Judicial Notice (01.25.26): Weathering The Storm
Jack Smith’s congressional testimony, an attack on a judge and his wife, a deal for U.S. TikTok (finally), and a slew of group moves in Biglaw.
Welcome to the latest edition of Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world—aka “I read all the news, so you don’t have to.” By reading (or skimming) JN each week, you can catch up on all the news you missed because you were busy with your day job. Interested in sponsoring Judicial Notice? Right now, I have two open spots each month for 2026. To learn more, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, subject line “Sponsoring Judicial Notice.”
Last week wasn’t the greatest for me—although more annoying than seriously problematic. Almost a month after it started, I still have a lingering cough (but I’m improving and not contagious, according to my internist). I dislodged the crown on one of my dental implants (yes, implants, plural—I have the world’s worst teeth). And now, like many of you, we’re holed up at home—or actually the home of my parents, who have way more space (and canned goods) than we do—watching the snow fall. At least it’s peaceful and pretty, and I’m glad that we have no reason to be outdoors or traveling (and that we still have power). I hope you are similarly safe and warm.
Now, on to the news.
Lawyer of the Week: Jack Smith.
Last Thursday, Jack Smith, the former special counsel who prosecuted Donald Trump, testified for five hours before the House Judiciary Committee. It was, as noted by Alan Feuer and Glenn Thrush of The New York Times (gift link), “the first and perhaps only chance [Smith] will have to make his case in an official forum that he was justified in filing the two sets of charges against Mr. Trump in 2023.” Feel free to check out Smith’s opening statement (which I did watch), or even his complete testimony (which I did not). Or if you don’t have five free hours, read takeaways from The Times and The Washington Post (gift link).
Overall, the hearing was fairly predictable. Smith insisted that he brought the Trump cases without “fear or favor,” based on the facts and the law, and “no one should be above the law.” Republicans used the hearing to condemn Smith as a partisan zealot, while Democrats seized upon the chance to attack Trump for defying the rule of law. I’m not aware of any viral clips of Smith losing his cool or sounding like a moron (and ChatGPT, which I sometimes use for fact-checking, couldn’t provide me with any such clips either). So to that extent, I’d classify the hearing as a “win” for Smith.
But I’m not objective when it comes to Trump. Here’s an email I received from a fairly MAGA reader, which made me reflect on my own objectivity (or lack thereof):
You know, often you have really good stuff in your articles—so much so that I’m tempted to pay for a subscription. But then you find some creepy way to continually take shots at Trump. I know you feel compelled to do that to keep your extreme lib card, but can’t you separate fact from polemics?
We all know you’re gay… a card-carrying member of the American Leftist Legal Elite, and desperately trying to depict your family as just another normal American family. But do you have to hit us over the head with all that? Please put down your Rules for Radicals playbook. [UPDATE (1/28/2026, 11:07 a.m.): Quote edited to add an ellipsis; I omitted another comment from this reader that other readers might find troubling.]
While I certainly don’t consider myself a “Leftist,” I recognize that strong supporters of Trump might have a different view of how the Smith hearing went. If you’re such a person, please post your thoughts in the comments; I welcome a wide range of views.
Even setting aside the issue of whether the Trump cases should have been brought, I do think some of Smith’s calls during the course of the litigation can be questioned. For example, I’m inclined to agree with Jason Willick’s column in The Washington Post (gift link), “Jack Smith Is In First Amendment denial.” As noted by Willick, Smith requested “a sweeping gag order against Trump that would have not only barred him from criticizing potential witnesses, but also sharply curtailed his ability to object to his own prosecution.” But Smith never got the broad order he sought, after Judge Tanya Chutkan (D.D.C.) and then the D.C. Circuit scaled it back—“to bring it within constitutional bounds,” in the words of Judge Patricia Millett.
During Jack Smith’s testimony, Trump took to social media and called the former special counsel “a deranged animal, who shouldn’t be allowed to practice Law”—and who should instead be prosecuted. Smith acknowledged that administration officials might “do everything in their power” to indict him, “because they’ve been told to do so by the president,” but he declared himself unafraid: “I will not be intimidated.”
And that’s also what I heard from my latest podcast guest: former U.S. attorney Timothy Heaphy (E.D. Va.), now Jack Smith’s law partner at Heaphy, Smith, Harbach & Windom, which launched earlier this month. Tim Heaphy (pronounced HAY-fee) also had surprising thoughts on the deal between Trump and Willkie Farr, where Heaphy was a partner until quite recently—so if you missed the interview, check it out.
Other lawyers in the news:
Lindsey Halligan departed from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia—after a benchslap of an order from Judge David Novak (E.D. Va.) directing her to stop “representing herself as the United States Attorney in any pleading or otherwise before this Court,” as well as an order from Chief Judge Hannah Lauck “soliciting expressions of interest” to serve as U.S. Attorney. This all went down on Tuesday—when Halligan’s 120-day appointment as interim U.S. attorney, even assuming its validity, was set to expire anyway.
On the same day but on the other side of the Potomac, John Roberts argued before John Roberts at the U.S. Supreme Court. No, that’s not a typo: John E. Roberts, a partner and co-chair of the appellate practice at Proskauer Rose, argued before Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (an ERISA case)—and Chief Justice Roberts humorously acknowledged the coincidence from the bench.
Also on Tuesday, Columbia University and the Trump administration announced that Charles “Chuck” Cooper, the prominent conservative litigator and founding partner of Cooper & Kirk, will serve as the independent monitor overseeing Columbia’s settlement with the federal government.
In memoriam:
Legal historian Barbara Aronstein Black—the first woman to serve as the dean of an Ivy League law school, at Columbia—passed away at 92. (Her husband, constitutional law scholar Charles Black, passed away in 2001.)
Judah “Judd” Best—one of the nation’s leading white-collar defense lawyers, as well as former managing partner of the D.C. office of Debevoise & Plimpton—passed away at 93. (Fun facts: Judd Best almost overlapped with Barbara Black at Columbia Law in the 1950s, and Judd’s son, Stephen Best of Brown Rudnick, is now a top white-collar practitioner in his own right.)
James Bernard—who graduated from Harvard Law School, where he was a classmate of Barack Obama, before entering journalism and founding a groundbreaking hip-hop magazine, The Source—passed away at 58.
May they rest in peace.
Judge of the Week: Judge Steven Meyer.
Judges across the country face a disturbingly high number of threats related to their judicial service—and last Sunday, one judge and his wife were actually attacked. According to law enforcement officials in Lafayette, Indiana, a man went to the home of Tippecanoe County Superior Court Judge Steven P. Meyer and his wife, Kimberly. The man claimed he had lost his dog—and when the Meyers came to the entryway of their home, the man shot them both through the door. Judge Meyer, hit in the arm, was hospitalized; Kimberly Meyer, shot in the leg, was treated and released.
Five people were arrested in connection with the shooting. One of the individuals, Thomas Moss, is a defendant in a long-running case before Judge Meyer that involves charges of shooting into a building, domestic battery, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Trial in the case was scheduled to begin on January 20, two days after the shooting—and prosecutors claim that Moss and his co-conspirators planned to murder Judge Meyer in order to delay Moss’s upcoming trial.
Judges have stood strong against the threats against them—and Judge Meyer is no exception. “This horrific violence will not shake my belief in the importance of peacefully resolving disputes,” he said in a statement. “I remain confident we have the best judicial system in the world, and I am proud to be part of it.”
In other news about judges and the judiciary:
Speaking of judicial independence, former federal judges Shira Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.) and John Jones III (M.D. Pa.) shared “a set of principles of legal independence” in a Times guest essay (gift link). You can find the full set of principles—which Scheindlin and Jones describe as “a reaffirmation of values and obligations designed to guide and to strengthen law firms, bar associations, law schools, businesses and nonprofits”—over at Keep Our Republic, a nonpartisan organization focused on civic education.
Arthur Engoron, a former justice on the New York Supreme Court (which is actually a trial court), reflected on his life and career in a series of interviews with Emily Saul of the New York Law Journal. But he (properly) declined to discuss the most famous (or infamous) matter he handled, the civil-fraud case against Donald Trump—which remains the subject of a pending appeal.
Turning to judicial nominations, there were no new nominations or confirmations last week. But here are two worthwhile articles, both from Bloomberg Law:
Right-Leaning Judges Should Learn From RBG, Ikuta and Retire Now. After noting that 24 Republican-appointed circuit judges are eligible to retire, Rob Luther pointed out that with midterm elections this November, there’s only more year of certain Republican control of the Senate. So now is the time for these judges to retire, “cement[ing] their judicial legacies [by] guaranteeing a successor with conservative bona fides.”
Trump Picks Appeals Judges’ Children for Courts in Their Circuit. The nominees in question are two state-court judges, Judges Megan Benton (W.D. Mo.) and John Shepherd (W.D. Ark.), who are the children of Eighth Circuit Judges Duane Benton and Bobby Shepherd, respectively.
Job of the Week: an unposted opportunity at a New York boutique for an experienced real-estate attorney.
Lateral Link is assisting a New York boutique with an exciting, unposted opportunity, perfect for a real-estate attorney with 6 to 9 years of experience. The firm’s mission-driven real estate practice focuses exclusively on transactional real estate, specializing in affordable-housing transactions and handling some of the city’s most sophisticated and impactful deals. The compensation is competitive and the team is highly collaborative, offering mentorship that’s often hard to find in Biglaw. The firm offers ample work, no billable-hour requirement, a financially sound platform, a clear path for advancement, and real opportunities to build a long-term career within the practice. The firm is flexible on title. For immediate consideration, please email your résumé to Vered Krasna at vkrasna@laterallink.com.
