1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Skadden improperly limited lawyer access…

Law Firms

Skadden improperly limited lawyer access to email distribution lists, group claims in NLRB filing

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 1:19 pm CDT

A workers’ rights group alleges that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom improperly interfered with protected employee discussions about the law firm’s deal with President Donald Trump when it restricted email distribution lists.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights filed an unfair labor practice charge with those allegations last week with the National Labor Relations Board, report Bloomberg Law, Law360 and Reuters.

Skadden’s deal, announced March 28 on Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, calls for the firm to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services to support causes favored by Trump and the firm. The agreement also said Skadden will not engage in illegal discrimination based on equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Skadden reached the deal to prevent becoming a target in a punitive executive order.

The charge said “associates used firm email to discuss these changes, submit resignations, plan coordinated rejections of recruitment activities, and express concerns about the impact on what they do, with whom they work, and their ethical obligations.”

A letter sent to the NLRB, along with the labor charge, cited an anonymous Skadden employee who said the firm “turned off firm email lists to silence people” before announcement of the deal.

Curtailing access to email lists interfered with employees’ ability to engage in mutual aid and protection outside of a union, the letter said.

The National Institute for Workers’ Rights submitted the charge because of its concerns about worker rights and was not acting on behalf of Skadden employees, according to the letter. Generally, the National Labor Relations Act allows anyone to file a charge for unfair labor practices, according to Bloomberg Law.

Jeremy D. London, a Skadden executive partner, did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Conservative group sues ABA over Legal Opportunity…

Diversity

Conservative group sues ABA over Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund program

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 12:36 pm CDT

A group led by a conservative activist has filed a lawsuit alleging that an ABA scholarship program engages in “blatant discrimination” in violation of federal law.

The April 12 suit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights, a nonprofit organization, says the scholarships are contractual in nature, and their restrictions on eligibility violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination in contracting.

The ABA is represented by Jenner & Block, one of the law firms targeted in a punitive executive order by President Donald Trump, Bloomberg Law reports. Jenner & Block has filed a suit challenging the order against it.

The suit by conservative activist Edward Blum’s group targets the ABA’s Legal Opportunity Scholarship Fund, which awards $15,000 scholarships to select incoming law students. Applicants must be members of underrepresented racial or ethnic minorities, such as Black/African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders, according to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

“Even if the scholarship did not flatly exclude whites on its face,” the suit says, “the scholarship discriminates against whites in application and by design.”

The suit seeks a declaration that the scholarships violate Section 1981, an injunction barring the ABA from considering race or ethnicity in the program, an order to reopen the application process using neutral criteria, and nominal damages.

Another organization that Blum created, Students for Fair Admissions, won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2023 that struck down race-conscious admissions programs in higher education.

The American Alliance for Equal Rights is represented by Lawfair and Consovoy McCarthy.

The goal of the new suit, Blum said in a statement, “is not to eliminate ABA’s scholarships but to ensure they are based on legitimate criteria, such as financial need or merit, rather than race.”

The ABA does not comment on active litigation, according to Jim Walsh, the chief communications officer and associate executive director of the ABA.

Publications covering the suit include Law.com, Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law.

See also:

Activist who succeeded in ending affirmative action targets law firms’ diversity efforts

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

Under the turbulent glare of national attention, a federal district judge on Thursday made comity the informal order of the day — while also promising to issue a restraining order against several members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet over the Signal group chat scandal.

But first he sought to set the record straight.

“Some questions have been raised regarding this court’s random assignment,” U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg intoned — emphasizing the penultimate word. “All cases are randomly assigned.”

The jurist is, as of late, unusually well-known — largely due to being the target of Trumpworld ire over a series of anti-government court rulings and concomitant dressings-down of government lawyers in the Alien Enemies Act case. Seemingly aware of the consternation, the judge explained in detail the “automated” process that put him in charge of another high-profile case against the Trump administration.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Seeing double standard, 5th Circuit judge…

Judiciary

Seeing double standard, 5th Circuit judge resigns from judicial group over threats statement

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 11, 2025, 3:32 pm CDT

A federal appeals judge has said he has resigned from the Federal Judges Association because it issued a statement against recent judicial threats but apparently said nothing in defense of conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Judge James C. Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans announced his resignation at an event by the Federalist Society, a conservative group, on Saturday, report Bloomberg Law, Reuters and Law.com.

The March 5 statement by the Federal Judges Association said judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation.

The Federal Judges Association statement said the group appreciates Chief Justice John Roberts and others who have “commented recently on the rise in criticism, threats and violence aimed at members of the judiciary. Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its constitutional duties.”

The group made the statement amid impeachment threats and criticism regarding judges who have ruled against the Trump administration.

“Did we see these statements in 2024 or 2023 or 2022? From what I can tell, no,” Ho said. “You can’t say that you’re in favor of judicial independence only when it comes to decisions that you like. That’s not protecting the judiciary. That’s politicizing the judiciary.”

Ho mentioned the 2022 arrest of a man armed with a gun and zip ties near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and criticism of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.

Ho is an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term. He previously announced that he is boycotting the hiring of clerks from law schools that he thinks have mishandled student protests or stifled conservative views.

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

Video released this week by California‘s Department of Insurance allegedly shows a group of Los Angeles residents committing fake bear attacks on their own luxury cars — including a Rolls-Royce Ghost and Mercedes-Benz “G-Wagon” — using a bear suit and meat shredders, according to officials.

“It was clearly a human in a bear suit,” the department said in a press release on Wednesday after handing down charges to Ruben Tamrazian, 26, Ararat Chirkinian, 39, Vahe Muradkhanyan, 32, and Alfiya Zuckerman, 39.

The group is accused of using a bear costume to fake at least three attacks on a 2010 Rolls-Royce Ghost, a 2015 Mercedes G63 AMG and a 2022 Mercedes E350. The original price tags for all three vehicles, combined, is over $350,000 — with a base sedan for the Ghost, alone, coming in at $245,000.

Four arrested after videos show fake bear attacks for insurance payouts.

Operation Bear Claw reveals suspects allegedly wore bear costume to commit insurance fraud. pic.twitter.com/9mzfvaq2B3

— CA Dept of Insurance (@CDInews) November 13, 2024

State investigators say an insurance company came forward earlier this year after receiving a report about one of the “bear” attacks, which seemed suspicious. The company had gotten a claim about an incident in Lake Arrowhead on Jan. 28, which left a Rolls-Royce — the Ghost — with interior damage, according to officials.

A surveillance video provided by the suspects showed what they claimed was a bear having its way with their vehicle, opening a front door and making its way to the back for some grub before exiting, the suspects told the insurance company. Photos released by CDI show damage and scratches to the car’s interior.

“Upon further scrutiny of the video, the investigation determined the bear was actually a person in a bear costume,” CDI officials said Wednesday. “Detectives found two additional insurance claims with two different insurance companies, for the suspects with the same date of loss and at the same location.” Additional video had also been submitted.

After launching an investigation, the department was able to piece everything together using some canny techniques of its own.

“To further ensure it was not actually a bear in the video, the Department had a biologist from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife review the three alleged bear videos and they also opined it was clearly a human in a bear suit,” CDI officials said. “After executing a search warrant, detectives found the bear costume in the suspects’ home.”

In total, the insurance companies involved were allegedly defrauded of $141,839, according to CDI. The department was assisted by Glendale Police and California Highway Patrol. San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is handling the case.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ABA changes description of Judicial Clerkship…

Bar Associations

ABA changes description of Judicial Clerkship Program after conservative group sees ‘quotas’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 9, 2024, 2:00 pm CDT

The ABA updated the description of its Judicial Clerkship Program after a conservative group alleged that the language indicated that the association used racial “quotas” in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Annaliese Fleming, the ABA senior associate executive director and general counsel, said in a statement the description was changed because it was inaccurate.

“In reviewing the program materials, some language was removed that did not accurately reflect the operation of the program,” Fleming said. “The Judicial Clerkship Program has not been changed. We remain committed to the ABA’s Goal III of enhancing diversity and eliminating bias in the legal profession, legal system and the association.”

The prior description said law schools participating in the Judicial Clerkship Program must “commit to send (and underwrite the costs for) four to six law students who are from underrepresented communities of color.” The old description also said judges participating in the program would be asked to make a commitment to hire at least two minority law clerks over the next five years.

The new wording says law schools “are encouraged to select a diverse group of students using criteria aligned with the ABA’s Goal III objectives.” It also says judges from across the country participate in the program but says nothing about judges striving to hire at least two minority law clerks.

Reuters and Bloomberg Law covered the new language.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty had targeted the ABA’s description of the Judicial Clerkship Program in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice in May.

The complaint, which was also sent to the Department of Education, targeted law schools participating in the program, as well.

The complaint alleged violation of Title VI, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by recipients of federal funds. The complaint says the ABA is subject to Title VI because it receives federal funds, serves a public purpose, and provides educational and social services.

The complaint asked for an investigation of the ABA and any university that participated in the Judicial Clerkship Program.

The ABA had told the institute in response to an April demand letter that it “imposes no restrictions on which students can attend the program,” and that “the selection of student participants is left solely to the discretion of participating schools,” according to the Title VI complaint. The ABA response also said judges were not asked to make hiring commitments.

“The programs at issue are lawful, and we intend to defend them vigorously against any challenges,” Fleming said in a statement when the institute filed the DOJ complaint.

Skylar Croy, associate counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email with questions about the change.

A panel of judges on a local Ohio court has not only declined to issue arrest warrants for Donald Trump and JD Vance over “eating the cats” rhetoric directed at Haitian immigrants, but also stated flatly the nonprofit group accusing the Republican ticket of political speech crimes did not establish probable cause in an affidavit that may not have been filed in “good faith.”

The en banc Clark County Municipal Court’s ruling on Friday included a majority opinion and a concurrence concluding that the Haitian Bridge Alliance, the group’s executive director Guerline Jozef, and lead attorney Subodh Chandra ran into a brick wall — the First Amendment — and were only entitled to a referral to the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, meaning prosecutors, not a court fielding a citizen affidavit, will have to decide “whether any prosecution is warranted.”

The federal Judiciary is accepting applications for membership in its public user group that provides advice and feedback on ways to improve electronic public access (EPA) services.

The EPA Public User Group consists of up to 12 members representing a cross section of people who use the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system to access federal court records, including representatives of the legal sector, commercial enterprises, the media, academia, government agencies, and the public.

The application period is open until Sept. 2, 2024. Interested individuals should fill out an application form and submit it to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). The two-year terms begin on Jan. 1, 2025.

The EPA Public User Group typically holds an annual, in-person meeting in Washington, D.C., and additional meetings virtually, as needed. Meeting agendas and summaries are publicly available.

Members are selected by the AO based on user type, experience accessing court electronic records through PACER, frequency of usage, an account status in good standing, and a commitment to collecting feedback from peers. Current members of the group may reapply for a second term. Members can serve no more than two consecutive terms.

The EPA Public User Group will serve as the Judiciary continues its effort to modernize the Case Management and Electronic Case Files system and PACER, the portal used by the public to access court records in that system. The planned improvements include improving search functionality in PACER, so users can search across the Judiciary more easily for near real-time court data, documents, and docket entries.

The group, first formed in 2020, has contributed to several improvements to the Judiciary’s electronic public access services. Recommendations from the group were pivotal in the creation of a pro se user page on the PACER website, improvements in the PACER Case Locator, and raising awareness among courts of the importance of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds. Most recently, the EPA Public User Group aided in refining the requirements for Case Preview, a new feature in the PACER interface, which will provide users with a case summary.

PACER allows instantaneous access to nearly all documents filed by judges and the parties in all U.S. courts of appeals, district courts, and bankruptcy courts. It provides a central access point to more than 1 billion documents housed at more than 200 federal courts. In operation for more than 30 years, PACER has about 4.7 million user accounts.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Justice Thomas’ wife reportedly thanked group…

U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Thomas’ wife reportedly thanked group for fighting Supreme Court reform

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 5, 2024, 10:10 am CDT

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, thanked a religious liberty group in an email for fighting Supreme Court reform, according to a recording of a call led by the group’s president and CEO.

Kelly Shackelford, leader of the First Liberty Institute, a group that litigates religious liberty cases, said he was reading from parts of Ginni Thomas’ email in his July 31 donor call, according to a story by ProPublica and Documented, which obtained the recording.

Thomas reportedly sent the email soon after President Joe Biden proposed three reforms: term limits for Supreme Court justices, a binding ethics code for the justices, and a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity.

Thomas reportedly wrote to a staff member of the First Liberty Institute after a meeting.

“I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the Supreme Court,” she wrote in the email, according to Shackelford. “Many were so depressed at the lack of response by R’s and conservatives” to reform proposals.

“You guys have filled the sails of many judges. Can I just tell you, thank you so, so, so much,” Thomas reportedly wrote in all capital letters.

Shackelford also criticized Justice Elena Kagan during the call for endorsing an enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court’s new ethics code.

“That is incredible, somewhat treasonous, what Kagan did,” he said. “The chief justice rules the court. They’re trying to keep the other branches’ hands off of them. And then you’ve got Kagan from the inside really being somewhat disloyal and somewhat treasonous in what she’s doing.”

Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel at the First Liberty Institute, issued a statement in response to a request for comment by ProPublica and Documented.

“First Liberty is extremely alarmed at the leftist attacks on our democracy and judicial independence and is fighting to bring attention to this dangerous threat. It’s shameful that the political left seems perfectly fine destroying democracy to achieve the court decisions they favor instead of working through democratic and constitutional means,” Sasser wrote. “It is dangerous to the liberty of all Americans, regardless of political leanings, for any of the co-equal branches of government to seek to rule over another. Eighty-seven percent of Americans believe judicial independence is essential to protecting our civil rights. We will continue this fight for the future of our nation.”

Hat tip to How Appealing and Above the Law, which noted the story.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judges end ‘oral-argument affirmative…

Judiciary

Federal judges end ‘oral-argument affirmative action,’ leading Stephen Miller group to declare victory

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2024, 3:02 pm CDT

A legal group founded by Stephen Miller, a former senior policy adviser in the Trump White House, has declared victory after two federal judges in Illinois rescinded polices promoting what the group calls “oral-argument affirmative action.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Judge Staci M. Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois rescinded their policies after Miller’s conservative group, the America First Legal Foundation, filed a January misconduct complaint with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago, according to a March 21 memorandum and order by Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes of the 7th Circuit.

U.S. District Judge David W. Dugan, also in the Southern District of Illinois, was also targeted by America First Legal, but he had rescinded the policy in October 2022, Sykes said.

Reuters and Law360 have coverage.

The rescinded policies were intended to encourage “newer, female and minority” attorneys to argue motions. They provided that after a motion is briefed, a party may alert the court that a newer, female or minority attorney will argue the motion if a request for argument is granted. The court would then grant the request if practicable, would strongly consider granting extra time for argument, and would permit more experienced lawyers to assist.

The misconduct complaint had contended that the judges were violating federal judicial conduct rules, violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, and discriminating on the basis of race and sex. A conservative second group, Judicial Watch, filed a misconduct complaint in March.

The judges’ revised policies now say oral argument by “relatively inexperienced attorneys” is welcomed or encouraged.

In a March 22 press release, America First Legal called the rescinded policies “an important victory for our Constitution and the rule of law.”

America First Legal has filed more than 100 lawsuits, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission complaints, amicus briefs and other legal demands over the past three years, the New York Times reports in a separate story.

The group has fewer than 10 lawyers, according to the New York Times. Only $1.7 million of its $44 million budget is used to pay lawyers, while $29.6 million is used for promotion and advertising, according to the New York Times.