1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days…

Disability Law

Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 9:00 am CDT

A former lawyer at Ballard Spahr has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired for taking medical leave after suffering gastrointestinal problems and a seizure.

Kimberly Steefel, a former of counsel for Ballard Spahr, filed the April 8 suit in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York, Law360 reports in a story noted by Above the Law.

Steefel learned that she was being fired in October 2022 on the day that she returned to the law firm’s New York office from medical leave, according to her suit. Only 11 days before she had disclosed her epilepsy diagnosis and her medical provider’s recommendation for an accommodation in the form of a flexible work schedule, the suit says.

Steefel suffered from gastrointestinal problems and what she thought was her first seizure before beginning the medical leave. She later sought “16 reasonable accommodations for her epilepsy,” the suit says.

The accommodations stemmed from the effect of epilepsy on stamina and concentration and the need to “avoid environments pervaded by anxiety and hostility,” which can lower the seizure threshold, according to the suit.

There was no attempt to discuss accommodations, the suit says. Steefel was initially told that her employment would end no later than mid-January 2023, but the date was later pushed back to mid-April 2023.

Before she learned of her firing, Steefel had “received nothing but praise and positive feedback” for her work, the suit says.

Her suit alleges discrimination, retaliation, hostile treatment and wrongful termination on the basis of Steefel’s disabilities and gender in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The suit alleges that the firm has a history of discriminating against disabled people, pointing to Ballard Spahr lawyer job ads with “nonsensical physical requirements” that include the ability to “stand, walk, bend and stoop,” to sit for long periods of time, and to “lift up to 40 pounds.”

Steefel also alleges that her practice group, the employee benefits and executive compensation group, created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.

The group had a “systematic practice” of “replacing the junior- or mid-level female attorneys with other female attorneys at the same or lower level, thus keeping the cycle of maintaining females at lower-level positions only, and at the same time, hiring into and promoting to more senior-level positions only males,” the suit says.

Ballard Spahr provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “The firm disputes the allegations contained in Ms. Steefel’s complaint, and in particular, that she was terminated due to an alleged disability or her gender. The firm will defend the case vigorously.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DOJ files complaint against federal judge…

Judiciary

DOJ files complaint against federal judge for alleged hostility against government lawyer

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 24, 2025, 12:27 pm CST

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a misconduct complaint Friday for alleged “hostile and egregious misconduct” by a federal judge presiding in a challenge to an executive order that says gender dysphoria conflicts with military troop readiness.

The DOJ filed the complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes of Washington, D.C., report Law360, the Associated Press and Reuters.

“The transcript reveals multiple instances where Judge Reyes’ misconduct compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias, raising serious concerns about her ability to preside impartially in this matter,” the complaint says.

Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed the complaint seeking “appropriate action” with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Reyes is an appointee of former President Joe Biden. According to Original Jurisdiction, Reyes “is an equal-opportunity benchslapper” who has also chastised “liberal legal lions.”

The Jan. 27 executive order asks the secretary for the U.S. Department of Defense to revise the military’s transgender policy in a way that is consistent with the order.

“Adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life,” the executive order says.

The Associated Press and Law 360 report that during the hearings, Reyes:

  • Raised her voice and demanded an answer from a government attorney about whether President Donald Trump’s executive order showed animus by calling “an entire category of people dishonest, dishonorable, undisciplined.”

  • Engaged in a rhetorical exercise regarding discrimination. Reyes declared that graduates of the University of Virginia School of Law would be barred from her courtroom because they are “liars and lack integrity.” She then told the government lawyer who was a University of Virginia School of Law grad “to sit down.” According to the ethics complaint, the directive “served no legitimate judicial purpose and transformed an attorney appearing before the court into an unwilling participant in the judge’s unnecessary demonstration.”

  • Asked the government lawyer what “Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’?” she asked. The complaint says the question “placed DOJ counsel in an untenable position of either appearing unresponsive or speculating about how an incoherent hypothetical aligns with Judge Reyes’ personal religious beliefs.”

The plaintiffs challenging the order are six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others who want to enlist.

Reyes is not the only federal judge feeling the heat while presiding over challenges to Trump administration policies. Republican lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York after he barred Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s representative from accessing information from the Department of the Treasury, report Bloomberg Law and Axios.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Which BigLaw firms and big-name lawyers are…

Law Firms

Which BigLaw firms and big-name lawyers are involved in suits against Trump administration?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 9:40 am CST

Several BigLaw firms and at least three U.S. Supreme Court practitioners are representing plaintiffs suing the Trump administration.

Well-known attorneys involved in the litigation include Neal Katyal, who recently joined Milbank from Hogan Lovells; Seth Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; and Paul Clement, who left Kirkland & Ellis to form Clement & Murphy, report Law.com and Reuters.

The three lawyers have significant Supreme court experience. Waxman and Clement are former U.S. solicitors general, while Katyal was an acting solicitor general.

Smaller law firms and legal organizations are also involved in the litigation, including the American Civil Liberties Union, its foundation and its affiliates; Lambda Legal; Democracy Forward; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; the National Security Counselors firm; Lawyers for Civil Rights; and immigrant rights groups. Democratic state attorneys general are also filing legal challenges.

According to Law.com and Reuters, these BigLaw firms are involved in lawsuits:

  • Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, representing fired inspectors general. (Law.com)

  • Hogan Lovells, seeking to block executive orders to end federal funding for gender-affirming medical care. (Law.com)

  • Jenner & Block, also seeking to block the orders on gender-affirming care and cuts to medical research funding. (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Ropes & Gray, also seeking to block cuts to medical research funding. (Law.com)

  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, representing the Amica Center for Immigrants Rights and others seeking to block funding cuts for immigrant legal services. (Law.com)

  • Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, representing the ABA and other groups challenging a freeze on foreign assistance funding. The firm also sued over the order ending birthright citizenship. (Law.com, ABAJournal.com, Reuters)

  • Perkins Coie, representing transgender service members challenging an order restricting military service. (Law.com, Reuters)

  • Milbank, representing the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a suit over her attempted ouster. (Reuters)

Just Security and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse are tracking legal challenges to Trump administration actions.

See also:

Which law firms are expected to win influence in Trump administration?

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Averting immediate showdown, chief justice…

U.S. Supreme Court

Averting immediate showdown, chief justice pauses judge’s deadline for US to restore foreign-aid funds

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2025, 10:36 am CST

The U.S. government doesn’t have to comply with a federal judge’s Wednesday night deadline to restore foreign-aid funds after Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay in the matter.

Roberts issued the temporary stay late Wednesday in two consolidated lawsuits challenging a 90-day freeze in funding for foreign assistance programs. A plaintiff in one of the suits is the ABA, which had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule of law and human rights programs, its suit said.

The Washington Post, Reuters, NBC News, Law.com, SCOTUSblog and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage.

Plaintiffs in the suit consolidated with the ABA’s alleged Feb. 19 that government defendants showed “brazen defiance” of a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order requiring restoration of funding.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia issued the Feb. 13 TRO. On Feb. 25, Ali issued a bench ruling setting the deadline at 11:59 p.m. Feb. 26 for compliance with his order requiring payment on completed contracts. The U.S. government immediately appealed.

Amir’s order appears to contemplate the immediate outlay of nearly $2 billion, according to the stay request filed with the Supreme Court by Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.

The government is committed to paying legitimate claims for work, and it is “undertaking significant efforts” toward that end, Harris said.

“What the government cannot do,” Harris wrote, “is pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of the district court’s choosing or according to extra-contractual rules that the court has devised. That mandate creates an untenable payment plan at odds with the president’s obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgments about foreign aid.”

The stay request argued that the suits amount to claims for breach of contract that should be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The cases are U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Trump v. Global Health Council.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks…

Administrative Law

Ruling in ABA lawsuit, federal judge blocks pause on foreign aid but does not order Trump to act

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 18, 2025, 12:11 pm CST

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued a temporary restraining order that allows some foreign assistance programs to continue, for now, in a lawsuit filed by the American Bar Association and other plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia ruled Feb. 13 in two consolidated suits, report Law.com, the New York Times, NPR, NBC News and Law360. The ABA announced the decision in a Feb. 14 press release.

President Donald Trump froze the funding in a Jan. 20 executive order requiring a 90-day review to determine whether the foreign assistance programs should end or be modified.

“Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” wrote Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden.

Ali’s TRO bars the suspension of appropriated foreign assistance funds in connection with contracts, grants or other awards that were in existence Jan. 19. The TRO also bars stop-work orders in connection with those funding awards.

Ali’s decision applies to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and other government defendants but not to Trump.

Ali said the ABA “narrowed” its request for relief after the government “rightly highlighted the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power” during a hearing. An initial proposed TRO filed by the ABA and other plaintiffs asked Ali to order all the defendants, including Trump, to allow continued funding. A revised proposal no longer mentioned Trump.

The Feb. 11 suit had claimed that the administration’s actions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of the Constitution’s take care clause and beyond a president’s powers.

Ali said the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs.

“Defendants have repeatedly, and rightly, emphasized the importance of respecting the president’s Article II power as it relates to foreign policy,” Ali wrote. “Plaintiffs, for their part, have emphasized the Constitution’s separation of powers, which also demands respect for Congress’ Article I role in legislating, including Congress’ choice to allow judicial review through the APA and other statutes constraining the executive branch, as well as Congress’ important role in appropriating funds.”

The ABA implements 19 programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development or “via subaward,” according to the Feb. 11 suit filed by the association and seven other plaintiffs. The ABA also implements 59 programs funded by the U.S. Department of State.

The ABA programs, administered through the ABA Center for Global Programs, support U.S. international interests by promoting the rule of law and human rights, the suit says.

“Plaintiff ABA has had tens of millions of dollars in USAID and State Department funding frozen,” the suit says. “This freeze has decimated ABA’s programs, including its efforts to protect religious freedom in Asia, fight human trafficking in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, prepare Ukraine to recover from Russia’s invasion, advance democracy in Myanmar, and combat money laundering and terrorism in South America.”

ABA President Bill Bay commented on Ali’s ruling in the press release.

“The actions of the president and other executive branch officials to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was established by Congress to administer billions of dollars of foreign assistance funding, is unprecedented. The American Bar Association cannot overstate the impact of this unlawful course of conduct,” Bay said.

“Every administration has the right to review ongoing programs and set priorities, but those actions must be carried out in compliance with relevant constitutional and statutory requirements,” Bay said. “There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. We have filed a suit to ensure that changes are consistent with the rule of law. The sudden dismantling of USAID has real-world consequences that cause harm not only to those we serve but also to those who serve others.”

The ABA and the other plaintiffs are represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in their suit, Global Health Council v. Trump. The Global Health Council suit was consolidated with AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia has imposed a TRO in a similar case and extended it to Feb. 21, according to Law.com. The TRO bars the administration from putting USAID employees on administrative leave and from requiring them to leave their overseas posts.

See also:

Contempt sought against US officials for alleged ‘brazen defiance’ of court order on foreign-aid funds

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Should defendants without court-appointed…

Criminal Justice

Should defendants without court-appointed lawyers be released? Should charges be dropped? Judge weighs remedies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 27, 2025, 3:06 pm CST

A Maine judge is considering how to remedy the state’s failure to provide lawyers to indigent defendants on a timely basis.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine is urging Judge Michaela Murphy of Kennebec County, Maine, to order the Maine Commission on Public Defender Services to provide counsel from the time that a defendant is charged. Murphy should give the organization 30 days to come up with an implementation plan, the ACLU said.

Defendants without a court-appointed lawyer after seven days should be released from jail, and those without a lawyer after 45 days should have their charges dismissed until a defense lawyer is available, the ACLU argued.

The Portland Press Herald (in stories here, here and here) and Maine Public Radio have coverage.

Murphy ruled Jan. 3 that Maine is violating the Sixth Amendment rights of criminal defendants who remain unrepresented after arraignment or first appearances. The judge had a three-day hearing focusing on remedies that ended Friday.

The state is arguing that remedies for the late appointment of a lawyer could be handled on an individual basis.

When Maine adopted a full-time public defender system in 2022, it was the last state to do so. But the state still has a hybrid system in which it relies on private attorneys to handle much of the work, the Portland Press Herald explains. The state also has a “lawyer of the day” program in which temporary lawyers represent defendants for their first court appearance when a permanent lawyer can’t be found.

In testimony on remedies, Walter McKee, an experienced criminal defense lawyer, said it was important to have permanent legal representation early in the case, according to Portland Press Herald.

“These are processes that are important to be dealt with, right from Day 1,” McKee said. “Law enforcement has had a significant amount of time to investigate and follow up. They’re way ahead of the defendant. Those delays are significant, right from the start.”

The ACLU case is State of Maine v. Robbins.

See also:

Defenseless: Lack of public defenders creates a crisis for indigent clients and increased caseloads for lawyers

Federal judge orders release of county’s unrepresented defendants, says problem is ‘complete tragedy’

Citing ‘Sixth Amendment nightmare,’ 9th Circuit allows pretrial release of defendants without lawyers

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

Predictions for the coming year are always tempting, but in hindsight often seem foolhardy. No one in December 2019 could have anticipated the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. And in December 2023, no one could have envisioned the political roller coaster of 2024. Although there is much that cannot be anticipated, the following seem realistic questions as we anticipate the new year.

What will be legal challenges to Trump admin policies, and how soon will they reach the court?

Many of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promises, if implemented, are sure to provoke legal challenges. Trump has pledged many changes in immigration law, including mass deportations, creating large detention camps and an effort to end birthright citizenship, where those born in the United States are deemed citizens.

As a candidate, Trump explicitly embraced controlling federal spending by impounding funds. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the co-directors of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, did so in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Musk has talked about cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget, and Ramaswamy has said the federal workforce should be cut by 75%. Impoundment of funds is prohibited by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and is sure to be challenged as violating that law and infringing separation of powers. Musk and Ramaswamy, in their op-ed, boldly predict the U.S. Supreme Court will declare the Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional, which would dramatically change federal spending power.

The Trump administration is sure to try to repeal many Biden era rules and regulations. These shifts often will be challenged in court.

States with Democratic attorneys general are readying their efforts to challenge many Trump administration policies. During the last Trump presidency, the California attorney general brought 123 lawsuits against the administration.

Although the challenges to Trump administration policies will begin in federal district courts, preliminary injunctions—or denial of preliminary injunctions—will be immediately appealed. Some could quickly get to the Supreme Court on its emergency (“shadow”) docket. This occurred repeatedly in the first Trump term, and it seems certain to happen again. It is just a question of what issues, when they get to the high court and how they are decided.

How will the court approach the culture wars?

On Dec. 4, the court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a challenge to the Tennessee law that prohibits gender affirming care for transgender youths. An interesting procedural wrinkle is that the petitioner is the United States government. The Trump administration is very likely on Jan. 20 to inform the court that the federal government now wishes to support, rather than oppose the Tennessee law. There are private parties who brought challenges and whose certiorari petitions were not granted but who have filed briefs in the court. Will the court simply substitute them for the United States as petitioners?

At the oral argument, the justices appeared ideologically divided. Five of the conservative justices expressed the view that there should be deference to the Tennessee legislature. Justice Neil Gorsuch was silent during the oral argument. The three liberal justices saw the Tennessee law as discrimination based on sex and gender identity, and likely violating equal protection.

Another case with implications for the culture wars will be heard on Jan. 15, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. It involves a Texas law requiring that internet websites and social media platforms do age verification if more than one-third of their content is sexual material that would be harmful to minors. The U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the law, using rational basis review. The Supreme Court granted review as to whether that is the correct standard of review.

Supreme Court precedents are conflicting as to whether age verification requirements for access to sexually explicit material are allowed. In Ginsberg v. New York, in 1968, the court upheld a New York law that prevented the sale of sexually explicit material to minors under age 18. But in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, in 2004, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional provisions of the Child Online Protection Act that required age verification for websites with sexually explicit material. Underlying Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is the question of how far states can go in regulating the internet and social media, especially to prevent harm to children.

Will the court save TikTok in the United States?

A federal law provides that TikTok must stop operating in the United States on Jan. 19 if its owner, ByteDance, does not sell it to a non-Chinese company. On Dec. 6, in TikTok v. Garland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the TikTok ban. On Dec. 18, the Supreme Court granted expedited review in the case and scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 10.

The free speech implications are enormous. The 170 million Americans who use TikTok to share and receive information no longer will be able to do so if the law goes into effect.

The D.C. Circuit accepted the government’s claim that national security justified the law. The court said China could use TikTok to “collect data of and about persons in the United States.” The court also said China could “covertly manipulate content on TikTok” to “undermine democracy” and “extend the PRC’s influence abroad.”

The Supreme Court will need to decide what level of scrutiny to use in evaluating the federal law and apply it to decide the constitutionality of the TikTok ban. Never before has the government banned a platform for communication.

Will the court impose additional limits on the administrative state?

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has dramatically changed administrative law. This has included holding that agencies cannot act on major questions of economic or political significance without clear guidance from Congress, overruling the Chevron doctrine, under which courts deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, preventing agencies from imposing civil penalties for fraud and expanding the time within which a challenge to an agency action can be brought.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, which will be argued in the spring, could be the most important of all the recent administrative law cases. It involves whether the Supreme Court will revive the nondelegation doctrine, which provides that Congress cannot delegate its legislative power. The Supreme Court last invalidated a federal law as an excessive delegation of powers in 1935. Since then, every nondelegation challenge has been rejected by the court, even for statutes with very broad delegations of authority to federal agencies.

In 2019, in Gundy v. United States, three justices—Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts and Clarence Thomas—in a dissenting opinion urged the revival and application of the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment in the case and expressed sympathy with that position. Justice Elena Kagan’s plurality opinion, rejecting a challenge to a federal law as an excessive delegation of powers, spoke apocalyptically about the consequences of reviving the nondelegation doctrine. She wrote: If broad delegations are “unconstitutional, then most of government is unconstitutional—dependent as Congress is on the need to give discretion to executive officials to implement its programs. Consider again this court’s longtime recognition: ‘Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives.’”

There are now three justices who did not participate in the Gundy decision, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who have been in the majority in recent cases limiting administrative power, who have joined the court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also is new, though she has been in dissent in these decisions.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research involves a federal program that offers discounted phone and internet service to public schools and libraries. The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in a 9-7 en banc ruling, found unconstitutional the delegations of power. It held that Congress had impermissibly delegated its taxing power to the FCC in giving the agency the power to set the fees that telecommunications providers must pay to the fund for internet availability. It also held that the FCC delegated too much policymaking authority to the private company that administers the fund, violating the principle that the government cannot delegate its powers to private entities.

If the court strikes down the law as an excessive delegation of power, it potentially will open the door to challenges to countless federal agencies and their actions. It will require that the court struggle with the difficult question of how to define what is too much of a delegation of power and where the line is to be drawn.

Will there be a vacancy on the court?

Justice Thomas, age 76, and Justice Alito, age 74, are the two oldest members of the court. Both are very conservative. There is much speculation that they might retire in the next two years while there is a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican president to replace them. With 53 Republican senators and no possibility of a filibuster under Senate rules, President Trump can have almost any nominee confirmed. The result would be replacing these justices with much younger conservatives who will secure a conservative majority on the court for decades to come.

---

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of many books, including No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States and A Court Divided: October Term 2023 (November 2024).

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law grads with past substance-use disorders…

Disability Law

Law grads with past substance-use disorders suffered disability bias in quest for license, DOJ says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 3:15 pm CST

Would-be Tennessee lawyers encountered unlawful disability discrimination when they were required to submit to “burdensome examinations” and conditions triggered by their past diagnosis or treatment for a substance-use disorder or a mental health disorder, the U.S. Department of Justice has concluded.

The Tennessee Board of Law Examiners and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program violated Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects people with from being excluded from programs of state and local governments, according to a letter of findings released Dec. 17.

The DOJ investigated after receiving complaints from two bar applicants, “D.S.” and “C.B.,” who were previously treated for substance-use disorders related to prescription drugs. Both suffered “significant economic harm,” including loss of jobs because of delays in obtaining a law license and costs incurred in complying with required evaluations by treatment facilities.

The conditions for obtaining a law license were “burdensome, intrusive and unnecessary,” the letter said.

NBC News has identified D.S. as Derek Scott, who was taking buprenorphine, a Food and Drug Administration-approved medication that his doctor prescribed, to treat the opioid-use disorder that he developed after becoming addicted to painkillers. The network chronicled Scott’s battle for a law license.

Scott, now an attorney in Clarksville, Tennessee, has been treated continuously for opioid-use disorder since 2012. He graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 2019. On his bar application, Scott disclosed charges that were later dismissed, most of which happened when his addiction to painkillers was untreated.

Because Scott was taking buprenorphine, he was required to undergo a multiday assessment at an addiction-recovery facility that cost him $2,000. No drugs were found in his system other than buprenorphine. No cognitive impairment was found. The facility nonetheless recommended a six-month inpatient treatment program that would cost Scott $30,000, an amount lowered to $15,000 with credit for the $2,000 already spent because of scholarship money from the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program.

Scott’s treating physician “emphatically” disagreed with the need for inpatient treatment to stop a medication that was effectively treating his disability, the DOJ letter said. If he didn’t comply, Scott was told, he wouldn’t get a law license.

“Thus, D.S. was left with the choice of continuing the treatment that is successful for him in treating his [opioid-use disorder] or obtaining his license to practice law,” according to the letter of findings.

The law firm that had employed Scott as a law clerk fired him in November 2021 because of his inability to get a law license.

Scott sought a second evaluation by another facility and was granted permission. A psychiatrist there found that the drug therapy had been successful, and there were no legal, educational or occupational deficiencies. The medical report nonetheless concluded that Scott was not fit to practice law, and that abstinence treatment at a facility should be considered.

After the DOJ notified the Tennessee agencies in September 2023 that it was investigating, Scott received his law license.

The other lawyer, C.B., had completed an inpatient rehabilitation program in 2010 and graduated from law school in 2020. C.B. informed the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners that several misdemeanor arrests happened while he was abusing alcohol and Xanax, which is often used to treat anxiety disorders and anxiety caused by depression. A board interviewer concluded that C.B. had no mental or psychological disorder that would affect his ability to practice law.

C.B. was nonetheless referred to the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program for evaluation and was required to pay $6,000 for a psychological and drug assessment. The medical report found that C.B. was fit to practice law but recommended abstinence-based outpatient therapy for substance-use management and physical therapy for pain. He should also quit smoking and get his cholesterol checked, the report said.

The Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program said C.B. should get outpatient treatment in a drug program four days per week. C.B. lost his job and moved from Ohio to Tennessee to attend a seven-week program. He was then allowed to obtain a law license as long as he entered a five-year monitoring contract and submitted to random drug tests.

The restrictions and conditions imposed on Scott and C.B. “were based on speculation about their disabilities that were contrary to demonstrated conduct, and as to D.S. in particular, they were based on stigma and stereotypes about his prescribed treatment,” the letter said.

Scott told NBC News that he felt validated by the findings.

“I felt like they had put up an obstacle that they knew I couldn’t overcome,” he said.

Scott works as a lawyer primarily handling criminal defense cases, according to NBC News. He continues to take his medication.

NBC News spoke with civil rights attorney David Sinkman, who handles substance-use bias cases, about the DOJ letter. He was not involved in the case.

“This is a powerful finding by the Department of Justice that applies beyond admission to practice law in Tennessee, since there are similar licensing restrictions in other states and for other professions,” Sinkman said.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Top Montana court allows gender-affirming…

Privacy Law

Top Montana court allows gender-affirming care for trans minors during litigation, citing privacy protections

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 11:52 am CST

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday cited state constitutional privacy protections when it upheld a judge’s decision to block a law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

The state supreme court upheld a state judge’s determination that a privacy challenge to the 2023 law blocking the care was likely to succeed on the merits, and that challengers were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.

The Montana Supreme Court’s Dec. 11 decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction that blocks the ban on gender-affirming care pending a trial in the case.

The state supreme court cited the Montana Constitution, which provides: “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

The law should be evaluated using strict scrutiny, the state supreme court said.

“The statute at issue here prevents a wide range of treatment even when such treatment is determined, in the judgment of a medical professional working with their patients, to be in the patients’ best interest and given with informed consent,” the Montana Supreme Court said. “The district court reasonably concluded that the balance of the equities tips toward preliminary relief pending full consideration of the merits.”

Two concurring justices said the state supreme court also should have addressed the plaintiffs’ claim that the law violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

“Gender-affirming care is currently being litigated on equal protection grounds around the country, and the United States Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue this term,” the concurrence said. “These cases are instructive in certain ways, but they cannot answer what this court is being asked: how sex/gender discrimination and suspect class discrimination should be handled under the unique equal protection provision of the Montana Constitution.”

A partial dissenter would have allowed the law’s ban on Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care to take effect.

Hat tip to the American Civil Liberties Union, which issued a Dec. 11 press release.

How Appealing linked to coverage by the Flathead Beacon and Courthouse News Service.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyers representing transgender plaintiffs…

Ethics

Lawyers representing transgender plaintiffs face possible sanctions for alleged ‘judge shopping’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2024, 12:45 pm CDT

A federal judge in Alabama has directed 11 lawyers to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for alleged “judge shopping” in lawsuits challenging a ban on some gender-affirming medical procedures for transgender minors in the state.

On March 19, U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke of the Northern District of Alabama, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, unsealed an October 2023 report, which found that 11 out of 39 lawyers for the plaintiffs tried to circumvent random case assignment procedures. The report was conducted by a panel of three Alabama federal judges after Burke expressed concern about judge shopping.

Also on March 19, Burke unsealed his order to show cause, which was initially filed Feb. 21.

Law360, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

“It is one thing for attorneys to fret about potential judicial assignments before the ball is snapped (i.e., before a case is assigned),” the three federal judges wrote in the unsealed report. “It is another to try to change the play after the case has been assigned.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyers dropped two suits challenging the transgender medical law after the cases ended up before Burke. A new challenge with different plaintiffs was then filed in the Middle District of Alabama, where U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, is located.

The new case was not assigned to Thompson, however. It was instead assigned to Burke, who “perhaps ironically,” the report said, blocked a section of the law banning puberty blockers, according to NPR. A federal appeals court later lifted Burke’s injunction.

Lawyers had failed to get one of the two initial cases before Thompson by marking the civil cover sheet as related to a previous case in which Thompson ruled for transgender plaintiffs in a challenge to Alabama’s policy regarding sex changes on driver’s licenses, according to the Associated Press.

The 11 lawyers are ordered to appear before Burke on May 22 and 23 for a sanctions hearing.

Burke’s order directs the lawyers to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for judge shopping and for misrepresenting or failing to disclose key facts during the inquiry. Certain lawyers were also ordered to show cause whether they should be sanctioned for deliberately misleading the three-judge panel and for failing to get their clients’ consent before dismissing one of the cases.

According to news coverage, the 11 lawyers were from these groups and law firms: the Southern Poverty Law Center, GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alabama, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Cooley, and King & Spalding. (The King & Spalding lawyer is now with a different firm, while the Lambda Legal lawyer is now with the U.S. Department of Justice.)

Representatives of the groups and firms defended the work of their attorneys, according ti Law360. A Cooley representative told the publication that its attorneys “carried out their responsibilities appropriately and acted with integrity in this matter.”

A Lightfoot Franklin representative told Law360 that the firm is “confident that our attorneys acted in good faith and with no intent to violate any law, rule or established caselaw.”

Burke is sitting by designation in the case, Boe v. Marshall, filed in the Middle District of Alabama.

See also:

“‘Judge shopping’ in federal courts should end, House urges”