1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After Texas chief justice criticizes ABA,…

Law Schools

After Texas chief justice criticizes ABA, state supreme court reconsiders ABA accreditation for law schools

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 3:54 pm CDT

The Texas Supreme Court is inviting comments on a requirement that law grads seeking bar admission in the state must have graduated from a law school accredited by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

In an April 4 order, the Texas Supreme Court requested feedback on whether to “reduce or end” reliance on the ABA as an accrediting agency and “alternatives the court should consider.”

The state supreme court is inviting comments from the Texas Board of Law Examiners, Texas law school deans, the bar and the public, the order said.

Law360 covered the story.

The Texas Supreme Court did not comment on the reason for its order. But Chief Justice James D. Blacklock criticized the ABA in his February State of the Judiciary address for “aggressively taking sides in the fight going on in Washington about the scope of the president’s executive power.”

ABA President Bill Bay has criticized the Trump administration’s “wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress,” as well as “efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit.”

The Texas Supreme Court’s order follows a similar move last month by Florida’s top court. It has created a subgroup to reconsider the requirement that law grads taking the Florida bar exam must have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school.

The Florida Supreme Court took action because of “reasonable questions” about an accreditation standard on diversity and “the ABA’s active political engagement,” according to a press release. The Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has suspended enforcement of its diversity standard as it works on revisions.

The Association of American Law Schools is making the case for national accreditation of law schools in an April 8 open letter that has also been submitted to working groups considering the accreditation issue in Texas and Florida.

Thirty-three law schools, most of them in California, don’t have ABA accreditation. Most have “extremely low bar exam pass rates, poor job outcomes and high attrition rates,” the letter said.

The letter said national accreditation is critical for ensuring “a minimum baseline of quality in legal education and practice.” Most states don’t have the resources to sufficiently evaluate law schools, and “piecemeal, fragmented or overlapping regulation would increase costs on law schools, their students and the profession,” the letter said.

Creating different barriers to a law license that vary by state would also hamper lawyer mobility and add to lawyer deserts, the letter said.

The letter also clarified that the ABA does not accredit law schools. Instead, that job is handled by the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, “a national accrediting entity that is separate and independent from the bar association.”

Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, the managing director accreditation and legal education for the ABA, issued a statement to the ABA Journal.

The council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar “understands the [Texas] Supreme Court’s need to thoughtfully consider the council’s continued role in accreditation and hear from a variety of perspectives to ensure that this accreditation continues to serve its admission requirements,” the statement said.

“The council’s primary purpose in accreditation has been and continues to be contributing meaningfully to the production of effective and ethical lawyers, as well as serving the interests of the public in Texas and all other states throughout the United States.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After DC Circuit reinstates fired agency…

Executive Branch

After DC Circuit reinstates fired agency board members, chief justice pauses action

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 9, 2025, 9:11 am CDT

Updated: Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily blocked reinstatement of fired board members of two independent agencies after an en banc federal appeals court ruled in their favor Monday.

On Wednesday, Roberts issued an administrative stay that paused reinstatement of Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne A. Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board, Law360 reports.

In its April 7 order, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a three-judge panel decision that allowed Trump to remove Harris and Wilcox.

The NLRB enforces labor laws, while the MSPB considers workplace disputes by federal employees. Boards overseeing the agencies resolve appeals following decisions by administrative law judges.

The D.C. Circuit’s en banc order revived a reinstatement order by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia, Law.com reports.

The en banc court cited a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, and a 1958 Supreme Court decision, Wiener v. United States. Those decisions upheld restrictions on removal of government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards, the appeals court said.

“The Supreme Court’s repeated and recent statements that Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener remain precedential require denying the government’s emergency motions for a stay pending appeal,” the en banc majority said.

Four out of 11 en banc judges dissented.

The case is Trump v. Wilcox.

Updated April 9 at 4:17 p.m. to include information on Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative stay.

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

Bold. Innovative. Visionary. At a time when many courts are losing the battle to provide access to justice, especially in low-income communities, the Arizona Supreme Court has brought fresh ideas to bridge the justice gap.

Vice Chief Justice John Lopez, at the invitation of the ABA Crossroads Caucus, discussed innovations his court has recently put in place in a conversation with moderator Mark Martin, dean of High Point University School of Law at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Phoenix in February.

As reported by the Legal Services Corporation in its most recent Justice Gap Study in 2022, low-income Americans do not get any or enough legal help for 92% of their substantive civil legal problems. To address this issue, Lopez and his colleagues have focused on improving access to legal services by lowering costs and increasing options. For lower income citizens, the court approved several programs, including the Legal Paraprofessional Program, the Lawyer Apprentice Program, the Legal Advocate Program and the Government Law Admission Program.

The Legal Paraprofessional Program, to highlight a very successful program, has been in operation since early 2021. It grants a license that allows nonlawyers to offer limited legal services, including legal advice; drafting and filing legal documents, opinions and strategies; and representing clients in court. The first licenses were granted in November 2021, and Arizona has 65 licensed LPs. The program improves access to justice by allowing trained nonlawyers to represent clients in criminal, family, civil, administrative and juvenile law matters. The University of Arizona and Arizona State University offer a Master of Legal Studies that prepares students for the legal paraprofessional licensure exam.

To address the problem of Arizona’s “legal deserts,” a term coined by the ABA to describe counties with few or no lawyers (i.e., fewer than one lawyer per 1,000 residents), the Arizona Supreme Court approved a Lawyer Apprentice Program. The program encourages aspiring lawyers to stay in Arizona, creates a pathway to licensure for law graduates with lower bar scores and increases the number of lawyers in the state. In a state that ranks 49th of 50 states in lawyers per capita, such a program is a necessity, but it’s a very disciplined necessity: Applicants must (1) be graduates of an ABA-accredited law school (2) score 260-269 on the Uniform Bar Exam (3) and commit to practice under the supervision of a qualified Arizona attorney for at least two years in rural Arizona or a public law practice.

More controversial are the Arizona Supreme Court-approved “Alternative Business Structures.” The ABS program allows nonlawyers to partner with lawyers in businesses that provide legal services. The program was created to encourage innovation in legal services and make them more affordable. ABS are subject to the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court regulating the practice of law, including the requirement that the ABS employ a member of the Arizona Bar who supervises the practice of law. While such arrangements are common in the United Kingdom and Australia, they are actively debated in the U.S.

When Big Four accounting firm KPMG was approved on Feb. 27 to own a law firm under the ABS program, some skeptics asked whether such a step would actually bridge the justice gap or lower costs for lower-income citizens. Lopez acknowledges that some have also raised concerns that the “one-stop shop” model may put traditional firms out of business.

As part of the Arizona Judiciary’s Five-Year Plan, Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, a 2021 ABA Journal Legal Rebel, has made public trust and confidence in the judiciary a foundational goal. Lopez strongly supports this goal, and the court has put in place several initiatives to address the problem.

He told his audience: “Much of the public’s distrust in our courts is driven by inaccurate media coverage of our cases. Too often, media coverage centers on a case result and often fails to accurately identify the issue, if at all. Inaccurate framing of judicial decisions is then used to drive a narrative that judicial opinions are invariably political decisions. To that end, too many media reports on judicial opinions are limited to the party affiliation of the judge, the case result and its political significance or palatability. This coverage encourages public cynicism and distrust of courts.”

To counter objectively inaccurate characterizations of judicial opinions, the Arizona Supreme Court recently adopted a practice of releasing a brief summary of the judicial opinion that identifies the issues and sets out the reasoning and the decision in the case. Lopez observed that the initial results seem to be positive, noting that coverage of judicial decisions has been more accurate. He said the purpose and effect is not to diminish critical reporting of decisions, but to increase the likelihood that the criticisms and coverage accurately reflect the actual issues, reasoning and conclusions in the case.

Lopez’s final topic was retention elections. Arizona adopted a merit selection system in 1974 that applies to Arizona’s appellate judges and trial court judges in Arizona’s four most populous counties, where a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and citizens investigates and evaluates candidates for judicial positions. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants to the governor, who makes the appointment from that list.

Once appointed, judges are subject to retention through regularly scheduled retention elections, by which a majority of votes in favor of a judge results in retention for another term. During judges’ terms, beginning in 1992, a commission of citizens and lawyers, known as “Judicial Performance Review,” assessed judges’ performances and issued recommendations to the voters prior to an election.

From 1974 to 2020, no endorsed judge had ever been removed by voters. In fact, most judges recommended for removal by JPR were retained by voters. Moreover, during those nearly 50 years, only three judges were removed by voters in retention elections; all were embroiled in legal scandal or were otherwise deemed unfit by the JPR Commission.

But, Lopez said, “Something began to change about Arizona’s retention elections in 2020. For the first time, a major political party targeted judges for nonretention. All were retained. But in 2022, voters failed to retain three Maricopa County Superior Court judges. In other words, as many judges were removed by voters in one election as had been removed over the previous 48 years. Notably, two of the three judges had been recommended for retention by the JPR Commission—a first in the history of Arizona’s merit selection system. One of the judges was targeted not for his judicial performance, but rather for his prior associations and his work as an assistant A.G. in Arizona.”

In 2024, the merit selection system, including the retention election, became a major political issue. One side of the partisan/ideological divide cited an unpopular abortion decision, while the other side of the divide expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s election decisions. These political forces culminated in two primary events: (1) a significant campaign was marshaled to remove two members of the Arizona Supreme Court (2) and Proposition 137 was placed on the ballot to eliminate routine retention election for judges unless they committed various crimes, filed personal bankruptcy or were not recommended for retention by JPR. This proposition was rejected by nearly 80% of voters.

Lopez concluded his presentation by questioning the wisdom of politicizing the merit selection process. He quoted the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who called the prospect of jettisoning the merit selection system “a great step backwards.”

---

Jo Ann Engelhardt is a member of the ABA Board of Governors representing District 8, a member of the board of the American Bar Foundation and a founding member of the ABA Crossroads Caucus.

---

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. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees…

Judiciary

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees to license suspension for alleged election-review misconduct

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 11, 2025, 11:00 am CDT

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Gableman has agreed to the suspension of his law license to resolve an ethics complaint that stems from his investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Gableman and the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation agreed a three-year suspension of Gableman’s law license is an appropriate sanction in a stipulation signed on April 7 and filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court must approve the suspension.

The stipulation acknowledges that Gableman can’t successfully defend against the misconduct allegations.

The Associated Press, Reuters and the Washington Post have coverage. Law Forward had filed a grievance against Gableman, according to a press release.

Gableman’s $2.3 million election review did not find significant fraud, according to past reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The ethics complaint accused Gableman of failing to tell a legislative committee about cooperation by the cities of Madison and Green Bay in Wisconsin and falsely stating in court documents that the cities’ mayors had failed to appear for depositions without justification.

He was also accused of criticizing a judge instead of responding to questions during a court hearing on a group’s public-records request in Dane County, Wisconsin. He claimed that Judge Frank Remington “has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate” and later said, “You want to put me in jail, Judge Remington? I’m not gonna be railroaded.”

“With this deal,” said Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel of Law Forward, “Gableman stipulates that he misled courts, lied in public meetings, and violated government transparency laws.”

Gableman served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018. He filed the stipulation a week after a Democratic-backed candidate won election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving the court a 4-3 liberal majority, the Washington Post points out.

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

Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday once again swooped in at the eleventh hour to bail out the Trump administration, this time staying an appellate court order preventing the president from ousting two Biden-appointed members of independent federal labor agencies.

Roberts did not rule on the merits of the case, but stayed a lower court order that reinstated two chairwomen to their positions on independent federal labor boards in a case that is likely to have wide-reaching implications on Donald Trump’s continued effort to slash the government workforce and wield unprecedented control over the federal bureaucracy.

The chief justice’s order was handed down within hours of the Justice Department filing a petition urging the high court to intervene after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., affirmed a lower court order reinstating Cathy A. Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The appeals court previously reasoned that the fired chairwomen were improperly dismissed without cause, violating federal law.

Meanwhile, the administration has argued that prohibiting the president from selecting personnel in the executive branch impedes his ability to do his job, asserting, “this situation is untenable.”

“This case raises a constitutional question of profound importance: whether the President can supervise and control agency heads who exercise vast executive power on the President’s behalf, or whether Congress may insulate those agency heads from presidential control by preventing the President from removing them at will,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the 39-page petition. “[T]he district court’s orders violate Article II on an independent and equally troubling basis. Federal courts lack any constitutional, statutory, or equitable authority to order the reinstatement of agency heads whom the President has removed and to force the President to rely on principal officers whom the President believes should not be exercising any executive power. Exercising non-existent equitable authority to saddle the President with already-removed principal officers ‘deeply wounds the President’ in his exercise of the executive power.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ABA, more than 50 bar associations condemn…

Bar Associations

ABA, more than 50 bar associations condemn ‘government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 9:43 am CDT

More than 50 state, local and specialty bar associations have joined with the ABA to “defend the rule of law and reject efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession.”

A March 26 statement released by the groups does not mention President Donald Trump, but it follows his punitive attacks on disfavored law firms and calls to impeach judges he perceives as antagonistic.

“We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged,” the statement said. “We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner.

“We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not.”

The statement calls upon “the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation.”

The statement is signed by these bar associations:

  • The American Bar Association

  • The Alameda County (California) Bar Association

  • The Alexandria (Virginia) Bar Association

  • The Allegheny County Bar Association (Pennsylvania)

  • The Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers

  • The Bar Association of Erie County (New York)

  • The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

  • The Berks County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association

  • The Boston Bar Association

  • The Boulder County (Colorado) Bar Association

  • The Chicago Bar Association

  • The Chicago Council of Lawyers

  • The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association

  • The Columbus (Ohio) Bar Association

  • The Connecticut Bar Association

  • The Contra Costa (California) County Bar Association

  • The Detroit Bar Association and Foundation

  • The Erie County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association

  • The First Judicial District Bar Association (Colorado)

  • The Hennepin County (Minnesota) Bar Association

  • The Hispanic National Bar Association

  • The Hudson County (New Jersey) Bar Association

  • The Illinois State Bar Association

  • The Kansas Bar Association

  • The Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association

  • The Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation

  • The Lawyers Club of San Diego

  • The Long Beach (California) Bar Association

  • The Louisville Bar Association

  • The Maine State Bar Association

  • The Middlesex County (New Jersey) Bar Association

  • The Milwaukee Bar Association

  • The Minnesota State Bar Association

  • The Monroe County (New York) Bar Association

  • The eNassau County (New York) Bar Association

  • The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

  • The National Association of Women Lawyers

  • The National Conference of Bar Presidents

  • The National LGBTQ+ Bar Association

  • The National Native American Bar Association

  • The New Jersey Women Lawyers Association

  • The New Mexico Black Lawyers Association

  • The New York City Bar Association

  • The New York County Lawyers Association

  • The North County (California) Bar Association

  • The board of governors of the Oregon State Bar

  • The Passaic County (New Jersey) Bar Association

  • The Philadelphia Bar Association

  • The Queens County (New York) Bar Association

  • The Ramsey County (Minnesota) Bar Association

  • The San Diego County Bar Association

  • The San Fernando Valley (California) Bar Association

  • The Santa Clara County Bar Association (California)

  • The South Asian Bar Association of North America

  • The State Bar of New Mexico

  • The Virgin Islands Bar Association

  • The board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association

  • Worcester County (Massachusetts) Bar Association

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Ex-Wisconsin justice who led election review…

Ethics

Ex-Wisconsin justice who led election review should be compelled to sit for deposition in ethics case, motion says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2025, 10:00 am CST

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice should be compelled to sit for a deposition before a disciplinary review board, a lawyer for the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation argued in a Feb. 28 motion.

The motion asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require Justice Michael J. Gableman’s appearance March 20 and 21 and to state that a failure to appear will result in his admission to the facts in a disciplinary complaint. Filed in November 2024, the complaint alleges ethical misconduct in Gableman’s investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

The motion to compel was filed after Gableman said through his attorney he would not show up for a scheduled February deposition “after much consideration, including Fifth Amendment concerns.”

WisPolitics.com and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered the motion to compel.

Gableman was initially hired by Republican Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to help a legislative committee gather facts about how recent elections were conducted in Wisconsin and to suggest possible legislative changes. Gableman’s duties were later expanded, and he was named a special counsel. He was fired in August 2022.

Gableman included in an appendix to his legislative report his legal opinion that the state could decertify the results of Wisconsin’s 2020 general election in which former President Joe Biden was declared the winner.

Gableman’s election review did not find significant fraud, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“Taxpayers paid more than $2.3 million for the investigation,” the newspaper reports, “which yielded a steady drumbeat of explosive court hearings and rulings in lawsuits over his desire to jail election officials and mayors who refused to be interviewed behind closed doors, and his decision to ignore requests from the public for records related to his probe.”

Besides serving as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, Gableman was a former prosecutor, a circuit court judge and an adjunct law professor teaching professional responsibility. Before agreeing to represent the committee, he worked in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for the first Trump administration.

He had “by his own admission, no understanding of how Wisconsin elections worked,” the ethics complaint says.

Part of the ethics complaint concerns Gableman’s quest for information from the cities of Madison, Wisconsin, and Green Bay, Wisconsin, and their mayors. After issuing subpoenas to the mayors, Gableman negotiated agreements that made their appearances unnecessary, the complaint says.

Yet Gableman allegedly failed to tell the legislative committee about the agreements or about his receipt of thousands of pages of documents from the cities. He also falsely said he issued writs of attachment against the mayors because they “failed without reason or excuse to appear for their depositions,” the ethics complaint alleges.

Gableman is also accused of including false statements in the petitions for writs of attachment when he claimed that the two mayors had failed to appear for a deposition “without justification.”

Another part of the complaint alleges that Gableman made improper comments during and after a court hearing on a public interest group’s public-records request. Gableman was called to testify.

Gableman allegedly criticized Judge Frank Remington of Dane County, Wisconsin, who was presiding, instead of responding to questions. He claimed that Remington “has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate” and later said, “You want to put me in jail, Judge Remington? I’m not gonna be railroaded.”

In a later June 2022 decision and order, Remington said Gableman made his accusations in a “sneering” fashion, raised his voice and pointed and shook his finger at the judge.

During a hearing recess, when the microphone was still live, Gableman allegedly made remarks that “demeaned and belittled opposing counsel by making allegations of improper collusion with the court and by portraying her as an incompetent lawyer whose only role was to aid Judge Remington in his bias,” the ethics complaint says.

After the hearing, in remarks to the press, Gableman again alleged that Remington had abandoned his neutral role.

“The deck was stacked,” he told reporters.

Another allegation in the complaint is that Gableman wrongly revealed information about his representation of the state Assembly committee as a guest on video broadcasts organized by Mike Lindell, the founder and CEO of MyPillow and a supporter of President Donald Trump.

Gableman said he supported an effort to recall Vos, that Vos did not want a serious investigation, and that Vos was a “serial liar who is interested only in his personal monetary financial gain.”

To support his allegation that Vos didn’t want a serious investigation, Gableman described discussions with Vos and staff members, revealing information related to the representation, the ethics complaint says.

The motion to compel says Gableman has a right to refuse to answer deposition questions when he has reasonable cause to think that his answers could expose him to criminal liability, but he does not have the right not to appear for the deposition.

Gableman is represented by lawyer Peyton B. Engel, who did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment via email and voicemail.

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

How did the introduction of U.S. probation officers impact the federal criminal justice system?

Before the Probation Act of 1925, district judges lacked the authority to sentence defendants to probation. Some judges used a practice called “laying a case on file” to hold off on imposing a sentence so long as the defendant maintained good behavior. However, there was no formal way for the court to monitor the defendant’s conduct. 

With the passage of the Probation Act of 1925 and the creation of federal probation officers, courts gained the authority to impose a sentence of probation, and judges could rely on probation officers to supervise these people in the community. Additionally, with the help of probation officers, judges could review presentence reports to help identify good candidates to be placed on probation.

How has the role of U.S. probation officers changed since the position was first created?

Initially, probation officers were only authorized to supervise those sentenced to probation. However, the scope of their work expanded quickly. In 1930, probation officers became authorized to supervise federal parolees. After World War II, probation officers began to supervise military parolees. And in the 1980s, Congress created pretrial services and authorized probation and pretrial services officers to supervise defendants in the community. 

Most significantly, in 1987, when Federal Sentencing Guidelines became effective, officers began to supervise those placed on supervised release. Officers took on a legal-interpretation and legal-application role too – assessing and recommending sentencing guideline calculations in presentence reports. 

The work of probation and pretrial services has only become increasingly complex, with officers managing conditions, such as location monitoring and restrictions on technology access.

What common misconceptions do people have about the role of U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services?

Some people assume that probation and pretrial services work for the Department of Justice. But from the very start, the work of officers was closely related to the Judiciary’s role in sentencing, and in 1940, officers were formally moved into the Judiciary. The status of officers as employees of the court ensures their independence and promotes trust between the officers and judges whom they serve.

Another misconception is that officers have a singular mindset – either law enforcement or social worker – about how to best supervise people on their caseload. In fact, we know that the best officers are multi-dimensional. They understand that the goal of protecting the public includes, and is not separate from, the goal of rehabilitating the person on supervision. 

What obstacles has the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services system overcome over the past century?

Officers have been asked to adjust to whatever the nation’s pressing needs are. Over the years, officers have supervised bootleggers and mob bosses, draft dodgers, Wall Street tycoons, and violent street gang members. They have had to handle both domestic and international violent extremists, as well as sexual offenders and cyber criminals. It is a testament to the skills and adaptability of officers that they have been able to adjust to all these changes.

Another challenge has been keeping up with new legislative directives and changing trends in crime overall. For example, the Sentencing Reform Act created a seismic shift in the work of probation officers. They needed to learn and apply the sentencing guidelines and understand how the goals of supervised release differed from that of probation.

What major challenges does the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services system face today?

Securing adequate resources has always been a challenge. Most of our budget is spent on our staff. When we experience budget shortfalls, it means fewer officers and larger caseloads for the remaining officers. When caseloads get too high, there are delays in investigations and reports, which slows down cases. And large caseloads increase the risks that supervision issues are not promptly addressed. 

A significant obstacle that our system – like the rest of the nation – had to overcome was the COVID-19 pandemic. As the virus swept across the country, officers had to change the way they carried out their duties to keep themselves and the people they supervised safe. I was impressed to see the ingenuity and innovations deployed by officers, including virtual home contacts, remote-monitoring technology, and the use of telehealth services. Some of the pandemic-related innovations were so successful that they have been incorporated into today’s post-pandemic policies and procedures.

What technological advancements have most impacted the work of officers?

In the early days of the system, probation officers worried about things like typewriters, office space, and office supplies. But as the system grew, questions arose about what those records should look like. In 1959, at the request of the Judiciary, the General Services Administration conducted a study on recording and reporting of probation office statistics. A number of recommendations were made to promote consistency. These formal reports are still used today to inform the Judiciary, the Congress, and the public about our work. 

To track their work, officers would use logbooks and eventually Dictaphones to track case-related activities. In 1977, the Judicial Conference approved the system’s first case management system – the Probation Information Management System. A decade later, that system was replaced with the Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS), and we are now nearing the end of the development of PACTS360, a secure, cloud-based system, which will enhance officers’ productivity and effectiveness. 

PACTS and PACTS360 provide vital information that impacts case-specific decisions, such as the risk level of the person being supervised, and system-wide decisions, such as the resource requirement for the system.

Today, officers have access to most case-related information on their smartphones. They also leverage new technologies to interact with the people they supervise, use location and computer monitoring, and the latest drug testing technology as part of the supervision process to aid them in planning and performing field work safely. 

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.

The words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas have found their way into one of multiple lawsuits targeting the Elon Musk-helmed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Those words will likely prove familiar.

In a 64-page lawsuit filed by 14 states on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs attacked the basic constitutional legitimacy of the cost-cutting organization with an iteration of the exact same argument that spelled doom for onetime special counsel Jack Smith in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

As readers will recall, last summer, Chief Justice John Roberts and a majority of the justices issued a broad grant of presidential immunity; then, two weeks later, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon used a concurrence to that opinion by Thomas to squelch Smith’s authority and dismiss the case against Trump with a novel reading of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

Now, led by New Mexico, the latest anti-DOGE complaint uses an Appointments Clause argument of its own.

“There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,” the lawsuit begins. “President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities. As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.”

The lawsuit, which names Musk, DOGE, and Trump as defendants, argues the executive branch lacks the authority to either unilaterally create or “dismantle” a federal agency.

“Framers of the Constitution crafted the Appointments Clause to protect against such tyranny in our system of government,” the lawsuit reads. “The Appointments Clause was designed to buttress the separation of powers in two ways: first by requiring that Congress create an office before the President can fill it, and second by requiring that the Senate confirm a nominee to an office created by law.”

To hear the plaintiffs tell it, Musk’s “significant and unprecedented” perch within the Trump administration has effectively rendered him an unappointed “principal officer” of the United States.

“Mr. Musk takes actions that can only be taken by a nominated and confirmed principal officer of the United States,” the lawsuit goes on. “But President Trump did not appoint Mr. Musk with the advice and consent of the Senate. Mr. Musk does not occupy an office created by law and has no authority to exercise the powers of a principal officer, or any other officer. Mr. Musk’s actions violate Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.”

This framework is precisely how Cannon viewed Smith. And, like Cannon, the plaintiffs have cited Thomas to make their case.

From the lawsuit, at length:

Importantly, the Appointments Clause only grants the President the power to nominate officers to offices that Congress has already “established by Law.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. “If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 650 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring). “By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist.” Id. at 646 (Thomas, J., concurring).

The lawsuit, in a secondary argument, also says Musk and DOGE are acting beyond any statutory authority.

The plaintiffs are asking the court for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that directs Musk to disclose how any government data obtained by DOGE has been used so far, that orders Musk to destroy any copies of such data in his possession, and that broadly bars him and DOGE from acting on any such data. The lawsuit contains a laundry list of 10 would-be prohibited actions.

New Mexico and the other states, in often bombastic terms, are also asking the judge to echo some of their legal conclusions and rhetoric by issuing declaratory relief that “Musk’s officer-level governmental actions to date, including those of his subordinates and designees, are ultra vires and shall have no legal effect” and “declare that any future orders or directions by Mr. Musk or DOGE” are similarly unlawful.

No judge has been assigned to the case of this writing.