of emerging technologies including invasive advertising and Digital Rights Management. He participated in the Amy Boyer case, where the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that information brokers and private investigators can be liable for the harms caused by selling personal information. His writings on the First Amendment and privacy have appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Knight Ridder News Service, and in law journals at Columbia Law School, Notre Dame Law School, the University of North Carolina School of Law at Chapel Hill, and at the University of Illinois . Chris is a graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law and is a member of the California, Maryland, and District of Columbia Bars.During Summer 1999, Chris was a law fellow for the American Association of University Professors. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/samuelson/

Chris Jay Hoofnagle is senior staff attorney to the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic and senior fellow with the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. His focus is consumer privacy law. He is admitted to practice law in California and the District of Columbia. Mr. Hoofnagle was the former director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center's West Coast Office in San Francisco, California. He has testified before Congress on privacy and Social Security Numbers, identity theft, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Security Breaches and before the Judicial Conference of the U.S. on public records and privacy. Chris' past work has focused on financial services privacy, gender and privacy, commercial profiling and telemarketing, commercial data brokers, and the privacy implications of emerging technologies including invasive advertising and Digital Rights Management. He participated in the Amy Boyer case, where the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that information brokers and private investigators can be liable for the harms caused by selling personal information. His writings on the First Amendment and privacy have appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Knight Ridder News Service, and in law journals at Columbia Law School, Notre Dame Law School, the University of North Carolina School of Law at Chapel Hill, and at the University of Illinois . Chris is a graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law and is a member of the California, Maryland, and District of Columbia Bars.During Summer 1999, Chris was a law fellow for the American Association of University Professors.