Judicial Notice (12.14.25): Not Dead Yet
Alina Habba’s bye-bye, Emil Bove’s boo-boo, Jack Smith’s second act, Becca Slaughter’s day of reckoning, and a 30-person hire by Cooley.
This week’s Judicial Notice is sponsored by
Chambers-ranked and Harvard-educated, Jeff is the trusted closer for high-stakes disputes. His battle-tested system of managed communications empowers clients to make clear, strong decisions in a calm, informed environment. It makes the right resolution obvious. If settlement seems impossible, call him.
Last week was another tough week for me, but for different reasons than the prior week. Zach and I once again have child care (hi Katia!), but I was overwhelmed by work. I spent many hours doing reporting for my latest Bloomberg Law column about Biglaw’s insanely accelerated recruiting timetable, in which some firms are interviewing first-semester 1Ls. I felt the column turned out nicely—and a longer, more detailed version of the piece will appear in the next few days on Original Jurisdiction.
On the brighter side, Harlan and Chase are no longer sick. Speaking of kids, if they’ve made your car utterly disgusting, are you aware of car detailing? It’s not cheap—but when it’s done well, it’s worth it. If you live in northern New Jersey, I highly recommend Hi-Def Auto Detailing. In the words of Harlan, a car enthusiast, “Our car hasn’t been this clean since it was in the showroom!”
All work and no play makes Lat a dull boy. Although I missed the Law Firm Media Professionals (LFMP) holiday party (because I had to file my BLaw column the next morning), I did attend the Susman Godfrey holiday party later in the week. It was fabulous, as always; I’m just sorry I didn’t get to talk to all my friends who were there.
Thanks to Elie Honig for inviting me to join him when he guest-hosted the Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM, which was also a blast. I’d like to amend two things I said on the show: (1) we’re unlikely to get a ruling from the Supreme Court in the tariffs case until January, since it was an argued case and the Court is done sitting for the year; and (2) Trump v. Cook, the SCOTUS case about Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, does not (yet) raise the constitutionality of firing members of the Fed.
Thanks to everyone who voted in last week’s poll about the length of Judicial Notice. Seventy-one percent of you feel that the length of this news roundup is just right, while 23 percent of you think it’s too long. So I won’t make any radical changes—but to the extent that I make tweaks, I’ll move in the direction of brevity.
Now, on to the news.
Lawyer of the Week: Alina Habba.
On Monday, here in the great state of New Jersey, Alina Habba resigned as acting U.S. attorney. On X, she wrote that she stepped down because of the Third Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Giraud, which held that she wasn’t serving lawfully in the role, and “to protect the stability and integrity of the office which I love.”
Habba added that observers shouldn’t “mistake compliance for surrender,” and Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the Department of Justice would appeal Giraud—and Habba would return if such an appeal were successful (but query whether Habba’s resignation has made the case moot). For more discussion of Habba’s resignation, I refer you to Howard Bashman’s How Appealing, and for a deeper dive into Giraud, check out last week’s Judicial Notice.
Some folks were pleasantly surprised that Alina Habba went so gently into that good night, since Trump administration officials aren’t known for complying with adverse court rulings with alacrity. But more cynical observers might wonder whether this was simply a face-saving way for Habba to get out of a job that she never really wanted.
In an interview in March, Habba said she “did not” want to leave the White House, where she was serving at the time as a counselor to the president, explaining that it made her “sad.” She added that her serving as U.S. attorney came entirely from Trump: “it was his idea,” and he told her, “you better do it.” And so she did—but I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s happy to be returning to D.C., where she’ll serve as a senior adviser to Pam Bondi and help oversee U.S. attorneys’ offices.
In memoriam: Jack Craft—a founding partner of Craft Fridkin & Rhyne, which merged in 2004 with Lathrop & Gage (now Lathrop GPM)—passed away at 87. One of his daughters, lawyer turned bestselling author Gretchen Rubin, described him as “a wonderful, wise person,” who was “good-natured, clear-thinking, curious, optimistic about the Cornhuskers, and full of love for us.” May he rest in peace.
Judge of the Week: Judge Emil Bove.
Judge Emil Bove has been on the Third Circuit for all of three months, and he’s already making headlines—although not for his judicial opinions.
On Tuesday, Judge Bove attended a speech that Donald Trump delivered at the Mount Airy Casino Resort in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania. As noted by media outlets, it was an official event sponsored by the White House, which characterized it as the president “deliver[ing] remarks on the economy.” But it was also, in the words of The New York Times, “a campaign-style rally”—which even the White House described using the word “rally”—and the president’s rambling remarks contained plenty of politically charged language, including claims that Joe Biden “destroyed our country.”
On Wednesday, Gabe Roth—head of Fix the Court, an advocacy group calling for various judicial reforms, and a former podcast guest of mine—filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Bove. According to Roth, “this was a highly charged, highly political event that no federal judge should have been within shouting distance of”—and “there will be questions from reasonable and unbiased observers as to whether Judge Bove’s attendance imperils his impartiality when assigned cases” involving Trump (who was famously Bove’s client when he was in private practice).
How might Judge Bove respond? When spotted at the event by MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and asked about his attendance, he said he was “just here as a citizen coming to watch the president speak.” So I’m guessing that in his official response, Judge Bove will rely heavily upon the event’s official designation as a White House event, not a Trump campaign event. He might argue something like this: “Supreme Court justices attend State of the Union addresses, which often feature partisan rhetoric, and that’s never been held to be unethical. So the formal distinction between campaign and non-campaign events must control; otherwise, we’ll be drawn into an impossible line-drawing exercise.”
For better or worse, judges get the benefit of the doubt in misconduct proceedings, so I predict that the complaint against Judge Bove will be dismissed. But even if Judge Bove isn’t sanctioned, I suspect many observers might agree with what conservative commentator Ed Whelan told The Times: “You can argue about whether the rules clearly prohibit what he did, but he showed terrible judgment.”
Judge Bove showed up in the news last week for other reasons as well. As noted by Matt Naham of Law & Crime, Bove submitted a declaration in a contempt inquiry launched by Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg (D.D.C.), looking into whether administration officials violated an order by Judge Boasberg. Bove said nothing substantive in his declaration, claiming that he “contributed to privileged legal advice”—and I doubt that Judge Boasberg will try to force Judge Bove to say more, especially when other sources are available. But it’s definitely awkward for a sitting judge to be caught up in a contempt prosecution—and it’s a reminder of Emil Bove’s controversial conduct before he made it to the bench. (Hearings in the contempt proceeding were scheduled to start on Monday—but on Friday, the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay, putting the hearings on hold for now.)
Finally, earlier this month, Trump pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of participating in a massive drug-trafficking conspiracy—and even though Bove didn’t personally prosecute Hernández, then-AUSA Bove played a prominent role in the broader investigation and series of prosecutions (including that of Hernández’s brother, whom Bove got convicted at trial). When asked to comment on the Hernández pardon, Bove said, “I am proud to have previously represented and served President Trump, and I completely trust and respect his judgment in exercising the pardon power, which the Constitution vests in him alone by virtue of his mandate from the American people.”
In nominations news, the Senate confirmed three district-court nominees: Mississippi Supreme Court Justices James Maxwell and Robert Chamberlin (N.D. Miss.), and Louisiana Supreme Court Justice William Crain (E.D. La.). As of December 10, Trump in his second term has appointed 26 Article III judges, six circuit judges and 20 district judges—a respectable showing, compared to 28 for Biden and 16 for Trump in his first term (as of December 10 of their first years in office).
But the Trump administration might need to work on its pipeline of nominees. According to Whelan of National Review, there are around 50 district-court seats to be filled, and Trump has made nominations for only 11 of them. I immediately wondered whether maybe most of these seats were in states with Democratic senators who wouldn’t return their blue slips, making nominations possibly a waste of time. But according to Whelan, of the 25 seats that have needed nominees since May 2025 or earlier, 17 are in states with two Republican senators. Perhaps the White House Counsel’s Office and DOJ should spend more time on judicial nominations and less time on pursuing Trump’s foes.
In memoriam: Judge Sandra Ikuta, who served on the Ninth Circuit from 2006 until last month (when she was still hearing cases), passed away at 71, from pancreatic cancer. For more about Judge Ikuta’s distinguished career, I refer you to my recent Judicial Notice post naming her Judge of the Week. May she rest in peace.
Job of the Week: an opportunity for an employment-law associate in New York.
Lateral Link is assisting a repeat client and Chambers-ranked group with a new search in New York for an employment-law associate to join the firm’s dynamic team. The ideal candidate will possess 3-4 years of experience in employment law, including significant experience defending employers in federal and state courts and before administrative agencies. About 30 percent of the associate’s time will also be spent counseling employers on various employment-related issues. The firm is renowned for opportunities for growth and long-term advancement, and the head of the practice sits in the New York office. For immediate consideration, please email Vered Krasna at vkrasna@laterallink.com.
