Judicial Notice (04.01.24): In A Jam

An unnamed judge with an ‘overly harsh’ management style, good news for Latham, bad news for Goodwin, and other legal news from the week that was.

Justices Sotomayor and Barrett had some thoughts for the Fifth Circuit in a major case out of Texas (photo by Jahi Chikwendiu via Getty Images).

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!

I hope you had a wonderful Easter holiday (if applicable). On Saturday, eight of us—my husband Zach and I, our sons Harlan and Chase, my parents, and Zach’s parents—returned from a few days in the Bahamas, where we spent Harlan’s spring break. We had a great time, a little sunburn notwithstanding. Then yesterday we all got together again for Easter brunch. It’s such a blessing to live near grandparents.

I took my trusty Shure MV7 microphone to the Bahamas so I could record some podcast episodes. First, I joined Sarah Isgur and David French on Advisory Opinions, to discuss my reporting about Judge Aileen Cannon (S.D. Fla.) and her recent losses of law clerks. Second, my co-host Zach Sandberg and I interviewed legal-technology guru Colin Levy, author of an invaluable new guide to the legal-tech ecosystem, for the latest episode of Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers. Third, turning to the world beyond law (because apparently there is one), I joined Adam Fishman of Startup Dad, in which Adam talks parenthood with entrepreneurs who are also fathers.

My hubby Zach and I also worked on a guest essay for the New York Times, which went online this morning. Titled Don’t Overlook the Power of the Civil Cases Against Donald Trump, it argues that regardless of what happens in the criminal cases against the ex-president, “civil justice has already shown itself to be a valuable tool for keeping him in check—and it may ultimately prove more successful [than criminal prosecution] in the long run at reining him in.”

Because of my vacation, this installment of Judicial Notice covers the past two weeks in legal news, since I skipped the weekend of March 23, and it arrives a little late, on Monday rather than Sunday (for which I apologize). It also might be less comprehensive than usual; if I missed some interesting piece of legal news you’d like to discuss, please mention it in the comments to this post.

Now, on to the news.

Lawyer of the Week: Adeel Mangi.

Adeel Mangi is an Oxford- and Harvard-educated lawyer who has been a litigation partner at Patterson Belknap for almost 25 years. President Biden nominated Mangi, who lives in New Jersey, to serve on the Third Circuit, and the American Bar Association (ABA) unanimously rated him “Well Qualified” (WQ). If confirmed, he would be the nation’s first Muslim American federal appellate judge.

It’s looking increasingly unlikely, however, that Mangi will win confirmation. Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) quipped that Mangi’s nomination is “as dead as Jimmy Hoffa,” after Senator Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) joined two other Democrats, Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), in opposing Mangi.

Why? Republicans have attacked Mangi as antisemitic and anti-police based on his ties to two organizations, the Center for Security, Race and Rights at Rutgers Law School and the Alliance of Families for Justice. The Center, which appears to have a strong pro-Palestine tilt, has hosted some speakers with antisemitic views. The Alliance, which focuses on criminal-justice reform, counted as a founding board member the late Kathy Boudin, who served more than two decades in prison for her role in the 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored truck. (In case you’re wondering, yes, Kathy Boudin was related to retired First Circuit judge Michael Boudin (sister) and former San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin (mother).)

The Biden Administration is standing by Mangi, condemning the “baseless” attacks against him as a “cruel, Islamophobic smear campaign.” And although more than a dozen law-enforcement organizations have opposed his nomination—which likely explains the opposition of some Democrats—he also enjoys the support of other law-enforcement groups, as well as more than a dozen Jewish organizations.

My own view—which I realize will be unpopular among some of my conservative readers, but I always try to give you my honest take—is that Mangi should be confirmed. I believe presidents deserve wide latitude in picking judicial nominees, as long as they’re qualified, and Mangi, a longtime litigator at a leading law firm, is definitely qualified (as reflected in his unanimous WQ rating from the ABA).

I also think that serving on advisory boards—a very limited role—of two controversial organizations is insufficient evidence that Mangi actually harbors antisemitic or anti-police views. He had no involvement in picking any problematic speakers. He was asked at his hearings for his thoughts on the October 7 attacks and Hamas, which he roundly condemned. And he thoroughly explained his views on law enforcement and (very limited) ties to the Alliance of Families for Justice in a letter to Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

So in the end, the opposition to Mangi appears to rest on “guilt by association” logic—of which I’m not a fan, given my outspoken opposition to “cancel culture.” And I share the concerns expressed by former judge Rahat Babar, who wondered about “the long-term chilling effect of this distasteful episode” on the aspirations of young people interested in judicial or other public service. But I realize that others disagree, and as always, I welcome alternative views in the comments.

Other lawyers in the news:

• Congratulations to Roberta Kaplan, John Quinn, and Matthew Craig of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, recognized by Ross Todd as Litigators of the Week for winning dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Musk claimed that X (fka Twitter) lost millions of dollars in revenue after CCDH reported that hate speech was proliferating on the platform.

• And congrats to Jesse Panuccio, Matthew Schwartz, and Marc Ayala, also recognized by Ross Todd for winning partial summary judgment in favor of their client, Walmart, in a dispute with Capital One.

• Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, various lawyers at Susman Godfrey, and other attorneys were the subject of a lengthy (and largely laudatory) New York Times piece by Elizabeth Williamson, based on their use of defamation lawsuits to fight political disinformation.

• Former Trump lawyer John Eastman is one step closer to disbarment, after Judge Yvette Roland issued a 128-page opinion recommending that he be disbarred. He can appeal, but it’s highly unlikely that he’ll prevail—

  and his license is now “inactive,” so he can’t practice law in California for now.

• Speaking of controversial conservative lawyers, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton must pay around $300,000 in restitution to two victims, perform 100 hours of community service, and take courses in legal ethics—and in exchange, prosecutors will drop longstanding securities-fraud charges against him.

In memoriam:

• Joe Lieberman—a four-term U.S. senator, Al Gore’s Democratic running mate in the 2000 presidential election, and Connecticut’s first full-time attorney general—passed away at 82.

• Peter Angelos, the billionaire trial lawyer and longtime owner of the Baltimore Orioles, passed away at 94.

May they rest in peace.

Judge of the Week: the unnamed judge with an “overly harsh” management style.