Latest news with #TheGavel
The Hill
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump allies attempt DC Bar takeover
The Gavel is The Hill's weekly courts newsletter. Sign up here or in the box below: Allies of President Trump are attempting a takeover of the D.C. Bar Association as voting ends Wednesday in the election to lead the prestigious organization. The two-way race for president is between Diane Seltzer and Brad Bondi, the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi. It comes at a moment of heightened tension between the White House and the legal profession, which has come under attack by a president unafraid to punish prominent law firms, attack judges and clear house in his own Department of Justice. The association does not decide attorney discipline matters, but anti-Trump attorneys and pundits are sounding the alarm about what a Make America Great Again takeover would mean for the group, the largest unified bar in the country with roughly 119,000 members. 'Ordinarily, I wouldn't hold the views or conduct of someone's relative against them. Indeed, I'm pretty much the last person who should be doing that,' George Conway said in a video published just before voting began, seemingly referencing his ex-wife, Kellyanne Conway, Trump's former campaign manager and White House counselor. 'But these are not ordinary times.' Already, the contentious race has rocketed voter turnout. The D.C. Bar said in a press release Tuesday that nearly 37,000 members, or 41 percent of eligible voters, had cast ballots so far — a significant jump from last year's 7,563 votes, about 8.5 percent turnout. Brad Bondi is global co-chair of the investigations and white-collar defense practice at the law firm Paul Hastings. In the past, he's represented billionaire Elon Musk and Tesla, the Trump Media and Technology Group and a group linked to YouTuber MrBeast in its bid to purchase TikTok. He's emphasized improved technology and a desire to see stronger participation in the D.C. Bar as touchpoints of his campaign, vowing in a candidate statement to ensure the group remains nonpartisan. 'The D.C. Bar is not, and must not become, a political organization,' he said. 'I will fight vigorously against any attempts externally or internally to change that.' Though the association does not handle attorney discipline, the group has gotten caught up in political crosshairs after the D.C. Bar permanently disbarred former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and began pursuing the same punishment for Jeffrey Clark, both of whom provided legal advice to Trump in his efforts to overturn President Biden's 2020 election victory. 'The ordeal I've had to endure broke many laws and has repeatedly denied me due process. And all I did was take a firm and zealous stand in giving private, privileged advice to the President of the United States,' Clark wrote on X last week. Seltzer runs an eponymous employment law firm and is endorsed by nearly two-dozen former D.C. Bar Association presidents. 'My priority is making sure that the rule of law is upheld, that we feel that we are safe to do our jobs and that we can go forward every day representing the clients we choose,' Seltzer said at a meet-the-candidates event last month, according to NPR. And it's not just the presidential race. Alicia Long, a top deputy to interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, is running for treasurer. The results are expected to be announced on Monday. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee (elee@ and Zach Schonfeld (zschonfeld@ Email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Feds crack down hard on attacks against Jews In the wake of two violent attacks against Jews, the Justice Department has swiftly cracked down on suspects while decrying the incidents as a symptom of rising antisemitism. Last month, two Israeli Embassy staffers were gunned down outside a Jewish museum in Washington. The suspect in that incident, Elias Rodriguez, was slapped with an array of charges the next day, including murder of foreign officials and causing death through the use of a firearm — both which carry a possible sentence of death or life in prison. Then, on Sunday, 12 people were injured in Boulder, Colo., when Molotov cocktails were hurled at demonstrators calling for the return of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Mohamed Soliman, the suspect, was charged with a federal hate crime Monday that carries a sentence up to life in prison. He faces dozens of state charges, as well, and federal law enforcement signaled that additional charges are being weighed. 'We've moved swiftly to charge quickly, just to send a message to the community that no acts of antisemitism are going to be tolerated,' said J. Bishop Grewell, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. 'There are severe consequences.' Since returning to the White House, the Trump administration has said battling antisemitism is a top priority. The president has stripped the legal status of pro-Palestine protesters, cut federal funding for universities he claims breed antisemitism and issued an executive order directing his administration to fight back. Little time was wasted condemning the attacks. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi decried the shooting as 'brutal, anti-Semitic violence' and vowed to secure the 'most severe possible punishment' for Rodriguez. She called the Boulder attack 'vile anti-Semitic violence' and said the government would 'refuse to accept a world in which Jewish Americans are targeted for who they are and what they believe.' Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said 'hateful violence against Jewish Americans will be met with the full force of the Justice Department' after the shooting and vowed 'zero tolerance' for such acts after the attack in Colorado. Soliman is slated to appear in state court Thursday and federal court on Friday. Rodriguez is due back in court on June 18. Trump splinters with Federal Society Trump and his allies are waging a war against the Federalist Society as parts of his second-term agenda are blocked by some of his own judicial nominees. The boiling point — which came when Trump called longtime Federalist leader Leonard Leo a 'sleazebag' after a court blocked the bulk of his tariffs — has unleashed a rebellion pitting the MAGA movement against the conservative legal stronghold that helped Trump reshape the courts during his first term by offering up conservative judges as suggestions to fill benches across the country. As the president embarks on choosing his next set of judicial nominees in his second term, his decisions are now being shaped by a new, MAGA-branded team. Inside the White House, judicial appointments are being spearheaded by chief of staff Susie Wiles, White House counsel David Warrington and Deputy White House counsel Steve Kenny. But with the Federalist Society on the outs, the process has shifted to include outside influence from the Article III Project, which is spearheaded by close Trump legal ally Mike Davis. Davis served as chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) during Trump's first term, where in that role he helped clear the way for the president's judicial nominees. He also previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first nominee to the high court. His relationship with Trump grew closer after the FBI raided the president's Mar-a-Lago resort and he defended the president in the press. Meanwhile, the Federalist Society looked the other way, Davis said in an interview. 'They abandoned President Trump during the lawfare against him,' he said. 'And not only did they abandon him — they had several FedSoc leaders who participated in the lawfare and threw gas on the fire.' It's a major shift from Trump's first term, when Trump's alliance with Leo was bountiful. Read more about the splintering relationship and new dynamic here. Order List Read the full order list here. IN: Ballot deadlines The Supreme Court took up four new cases at its recent conference. We highlighted three of them in last week's edition. Illinois ballot deadline challenge: In Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, the court will decide whether Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of Trump's 2020 electors have legal standing to challenge Illinois' acceptance of ballots received after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by then. The court is not directly examining the merits of the law, but Republicans have broadly looked to crack down on the practice. Government contractor immunity: In The GEO Group v. Menocal, the court will decide if government contractors can immediately appeal a ruling denying them sovereign immunity from a lawsuit without waiting for the trial proceedings to conclude. The dispute arises from The GEO Group's operation of an immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colo. Military injury lawsuit: In another case implicating government contractors, the court in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation will weigh reviving a former Army specialist's lawsuit against a defense contractor, which employed a suicide bomber who critically injured the specialist in Afghanistan. A lower court held the lawsuit was preempted by federal law. The court also granted a fourth case we outlined the week prior: 4th Amendment's emergency exception: Law enforcement can get around the 4th Amendment's search warrant requirement if they believe an emergency is occurring inside a home. In Case v. Montana, the court will decide if police must have probable cause to believe an emergency is occurring or some lesser standard. OUT: AR-15 bans (for now) Though the court took up a series of new cases, its simultaneous refusal to take up two others has attracted just as much attention. After considering challenges to Maryland's AR-15 ban and Rhode Island's high-capacity magazine ban at 15 consecutive conferences, the justices finally turned away the cases, Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. For both petitions, the court fell one vote short of the four justices required to take up a case. Only Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch voted to do so. They may have a fourth vote soon enough. In a separate statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh told gun rights advocates to come back in a year or two. 'Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh wrote. Separately, the court also turned away a petition we highlighted in April, Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc., in which adult entertainer Chanel Nicholson sought to revive her racial discrimination lawsuit against various Houston-area clubs she claims barred her from entering because she is Black. A lower court ruled she waited too long to file her suit. We now know why the court has been sitting on the case: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was cooking up a dissent. Jackson wrote that the lower decision 'flouts' the Supreme Court's clear precedent, saying she would've summarily reversed the ruling and allowed Nicholson's suit to proceed. MAYBE: Monopolies The court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on whether the justices should take up three pending petitions, known as a 'call for the views of the solicitor general,' or CVSG. The justices often go with the solicitor general's recommendation, so these are ones to watch. Antitrust: Duke Energy, which sells electricity in North Carolina, is attempting to reverse a ruling that revived NTE's antitrust suit against the company. In Duke Energy Carolinas LLC v. NTE Carolinas II LLC, a lower court ruled a company's series of independently lawful acts can together add up to an illegal monopoly under the Sherman Act. Chabad's suit against Russia: In Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, Chabad is appealing a lower ruling granting the Russian government immunity from a lawsuit over the group's sacred religious library that ended up in Soviet hands at the end of the Holocaust. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally protects foreign states from being hauled into U.S. courts, but Chabad believes its case falls under an exception. Hertz's bankruptcy: Car-rental company Hertz, which filed for bankruptcy after COVID-19 curtailed travel spending, is appealing a ruling that it must pay $272 million in interest to bondholders. They were paid off early, but the bondholders believe they were underpaid now that Hertz has emerged from bankruptcy as a solvent company. Hertz argues the Bankruptcy Code doesn't allow the payment, but a lower court ruled it is overrided by a common law rule dating back to before the code's existence. Petition Pile The court has relisted five petitions for the first time. RNC's fight over PA ballots: The Republican National Committee (RNC) is seeking to overturn a ruling providing Pennsylvania voters with an in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot. The justices declined to intervene on an emergency basis just before the 2024 election, but the case, RNC v. Genser, has now arrived at their normal docket. It's the latest case to implicate the so-called independent state legislature theory. Oil lawsuit: In Chevron USA. v. Palequemines Parish, a group of energy companies that includes Chevron and Exxon Mobil are seeking to move a lawsuit filed by Louisiana parishes to federal court under what is known as the federal officer removal statute. The parishes won $745 million in state court earlier this year by holding the companies liable for production of crude oil along the Louisiana coast during World War II. Personal jurisdiction: Federal procedure authorizes federal courts to wipe a void judgment, but the motion 'must be made within a reasonable time.' In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, a dispute arising from an automotive company's bankruptcy, the court is asked to review whether the timeliness requirement applies when the court didn't have personal jurisdiction, meaning its power to make rulings concerning a party. Compassionate release, again (x2): Last week, we discussed the court taking up what discretion judges have in granting compassionate release, which allows courts to reduce a defendant's sentence for 'extraordinary and compelling reasons.' The court has relisted two new defendants' petitions, Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States, that concern whether judges may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act, the major criminal justice reform law passed in 2018. The Justice Department is backing both defendants, telling the court they should take up Carter and hold Rutherford until they reach a decision. SIDEBAR Catch Up 5 docket updates you need to know from the last week. Tariffs invalidated: The U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the bulk of Trump's tariffs as unlawful. Neither ruling is currently in effect as the cases quickly head to the appeals courts. Environmental reviews narrowed: The Supreme Court in an 8-0 opinion narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Read more from our colleague Rachel Frazin. Parole revoked: The Supreme Court in an emergency ruling allowed the Trump administration to revoke humanitarian parole the Biden administration extended to 532,000 migrants from four Latin American countries. RIFs boomerang at SCOTUS: The Trump administration filed a new emergency application at the Supreme Court seeking to resume mass layoffs across the federal government. The justices refused to act at an earlier stage of the case by sitting on a previous request from the administration until it became moot. CFPB lawsuit dropped: Baltimore dropped its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's efforts to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In other news… Europe steps up: As the Trump administration looks to downsize the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which funds Voice of America and other media groups, new court filings reveal the European Union (EU) is working on filling the gaps in funding to Radio Free Europe. The EU announced an intent to provide $6.2 million. Menendez pardon watch: Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who is set to report to prison in less than two weeks for his bribery conviction, in two series of posts on X accused former President Obama of weaponizing the Justice Department when it brought an earlier indictment against Menendez that ended in a mistrial. His comments came as Trump issued a flurry of pardons and expressed a willingness to do so for anyone who 'was mistreated' whether they 'like me or dislike me.' Rubbing salt in the wound: According to a new lawsuit filed by a group of fired Department of Health and Human Services workers, a young man in business attire shouted, 'This is DOGE and this is your Last Supper!' at one employee as she was leaving work. The next morning, the employee received her layoff notice. ON THE DOCKET Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hold oral arguments in an appeal of Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge by various local Planned Parenthood arms to the Department of Health and Human Services's efforts to upend the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing considering some of Trump's second term judicial nominees. Thursday The Supreme Court will announce opinions. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a second preliminary injunction hearing in the Project of Government Oversight's lawsuit against Trump and DOGE over its recordkeeping practices. Friday Shane Lamond, the ex-D.C. police lieutenant convicted of warning Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio he was being investigated and later lying about their communication, is set to be sentenced. A federal judge in Boston is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in 19 Democratic state attorneys general's challenge to Trump's executive order on elections. A Maryland judge is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge by three Biden appointees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were fired by Trump. Monday The Supreme Court will announce orders. The D.C. Bar Association is expected to announce the results of its election. WHAT WE'RE READING The Wall Street Journal's Erin Mulvaney, Emily Glazer, C. Ryan Barber and Josh Dawsey: The Law Firms That Appeased Trump—and Angered Their Clients The Detroit News's Robert Snell and Craig Mauger: Chinese student who voted in Michigan election fled U.S., feds say Michael Cohen, Warren Ballentine, Jesse Jackson Jr., Michael Rothenberg and Dr. Michael Jones in The Hill: With new questions about his acuity, Biden's pardon choices should be revisited We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics?
Boston Globe
5 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
I love America. Now it stands to lose a generation of people like me.
The Trump administration's attack on Harvard is a clear warning to all current and future international students in the United States. Cities across the country will lose an annual influx of bright young people, Boston more than many. This is particularly depressing for foreigners who love and admire America. People like me. Advertisement America stands to lose more than tuition at its universities. International students contribute more than $ Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Equally important, America's university system was an ace in the hole in terms of international diplomacy. It could attract the best and the brightest from across the globe and turn them into friends or future citizens. Comparatively few students considered going to China to pursue their dreams. But many will now avoid the uncertainty that now comes with studying in the United States. Advertisement My love for America started early. I went to kindergarten here while my dad attended Duke University on a student visa. I loved the Power Rangers and chasing a ball with a swarm of kids playing soccer. The first book I read aloud was the 1961 American children's classic ' My admiration deepened as an undergraduate at Princeton University. The conservative legal scholar I became a staunch defender of the country. Although I'm aware of its many contradictions, I am quick to mention America's contributions to the world. In the 18th century, the immortal prose of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution heralded the modern rebirth of democratic government around the globe. The next three centuries loosed a torrent of world-changing inventions that drew on research from many countries and became supercharged in the US. All of these come from America. Many come directly from its universities. Advertisement America's genius seems to stem from a culture of trying new things, along with the political and economic institutions that allow them to scale. In Denmark we are slower to celebrate individual achievement. In the emblematic fairy tale, written by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen in 1843, an I was wrapping up the semester at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government when the news broke. My classmates and I trembled. Would we graduate? We risked losing everything we had worked for. Many prospective international students will now look at America and decide it is not worth the risk. Not when the government could yank their university's ability to host international students on a whim. Not when the government could revoke their visas Scholarship funders will also think twice. A Any university could be next. I remain hopeful that America will return to the veneration for knowledge and democratic institutions for which it has long been admired on the global stage. But today those ideals are tinder for an out-of-control bonfire. The country's ability to attract talent will be diminished for years, if not decades. Advertisement America remains a shining city on a hill. But only because it has set itself on fire.
Boston Globe
29-05-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
NIH cuts have doomed my research in Bangladesh — but US citizens will pay too
For more than 15 years, I have conducted studies in Bangladesh, a country that has extremely high levels of arsenic in its drinking water supply — meaning the population is routinely exposed to a lot of arsenic. My collaborators are pediatric neurologists like me, as well as neurosurgeons, medics, nurses, and community health workers, all professionals dedicated to understanding how arsenic affects the neurological development of children. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up We have received generous support from US taxpayers through their investments in the NIH. When I submit a grant application, the NIH asks me to justify why taxpayer dollars are being spent outside the country. It is easy for me to provide this justification. Arsenic affects many areas of the United States, including here in New England. But the widespread high levels of arsenic in Bangladesh, and the much larger number of people exposed to it, make conducting studies there more efficient and less expensive. Our studies have led to changes in Bangladesh's health policy, including recommendations to establish dietary standards for folate, a vitamin that counters the toxic effects of arsenic. This work also has helped us develop solutions that are relevant to US families, such as setting regulations for acceptable levels of arsenic in public water systems. Advertisement There are many examples of research conducted abroad that benefit people in the United States. Oral rehydration therapy, the standard treatment for childhood diarrhea, was developed by scientists in India and Bangladesh who worked with US partners funded by the US government. Collaborations with researchers in Colombia led to the identification of a rare genetic variant associated with a delay in dementia onset; this finding provides potential targets for therapies for Alzheimer's disease. Advertisement NIH-funded studies in Africa led to the development of self-collection swabs for cervical cancer screening. And just this month, the Food and Drug Administration Our recent experiences with COVID-19, Zika, and Ebola confirm that there are no borders to infectious diseases and that global scientific cooperation can lead to faster and more effective responses to them. To address climate change, an even greater health threat, research with foreign collaborators aids knowledge-sharing and innovation. Earlier this year, I participated in a simulation of a heat emergency in Arizona that was conducted by a research team who drew lessons from their work in western India — which taught them more about how extreme temperatures affect human physiology. It hasn't always been necessary to invoke US health interests to justify scientific research abroad. In 2003, the global HIV/AIDS epidemic led to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (PEPFAR). Over the past 20 years, PEPFAR, together with NIH funding, has expanded what we know about HIV/AIDS and turned what was once a death sentence into a manageable condition for millions worldwide. Advertisement The NIH states that the motivation for its new policy is 'to improve the tracking of federal dollars and the security of the US biomedical research enterprise.' These are goals that no one can argue with. In 2023, the NIH began requiring foreign collaborators to provide copies to their US partners of all lab notebooks, all data, and all other documentation that is produced as part of research projects. In my own program, this has meant more frequent site visits to Bangladesh, a transition to electronic record-keeping, and more detailed monitoring of expenses and receipts. It must be possible to further strengthen these efforts to provide oversight without stopping the collaborations altogether. I submitted an application to the NIH in November 2024, just days before the presidential election, that had the words 'global partnerships' in the title. It has not yet been reviewed. When I wrote those words, I believed they would be viewed as a strength of the proposal. That is no longer the case. But I am not deterred. Like many in my position, I am looking elsewhere — foundations, philanthropy, industry, other countries — for new sources of funding. If the United States will not lead the world in scientific research, I hope others will step up. So if you're a foundation or industry leader reading this and you're interested, I have a research grant proposal ready for you.
Boston Globe
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
I experienced what's wrong with Harvard, but I'm rooting for it over Trump
Advertisement I'm from rural central Maine, and I graduated from Harvard in 2021. I felt deeply out of place for much of my time at Harvard, both socially and politically. In other words: I have seen what is rotten in higher education. I'll tell you about it. And I'll tell you why I still firmly believe that there should be no top-down control of university policy by the federal government. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From a barnyard to Harvard Yard I spent my childhood running around a barnyard. My grandparents are dairy farmers, so home smells like silage and manure. There was the dead cow pile, out behind the last barn, where the turkey vultures circled. There was the manure pit, scary and forbidden. I'd seen a cow's body dragged out of it once, my parents' way of warning me of what would happen if I went too close to its edge. There was the calving barn, where I watched calves slide, slick and black, from their mothers into a tangle on the floor. Advertisement I went to a public consolidated school — eight small towns' worth of kids. One of my middle school classmates had a persistent round wound on her arm. It was the size and shape of a cigarette butt. Another was always hungry. I brought him an extra peanut butter sandwich every day for years. A third was caught fingering a girl under the table in the sixth grade. By the eighth grade, he had dropped out of school and was dealing drugs. In high school, classmates flew Confederate flags off the back of their pickup trucks, right next to their gun racks. My high school had a little bit of everything else, too, save racial diversity. There was the occasional liberal, there were a few high achievers, and there were some rich kids, relatively speaking. I worked really hard and I got really lucky. 'You have a good head on your shoulders,' read the note my grandparents wrote me when I told them I'd gotten into Harvard. 'Keep thinking for yourself.' I'm sure I rolled my eyes. I was a typical 17-year-old. Self-righteous, arrogant, chafing at the edges of her small town. It was 2016. I was ready to get out of central Maine and go somewhere I'd fit in. But by the end of my first day at Harvard, instead of basking in the glow of my accomplishment and building new friendships with brilliant peers and frolicking through the historic campus like I'd imagined, I was holed up in a decidedly unglamorous public bathroom, crying. Everybody else seemed to know one another and where things were, what to do, how to dress, how to act. Advertisement The rest of my freshman year didn't go much better. Everybody else had done amazing stuff — interned for senators, started a nonprofit, published scientific research — while I had just been 'well rounded.' Everybody else had friends, while I had none. There was a particular clique of private school kids in my freshman writing class that I followed like a TV show. They were so cool. So shiny. They became a 'blocking group.' Translation: They roomed together after freshman year, codifying their cliques. The boys were 'punching' final clubs. Translation: They were rushing Harvard's version of fraternities. The girls were going to final club parties. I wanted so badly to be a part of what they had. A personal reckoning After move-out at the end of my first year, I cleaned dorms, a disgusting but high-paying week-long gig. Students leave a lot of stuff behind: TVs, jackets, unopened boxes of condoms (hope springs eternal!). I stood there in my rubber gloves and grubby sweatpants, vacuum backpack digging into my shoulders, and marveled at all the private school flags pinned up over beds. Choate. Groton. Phillips Exeter. Then I worked the reunions. There was a day care for the kids of alumni, who wore tiny tie-dyed Harvard T-shirts. There was a pipeline to Harvard, I thought, and I had not been in it. Bitterly, I pulled myself further out. That summer, I returned to Maine and became a whitewater rafting guide. I got the tannest I'd ever been. I let my accent thicken. I started saying 'f—in'' about every third word. Advertisement I believed I didn't fit in at Harvard because I wasn't rich and/or a legacy and/or a private school grad. My issue, I thought, was social. But over time, I began to realize it was also political. I started telling this joke: 'I thought I was far left until I got to Harvard. And then I realized — Mom, Dad? I think I'm a Republican.' When I was a junior, COVID brought my alienation into stark relief. In Cambridge, I was screamed at for pulling down my mask while out for a run along the Charles. At home in Maine, mask-wearing was a sign of weakness — as turn signals appear to be to Massachusetts drivers. Lockdowns in rural America felt bizarre and unnecessary, and they ran counter to Maine's libertarian-leaning ethos. It was the first time my politics had come into direct conflict with the politics of my peers. I took refuge in journalism, writing a But as time passed, I realized my social and political alienation were one and the same. Here's a moment that clarified this for me: In recalling the day after Trump won his first term as president, a friend said, 'We had a half day at school, and in the morning, everybody just sat together and cried.' I looked at him, baffled. Most of my high school classmates' parents had voted for Trump, so the air at my high school following his win was neutral to celebratory. But other people took the day off? Like, in mourning? I remember telling my parents the story and laughing so hard I was nearly in tears. 'Is that not,' I said to them, 'the most private school, San Francisco thing you've ever heard?' Advertisement I understood why folks had voted for Donald Trump. I was frustrated by COVID lockdowns. I was able to summon arguments against gun control. Why was I so outnumbered at Harvard? My perspective did not make sense to my classmates, because most of them had no concept of where or how I had grown up. Just 10 percent of I could stop here, say that rural America is outnumbered and outgunned at Harvard. That I was outnumbered and outgunned. This 'us against them' narrative, the one I read between the lines of that note my grandparents wrote to me, is tempting — and it's the one the Trump administration is selling. But it's neither true nor useful. Advertisement For one thing, Harvard is no longer a homogenous hive mind of young, monied white men. It is, genuinely, diverse. My roommate was from Iran. My best friend was a Black man from rural Pennsylvania. As a white rural (read: redneck) middle-class American woman, I was more of an outsider than some, less of an outsider than others. For another, it's not clear who Harvard's political insiders are. Sure, voices on the far left tend to be louder. But they've also been In other words, when the Trump administration demands 'viewpoint diversity' and decries the 'woke' culture at Harvard, it either misunderstands the reality at the school or is intentionally flattening the narrative in a bid to achieve its own goals. I still believe in Harvard The latter seems likely. Which brings me to the most important point, and the reason I am so proud my alma mater has held its ground against the Trump administration: Even if Harvard were simply a bastion of far-leftism, which it is not, were the Trump administration to enforce 'viewpoint diversity' at Harvard, it would simply be replacing one political monoculture with another. The administration does not hope to foster real debate and intellectual exchange. It intends to establish the dominance of Trump-style Republican values at Harvard and other elite institutions. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And — worse — the new boss is operating under a Yes, some things are 'rotten' within elite university culture. But there is enormous potential, too. A bunch of bright, driven, different kids can — and do! — have thoughtful, productive discourse. As frustrated as I was by my time at Harvard, it broadened my perspective, helped me understand myself and the world, and made me a more empathetic person. But making that productive discourse more common is a problem for Harvard and its student body to tackle. I hear they're pretty smart. I think they can do it.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jackson most vocal member on Supreme Court bench: analysis
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson may be the Supreme Court's most junior member, but on the bench, she's the most vocal. Jackson, who was nominated by former President Biden in 2022, has far outpaced her colleagues on speaking time during oral arguments this term. She has said 75,535 words during oral arguments this term, according to The Gavel's review of Supreme Court transcripts, more than 50 percent higher than any of her colleagues. Jackson appeared to take note of the trend earlier this month as she accepted an award, reflecting on her similarities with former President Truman, whom the award was named after. 'Perhaps it is my general outspokenness on and sometimes off the bench. I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom,' Jackson told the crowd gathered in Kansas City, Mo. Jackson has set herself apart in other ways recently too, including notably being the lone liberal justice to publicly dissent over an order this week allowing the Trump administration to strip Venezuelans of protections against deportation. The justice's noticeable loquaciousness comes as the style of oral arguments at the high court has significantly changed since the pandemic. After the normal free-for-all questioning round, each justice now gets uninterrupted time to ask questions to the attorneys. Cases almost always extend past the official one-hour allotment. And some arguments become marathon sessions, like last month, when the court went for two-and-a-half hours as it considered requiring Montgomery County, Md., to provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-themed books in elementary schools. Three justices — Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Jackson — were more vocal in those arguments than any other this term, helping that case become the one to draw the most chatter among the justices. Ketanji Brown Jackson: 75,535 Sonia Sotomayor: 49,448 Elena Kagan: 48,188 Neil Gorsuch: 43,035 Brett Kavanaugh: 33,221 Samuel Alito: 32,446 Amy Coney Barrett: 30,432 John Roberts: 20,493 Clarence Thomas: 10,904 Justices sometimes decline to speak during cases. For example, Barrett didn't speak during eight arguments she participated in this term, more than any of her colleagues. Silence can sometimes indicate agreement. In a January argument involving a former Halliburton Energy Services employee's wrongful termination case, neither Barrett, Alito nor Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a single question. It marked the only case this term in which three justices remained silent. The unanimous opinion landed rapidly, less than two months after the argument. Alito himself authored the decision that allowed the employee's case to move forward. (For the data nerds out there, we've got you covered: Click here to download the full dataset.) Welcome to , The Hill's weekly courts newsletter, we're Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Email us tips (elee@ zschonfeld@ or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) and Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Not already on the list? Gupta Wessler has just 11 lawyers and four partners, but that hasn't stopped the boutique law firm from taking on the Trump administration. The firm is spearheading two prominent challenges to President Trump's sweeping assertion of executive power. It represents both Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) fired by Trump, and a worker union fighting back against the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Despite its size, the firm is punching up. 'We like representing the underdog,' founder Deepak Gupta said in an interview with The Gavel. 'That's kind of our specialty.' On Thursday, the firm's two major cases against the Trump administration were argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — just hours apart. Gupta said the unusual split-screen was 'incredibly intense.' In the morning, he urged a three-judge panel to deem Trump's firing of Wilcox unlawful based on both precedent and 'settled and unquestioned historical practice between the branches.' Later that day, Gupta Wessler principal Jennifer Bennett argued that the CFPB would have been 'wiped out' without court intervention and urged the panel to block the agency's dismantling. Gupta said that taking up the two cases was a 'natural extension' of the firm's work. Founded in 2012, Gupta Wessler's focus in 'normal times' was representing consumers and workers, the founder said. Now, the firm is representing government watchdogs meant to protect those classes against action taken by the Trump administration. However, the CFPB fight is personal, Gupta said. He helped set the agency up, working under Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) before she was a senator to launch its amicus program, defend its regulations and assist on Supreme Court cases. 'We couldn't just watch the sidelines as they tried to dismantle it,' he said. Gupta said Wilcox asked Gupta Wessler to represent her. Despite being a 'test case of the administration's own making' aimed at expanding control over independent agencies, Gupta said a challenge to the firing was necessary because otherwise the administration 'will have succeeded.' 'The courts are going to have to settle this matter once and for all,' Gupta said. 'And I hope that the extreme nature of the way that the administration has been conducting itself will actually prompt the courts to hold to these protections, because they're demonstrating how important they are.' Despite its role in the major Trump cases, the firm's focus is usually on Supreme Court, appellate and constitutional litigation. This term alone, the firm had four arguments before the Supreme Court, Gupta said. Wind back a year, and that's seven arguments before the justices in the last two terms — a feat for the small team. He called this one of the 'busiest and most professionally intense periods' for the entire firm. But that's also fostered an 'espirit de corps' among the close-knit team. 'I know everyone feels this way, that it is a privilege to be able to fight back,' Gupta said. 'There are a lot of people that feel helpless right now, and so the fact that we have a law firm, the fact that we're not afraid to stand up to the Trump administration — we're not afraid about what our corporate clients might say, because we don't have any corporate clients — it feels like a real privilege.' A battle is brewing between the government's three branches. Since returning to the White House, President Trump has sought to establish the executive branch as dominant over its legislative and judicial counterparts. The courts have garnered most of his attention. But on Monday, Congress was dragged into the fight. The charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), a sitting lawmaker, over a run-in with immigration agents during an oversight visit to a Newark, N.J., detention center marks an escalation in the executive branch's power struggle. Alina Habba, interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, announced Monday her office planned to charge McIver with assaulting law enforcement while at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility this month. The charging papers were made public Tuesday. The criminal complaint against McIver says she 'slammed her forearms' into immigration officers as they attempted to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D), who had joined McIver and two other House Democrats attempting to access the facility. Baraka was previously charged with a misdemeanor count of trespassing, but Habba announced that her office planned to drop it. It comes days after The Hill reported that the Justice Department was considering removing a requirement for U.S. attorneys to take the additional step of consulting with the department's Public Integrity Section when bringing criminal cases against members of Congress. The charge against McIver drew sharp condemnation from Democrats. The Congressional Black Caucus called the count 'nothing short of a cowardly attempt to intimidate members of Congress from holding this administration accountable.' 'To be clear, a member of Congress has the constitutional authority to visit ICE facilities—without an appointment—to conduct oversight,' said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), who chairs the caucus. Other Democratic lawmakers called the charge a 'disturbing overreach for the Executive Branch,' a 'power grab' and 'straight out of the authoritarian playbook.' Trump said Tuesday that McIver was 'out of control.' Though the arrest marks an early test for Congress in its tug-of-war with the administration, the judiciary has for months been waging its own war with Trump over the separation of powers. The president's onslaught of executive actions has sparked hundreds of lawsuits, many challenging his expansionist view of presidential power. His Justice Department has argued that he possesses sole authority over the executive branch – and that the courts can't do much to stop him. However, dozens of judges from the district courts to the Supreme Court have served as a check on that power. The Supreme Court's emergency order blocking the administration from swiftly deporting a group of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) is poised to spark a wave of litigation over how much due process the migrants are owed. The high court made clear that the migrants must be given a reasonable opportunity to go to court before authorities remove them to a Salvadoran mega prison — and that the administration's existing notice was insufficient. 'Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' read the court's unsigned opinion released late Friday. But the justices did not provide a solution, instead directing the lower courts to address 'the issue of what notice is due.' It's set to invigorate a battle in the more than dozen cases proceeding across the country. Many cases are brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has pushed for providing notice 30 days before removal. In Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee, in a ruling last week suggested 21 days was sufficient but acknowledged 'further analysis' was needed. 'The Court knows that individuals in ICE custody are frequently moved, counsel for such individuals may have a difficult time speaking with them, and such individuals cannot realistically file for habeas relief within a matter of hours,' Haines wrote. U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, an appointee of former President Biden overseeing a case in Colorado, had similarly settled on 21 days until she later ruled that Trump couldn't carry out deportations under the AEA at all. But not all judges are landing on three weeks. In California, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes, another Biden appointee, said the administration must provide two-weeks' notice before using the AEA to deport Venezuelan national Yostin Sleiker Gutierrez-Contreras. But the shorter window may merely reflect how that case is litigated. Gutierrez-Contreras is not represented by the ACLU, and his lawyers hadn't asked for anything more than two weeks. Ultimately, the issue could resurface at the Supreme Court. 'Lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously,' the justices stressed in their opinion. Read the full order list here. The court took up no new cases at its recent conference. We're up to eight cases so far for the next term. Five justices' recusals forced the court to decline an appeal brought by Ralph Baker, who alleged author Ta-Nehisi Coates and a group of companies and individuals infringed the copyright of his memoir. Lower courts dismissed the case, Baker v. Coates. Baker, representing himself, asked the Supreme Court to take up his bid to revive it. But with only four justices eligible to consider the case, the court couldn't take action. 'Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed,' the court's order reads. Why so many recusals? The justices didn't explain, but it appears that most did so because they have book deals with Penguin Random House. Bertelsmann, the publisher's parent company, is a party in the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has received several million dollars for publishing five books with the company. It also published Neil Gorsuch's 2020 book, Ketanji Brown Jackson's recent autobiography and Amy Coney Barrett's forthcoming autobiography (which will be out Sept. 9). That leaves Samuel Alito, who also recused without offering a reason. Unlike most other justices, Alito owns various individual stocks, leading him to frequently recuse. Alito has issued recusals nearly 30 times this term, roughly three times more than any of his colleagues. The apparent decision to step aside from the case over the publishing deals is a notable shift, one that comes after growing scrutiny over the justices' book income and the court's new code of conduct. Sotomayor previously received criticism for not recusing from several petitions involving Penguin Random House, including one in 2013 and another in 2019. Justice Stephen Breyer, who published several books with the company, had recused from both. The court has added six new relists for its upcoming conference. Here's a quick look at each: Election dispute mootness: In Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections, a group of New Yorkers who supported an independent candidate in Buffalo's 2021 mayoral election is attempting to revive its challenge to the state's ballot access requirements. Lower courts threw out the suit following the election, finding the dispute was moot. The voters want the Supreme Court to loosen the mootness standard for election disputes so that its case can still proceed, even after voting ends. Fourth Amendment's emergency exception: In 2021, police entered William Trevor Case's Anaconda, Mt., home for a welfare check, shooting and wounding him after seeing a dark object near his waist. A jury found Case guilty of assault on a peace officer, but he argues police's lack of a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Montana's top court found it was covered by the amendment's exception for emergencies. In Case v. Montana, Case wants the justices to resolve a split among the lower courts as to whether police must have 'probable cause' to believe an emergency is occurring, or some lower level of suspicion. Sentence reductions (x2): Federal law prohibits judges from modifying a prison sentence once it's imposed, except for certain circumstances. Two separate petitions filed by criminal defendants, Fernandez v. United States and Elliott v. United States, ask the justices to widen when defendants can receive reductions for 'extraordinary and compelling reasons.' Habeas deadline: Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's (R) office has asked the justices to reject a habeas petition that raises claims of ineffective counsel filed by Kayla Ayers, whom a jury convicted of setting fire to her father's house. Normally, defendants have only one year to file their petition, which allows prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their detention. But a lower court said Ayers met an exception that restarts the clock when a defendant uncovers a previously undiscoverable 'factual predicate.' In Chambers-Smith v. Ayers, Yost's office argues the exception doesn't apply. California's pork law: Two years ago, the court rejected a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to California's law requiring pork sold in the state meet certain humane standards. The clause prohibits states from passing laws that discriminate against other states in commerce, but the plaintiffs in that case conceded California's law doesn't discriminate. The court rejected their other theories and upheld the law. Now, in Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta, a new group of plaintiffs backed by 23 Republican state attorneys general are advancing such a discrimination claim, hoping the justices will take up their case to strike down California's pork restrictions once and for all. The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier to bring unreasonable force claims against police in deciding unanimously that courts should examine the 'totality of the circumstances' in deciding whether an officer can be tried for unreasonable force, instead of only the 'moment of the threat.' The Justice Department announced Monday that it secured a guilty plea in a fraud scheme involving a former contractor of a 'USAID-funded program,' a reference to the U.S. Agency for International Development that became an early target of the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson is a Simpsons fan. A Texas man is seeking nearly $1 million in damages from Whataburger for allegedly causing an allergic reaction by not removing onions from his fast-food meal, as requested. Sotomayor and Jackson dissented from the Supreme Court's order Monday allowing Indiana to execute Benjamin Ritchie, who was convicted of murdering a police officer but alleged his attorneys had a conflict of interest. Ritchie was pronounced dead early Tuesday morning. Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in Open Technology Fund's challenge to the administration's funding freeze. The administration's move came as part of its broader effort to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media. A federal judge in New York is set to hold a motions hearing in 12 Democratic state attorneys general's lawsuit challenging Trump's tariffs. A federal judge in Washington state is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge brought by eight local jurisdictions to the administration's threats to withhold HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) grants and Federal Transit Authority grants unless certain conditions are agreed to. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a hearing for injunctive relief in a challenge brought by a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico. A trial is scheduled to begin in League of United Latin American Citizens' challenge to the 2021 redistricting of congressional and state legislative districts in North Texas, which claims that racially discriminatory districts were drawn. A magistrate judge will hold a virtual hearing on the Trump administration's request to dismiss the misdemeanor charge levied against Newark's Democratic mayor over the recent ICE facility clash. Thursday: The Supreme Court will announce opinions. Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University student who has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is due in immigration court in Louisiana. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump's Jan. 20 order regarding the death penalty, brought by 21 death row inmates whose sentences were commuted by President Biden. Another D.C. judge is set to hold a hearing in three transgender inmates' lawsuit over the Trump administration ending their access to gender-affirming care in prison. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health for terminating various grants over concerns they promote DEI. A California federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump's ability to conduct reductions-in-force at agencies across the federal government. Another federal judge in California is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to two Trump executive orders that are anti-DEI. Friday: An update on discovery in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case is due. Monday: The courts are closed for Memorial Day. Tuesday: The Supreme Court will announce orders. A federal judge in California is set to hold a hearing considering whether to transfer a lawsuit over Trump's tariffs, brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and the state, to the U.S. Court of International Trade. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a class certification hearing in an ACLU-backed challenge by seven transgender and nonbinary individuals to Trump's order preventing people from updating the sex marker on their passports. A federal judge in Washington state is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration's termination of its 2024 collective bargaining agreement that covers roughly 47,000 TSA workers. The New York Times's Glenn Thrush and Charlie Savage: Bove, Top Justice Dept. Official, Is Considered for Circuit Court Nomination The Economist's Steven Mazie: Three paths the Supreme Court could take on birthright citizenship Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller's 'Excess of Democracy': Federal judges are retiring at a recent-record slow pace in 2025 The New York Times's Elizabeth Williamson: The Website Where Lawyers Mock 'Yellow-Bellied' Firms Bowing to Trump New York Post's Zoe Hussain: 'Tiger King' Joe Exotic's husband deported to Mexico after being detained by ICE We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics? Email us: elee@ and zschonfeld@ On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48. See you next week! Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
