Judicial Notice (05.18.25): The Other ‘Ninth Circus’
A Biglaw AI ‘debacle,’ young(ish) stars of the SCOTUS bar, a Florida judge behaving badly, and Wachtell Lipton’s latest billion-dollar deals.
This week’s Judicial Notice is sponsored by
BriefCatch is the trusted legal writing expert of over 22,000 legal professionals, 40 Am Law 200 firms, and 70 courts. It provides real-time insights to help you write with precision, clarity, and confidence—and now it can even handle your Bluebooking. To learn more about BriefCatch Enterprise and how it’s helping legal organizations achieve better client outcomes, schedule a meeting with one of our experts.
“Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.” Late last month, I returned to the Above the Law offices for a fun photo shoot with my former colleagues—and now the article, by Elizabeth Williamson of The New York Times (gift link), is online.
Titled “The Website Where Lawyers Mock ‘Yellow-Bellied’ Firms Bowing to Trump,” Williamson’s piece (accurately) describes ATL as “a rage read for lawyers incensed at the firms that accommodated him.” If you agree with my criticisms of the Trump administration’s executive orders targeting law firms and the Biglaw settlements with the Trump administration, but seek something sharper (and snarkier) in tone, Above the Law is what you’re looking for.1
Speaking of legal media, if you’re interested in joining me in journalism, now is the rare time when three full-time jobs in this field are open: (1) Supreme Court correspondent at The New York Times, (2) managing editor at SCOTUSblog, and (3) executive editor at Executive Functions (the excellent Substack newsletter of Professors Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith). To those of you who might be interested in these positions, you’re welcome—and good luck.
Now, on to the news.
Lawyers of the Week: John Sauer, Jeremy Feigenbaum, and Kelsi Corkran.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard almost two and a half hours of oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Inc., Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey—collectively, the birthright-citizenship cases. The plaintiffs in these cases, both states and private parties, challenge the legality of Donald Trump’s executive order, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. But much of the argument focused on the subject that was the basis of the government’s requests for emergency relief, namely, universal injunctions (a complex topic I previously explained here).
I participated in the SCOTUSblog liveblog of the argument (along with Will Baude, Amy Howe, Sarah Isgur, Zachary Shemtob, and Amanda Tyler). As soon as the arguments were over, I analyzed them in a live episode of Advisory Opinions (together with Amy, Sarah, Zach, and David French). And if that wasn’t enough for you, I offer additional thoughts under Litigation of the Week, infra.
For present purposes, I’d like to comment on the three advocates. D. John Sauer, Solicitor General of the United States, argued for the Trump administration; Jeremy Feigenbaum, the New Jersey Solicitor General, argued for the states challenging the order; and Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection, argued for CASA, one of the private, organizational plaintiffs.
Overall, I agree with Amy’s comment on AO: the case was well-argued, on both sides. And I agree with Zach’s observation that Feigenbaum, who’s only 36, did a superb job, in only his third argument before the high court. He’s definitely one to watch among the next generation of SCOTUS superstars. (When it comes to oral advocates, Justice Elena Kagan, a former U.S. solicitor general, knows how to pick ‘em: Feigenbaum clerked for her, as did former U.S. solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar—renowned for her prowess and polish at the podium at One First Street.)
Sauer had the toughest time, fielding some difficult questions from the justices. They seemed particularly concerned about (1) how the Court could reach the merits of birthright citizenship expeditiously, if the government never brings the merits before the justices (after constantly losing in the courts below and not appealing), and (2) the extent to which the Trump administration will follow court orders. But as I said on AO, if Sauer might not have sounded great up there, I don’t think it was because of any deficiency in his advocacy; he simply had difficult positions to defend, thanks to his marching orders from the administration. Put another way, he didn’t have a style problem, but a substance one (as discussed in more detail below).
Other lawyers in the news:
Two federal juries issued nine-figure verdicts in antitrust cases involving drugs and devices. Congratulations to the trial lawyers from White & Case, Weil Gotshal, Orrick, and the Wilks Law Firm, who won a verdict of more than $400 million for their client, Regeneron. And kudos to the trial lawyers from Kellogg Hansen, Berger Montague, Theodora Oringher PC, and Jeffrey L. Berhold PC, who won a verdict of $147 million for their client, Innovative Health.
The new (American) pope, Pope Leo XIV, is a lawyer—a canon lawyer. What does that mean? To find out, read Amanda Roberts’s interesting ABA Journal interview with Bishop Thomas John Paprocki (who is both a canon lawyer and a “lawyer lawyer,” admitted to the Illinois bar).
Lawyers from a major Biglaw firm and an elite boutique got caught up in an AI “debacle,” and their firms were ordered to pay $31,000 in sanctions (discussed below under Law Firms of the Week). Yikes.
In memoriam:
Ronald Goldfarb, who prosecuted organized-crime cases during the Kennedy administration and wrote numerous law-related books, passed away at 91.
Larry Turner—a prominent Philadelphia attorney, advocate for greater diversity in the legal profession, and longtime partner at Morgan Lewis—passed away at 65, from a cardiac event.
May they rest in peace.
Judge of the Week: Judge Lauren Peffer.
Lawyers aren’t the only ones getting in trouble for citing non-existent authorities created by AI. Judge Lauren Peffer of Broward County, Florida, got hit with ethics charges for allegedly quoting a book she never read and citing a recorded phone conversation that was “likely” fabricated by AI, during the course of her 2024 election campaign. The story got covered by Law.com, Law360, and the ABA Journal.
Specifically, during an interview with the editorial board of the South Florida South Sentinel, Judge Peffer claimed that “recent revelations” from Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit Court “have highlighted an image crisis” within the state’s judiciary. As authority for this proposition, she cited The Ninth Circus Court of Florida: My 30-Year Job from Hell!, a self-published e-book by a disgruntled former court employee. (I guess this is the new “Ninth Circus”? Conservatives called the federal Ninth Circuit the “Ninth Circus” back in its days as a left-wing bastion, but the court is significantly more moderate nowadays.)
After the editorial board questioned some of the book’s claims, Judge Peffer shared with the board the allegedly fake recording, which the ex-employee had posted online. In the purported recording, one judge claimed that a colleague’s “first love is power, then money, then white women. I’m not trying to be glib, but my guess is if [the judge] could have a perfect death, he would be buried under the Lincoln Memorial next to Clarence Thomas, in a solid gold coffin, and have a live white hooker buried with him as a sacrifice.” How charming.
And there is, of course, a huge irony in all this. As stated in the charges against Judge Peffer, “Your campaign theme was to restore the public’s trust, but your behavior did the opposite and brought harm to the dignity and integrity of the judiciary.”
In defense of Judge Peffer, I’ll say this (as a connoisseur of judicial scandals, having covered misbehaving judges for more than 20 years): the Florida judiciary does have “an image crisis,” and when I hear crazy things about Florida judges, I’m inclined to believe them. Why? If I had to pick the naughtiest state judiciary in the country, it would be the Sunshine State’s. Three judges from the same court getting charged with DWI over the course of six months is… impressive. Stay classy, Your Honors.
Other judges in the news:
Judge Hannah Dugan, the Wisconsin state judge accused of trying to help an undocumented immigrant evade federal agents, moved to dismiss the federal obstruction charges against her, citing judicial immunity. And she might find a receptive audience in Judge Lynn Adelman (E.D. Wis.), a Clinton appointee and former Democratic congressional candidate. Judge Adelman was previously admonished for writing a law review article criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts, for “disingenuous[]” testimony at his confirmation hearings, and the Supreme Court’s “hard-right majority,” for “undermining American democracy.”
Speaking of Chief Justice Roberts, he spoke out for at least the third time since Trump’s inauguration in defense of the rule of law. In remarks at Georgetown Law, he described the rule of law as “endangered” and warned against “trashing” the justices with “ad hominem” attacks, which “doesn’t do any good.” He also had warm words for his late colleague, Justice David Souter.
And speaking of Justice Souter, two of his former clerks, Professors Jeannie Suk Gersen and Kermit Roosevelt, wrote lovely tributes to him for The New Yorker and Bloomberg Law, respectively.
Justice Souter was known to enjoy running—a pastime pursued by many D.C. jurists, a number of whom participated in the ACLI Capital Challenge. Congratulations to the fastest Article III jurist, Judge Bradley Garcia (D.C. Cir.), who completed the three-mile course in 20:35. Last year, three members of SCOTUS participated—Justices Brett Kavanaugh (24:20), Amy Coney Barrett (26:09), and Ketanji Brown Jackson (33:24)—but this year, only Justice Jackson participated (with a time of 36:00).
Job of the Week: an opportunity for a midlevel litigation associate in Atlanta.
Lateral Link is assisting a premier Am Law firm in its search for a midlevel litigation associate to join its respected products-liability practice in Atlanta. Successful candidates will have 3-5 years of complex commercial-litigation experience at a large law firm, ideally with experience handling products-liability, mass-tort, or class-action cases. The firm welcomes attorneys already in Atlanta and those looking to relocate, provided they are committed to joining the Georgia bar. For consideration, send your résumé and law school transcript to Managing Director Marion Wilson at mwilson@laterallink.com.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Original Jurisdiction to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.