1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook…

Prosecutors

Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook posts criticizing judge presiding in his case, report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 11:12 am CDT

The acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., formerly helped ghostwrite posts criticizing a judge presiding in a civil case in which he was the defendant, according to lawsuit documents cited by ProPublica.

U.S. attorney nominee Edward R. Martin Jr. helped his associate, Priscilla Gray, write the posts that began in 2016 after the Illinois judge “dealt Martin a major setback in the case,” according to the report by ProPublica, noted by Bloomberg Law’s Wake Up Call. Martin is filling the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia position on an acting basis.

Gray’s posts on the judge’s Facebook page called the judge a “politician” with the “lowest rating for a judge in Illinois.”

Martin had urged Gray to call the judge’s actions “unfair and rigged over and over,” according to ProPublica. He also urged Gray to privately message the judge, the article reports.

The judge was presiding in a case seeking to oust Martin from association with a grassroots group that he once headed, the Eagle Forum. The plaintiff was Anne Schlafly Cori, an Eagle Forum board member who was the daughter of the group’s founder, Phyllis Schlafly.

The truth about Martin’s involvement in the criticism “emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit,” according to ProPublica.

President Donald Trump has nominated Martin, who has no prosecution experience, to remain in the U.S. attorney position. Martin did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gray also declined to comment to the publication.

Andy Schlafly, a former Eagle Forum board member who supported Martin, told ProPublica that Gray “speaks for herself” and had every right to express her outrage. He also said no court has ever sanctioned Martin for his “First Amendment advocacy.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law prof who used F-word while criticizing…

Law Professors

Law prof who used F-word while criticizing political leaders can’t be reinstated immediately, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 9:14 am CST

Updated: A state appeals court stepped in after a judge in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, issued a temporary restraining order that required Louisiana State University to reinstate a law professor to teaching following his suspension for “inappropriate statements” in the classroom.

Judge Donald R. Johnson of the 19th Judicial District Court in Louisiana ordered professor Ken M. Levy’s temporary reinstatement Jan. 30 and set a Feb. 10 hearing to consider the professor’s request for an injunction. The TRO said the university can’t take action against Levy, for now, on account of free speech and due process protections under the state and federal constitutions.

Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal vacated part of the TRO in a Feb. 4 order, report the Advocate and WAFB via Above the Law. The appeals court said Johnson should not have ordered Levy back into the classroom without a full evidentiary hearing. Still intact is another part of the TRO barring Louisiana State University from interfering with Levy’s employment based on expression that is constitutionally protected.

The Louisiana Luminator, NOLA.com and WAFB (here and here) had coverage of the TRO noted by Above the Law and the Volokh Conspiracy. Law.com has a report on the resignation of Louisiana State University general counsel Winston DeCuir Jr., who was the first Black lawyer to serve in that role for Louisiana State University. DeCuir resigned days after Levy’s suspension.

Levy had used the F-word while criticizing President Donald Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry. The university told Levy that he was suspended “pending an investigation into student complaints of inappropriate statements made in your class,” according to a Jan. 17 letter cited by NOLA.com.

In a court filing, the university said it was investigating “inappropriate, vulgar and potentially harassing conduct in the classroom,” WAFB reported. The university said it removed Levy after hearing a recording of a classroom lecture.

WAFB obtained a tape of Levy’s statements, made during an introductory lecture to his criminal law class. He spoke after asking students not to record his lectures because he didn’t want to get in trouble with the governor as another law professor did for classroom comments. Here are some of his comments:

  • “I frankly, like, forward my s- – – to the governor, like I generally don’t have a problem; I would love to become a national celebrity based on what I said in this class, like f- – – the governor.” Levy said. “But taken out of context, I might seem like a bit of an a- -hole.”

  • “You probably heard I’m a big lefty; OK, I’m a big Democrat, um, I’ve been devastated by, I couldn’t believe that f- – -er won. Um, and those of you who like him, I don’t give a s- – -, you can have, you’re already getting ready to say your evaluations. I don’t need his political commentary; no, you need my political commentary, you above all others need my political commentary.”

A court filing said Levy’s comments about Landry were made in a joking manner, and his comments about Trump were his “rather colorful opinion,” NOLA.com reported.

Johnson denied motions by Louisiana State University for a stay or dissolution of the temporary restraining order, according to WAFB.

The university said in a statement cited by NOLA.com it was committed “to upholding academic freedom while maintaining a respectful and professional learning environment.”

Faculty members should respect the views of others, the statement said. And academic freedom doesn’t give professors the freedom to use the classroom “as a platform for personal grievances,” the university said.

Updated Feb. 5 at 8:40 a.m. to report on the Louisiana appeals court’s decision.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal…

Trials & Litigation

Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal judge holds lawyer jointly responsible for over $207K in legal fees

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 29, 2024, 2:34 pm CDT

A federal judge in Houston is holding a lawyer and his client liable for more than $207,500 in their opponent’s legal fees, saying they filed a patent infringement lawsuit and continued to litigate it after the defendant “pointed out its obvious lack of merit.”

U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas required Houston lawyer William P. Ramey III and his client VDPP to pay the fees in their suit contending that a Volkswagen backup camera infringed VDPP’s patent, Reuters reports.

VDPP had argued that the fee award should be limited to the time spent defending “the exceptional portion of the case,” a reference to parts of a case found to be frivolous or unreasonable.

Rosenthal responded that the entire case was frivolous, and VDPP’s arguments displayed “chutzpah.”

“The entire case was exceptional, from the outset, for reasons that VDPP and its counsel knew,” wrote Rosenthal in her Aug. 13 decision. “There is no need to allocate the fees between the frivolous and nonfrivolous aspects of the case. It was all frivolous.”

VDPP sought future damages that were “clearly unrecoverable” because the patent had expired, Rosenthal wrote. The company sought past damages that were “clearly unrecoverable” because VDPP had not complied with marking requirements, she said.

And VDPP “lied about the existence of prior licensing agreements that confirmed the meritless nature of its case,” Rosenthal said.

In a prior decision, Rosenthal said settlement agreements licensing the VDPP patent did not require licensees to comply with marking requirements. VDPP had said there were no settlement agreements—only “agreements in principle,” Rosenthal said.

According to Reuters, Ramey and his law firm filed more than 100 suits this year, including at least 25 in which VDPP was the plaintiff. Federal judges have imposed fee sanctions in Ramey’s cases at least seven times in four years, according to Reuters. The sanctions total is at least $810,000, according to the wire service.

Ramey told Reuters in a statement that he and VDPP “respect all court orders. We appeal those orders we think are incorrect, as we have done in this case.”

Ramey did not immediately reply to an ABA Journal request for comment made in an email and in a message left with his firm.