Institute for Justice

Non-Sequiturs

Non Sequiturs: 04.28.19

* Adam Feldman poses -- and answers -- an interesting question: are particular justices more or less partial to certain lawyers' or law firms' positions? [Empirical SCOTUS] * Speaking of the federal judiciary, Carrie Severino offers this helpful scorecard of President Donald Trump's track record on judicial appointments -- which underscores, as she notes, the importance of the 2020 elections. [Bench Memos / National Review] * And speaking of President Trump, Joshua Matz and Laurence Tribe have this excellent explanation of why the Supreme Court does not have a role in adjudicating impeachments. [Take Care] * In the wake of the Mueller Report, Ilya Somin pushes back against conventional wisdom and takes this position: "Not all foreign interference in elections is unjustified. Far from it, in fact." [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason] * Fair use in the copyright context is an infamously amorphous concept -- so the Fourth Circuit's recent ruling in Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions deserves your attention. [All Rights Reserved] * Congratulations to Westlaw Edge, voted the "best new analytics product" by the readers of Dewey B Strategic. [Dewey B Strategic] * And congrats to Kira Systems on being picked by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner as its AI solution for "high-volume workstreams" across the firm. [Artificial Lawyer] * If you're a libertarian-leaning lawyer with two to six years of experience under your belt, check out these great employment opportunities over at IJ. [Institute for Justice via Volokh Conspiracy / Reason]

Non-Sequiturs

Non Sequiturs: 02.17.19

* I share Allahpundit's take on the retirement buzz around Justice Clarence Thomas (recently discussed by Jeffrey Toobin, but also in the air at last November's Federalist Society conference): it's certainly possible, and if it happens, Judge Amy Coney Barrett and Judge Amul Thapar are the two top picks. [Hot Air] * And Judge Barrett is protecting her prospects for Supreme Court confirmation: she just joined the opinion of a fellow shortlister, Judge Diane Sykes, that dutifully applies Hill v. Colorado, the shaky but not-overruled Supreme Court precedent about free-speech rights outside abortion clinics. [Bench Memos / National Review] * Speaking of SCOTUS, which amici boast the best track recorders in filing certiorari-stage amicus briefs in business cases? Adam Feldman crunches the numbers -- and the dominance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should come as no surprise. [Empirical SCOTUS] * And speaking of the Chamber, it also seems to be making progress on its goal of forcing more disclosure of litigation-funding arrangements, with the reintroduction of the Litigation Funding Transparency Act (LFTA). [Institute for Legal Reform] * Litigation funders don't reflexively oppose any and all disclosure requirements; Michael German of Vannin Capital, for example, argues for a sensible and limited disclosure regime. [New York Law Journal] * If you're looking for an interesting new podcast (besides Wondery's exploration of the Dan Markel case), consider Bound by Oath from the Institute for Justice (Eugene Volokh is a fan). [Institute for Justice] * Should Roger Stone be gagged? Joel Cohen weighs the pros and cons. [The Hill] * Are you a lawyer who enjoys poker? Mark your calendar for February 23! [Attorney Poker Tour]

Biglaw

Legal Eagle Wedding Watch: Buckeye Edition

In this edition of Legal Eagle Wedding Watch, we've unintentionally chosen a slate of opposite-sex finalists that looks like a United Colors of Benetton ad campaign. Read on for the juicy details on our fabulously diverse contestants, plus pictures....