REDDING, Calif.  —  The Bureau of Land Management’s Northern California District Resource Advisory Council will hold a virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams, Thursday, May 15, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.  Members of the public are welcome, and can register to participate. The council will hear public comments at 11a.m. A copy of the agenda is available online.

RAC members will hear overviews of current Executive and Secretarial orders, review and consider approval of Forest Service recreation site business plans, receive updates on BLM land tenure actions, and hear updates on BLM wild horse and burro management in northeast California.  Council members will also hear updates from the BLM California state director and from managers of the Applegate, Arcata, Eagle Lake and Redding field offices.

All are welcome to address the council during the public comment portion of the meeting. A time limit could be set to accommodate all speakers.

The 15-member council is composed of varied public land interests including recreation, livestock grazing, timber and forest products, environmental organizations, wild horse and burro management, local government, the academic sector, state natural resource agencies and the public at large. It focuses on lands managed by the Northern California District, which includes land in far northwest Nevada. More information is available from BLM Public Affairs Officer Jeff Fontana, 530-260-0189.
 

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Meet the federal judge labeled ‘radical left…

Judiciary

Meet the federal judge labeled ‘radical left lunatic’ by Trump, derided by DOJ for ‘micromanaged’ request

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 8:50 am CDT

A federal judge facing President Donald Trump’s ire because of his rulings on deportation authority was once a housemate with Brett Kavanaugh, a future U.S. Supreme Court justice, at Yale Law School.

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, 62, of the District of Columbia “has a history of bipartisan support,” the Washington Post reports, having been nominated to the District of Columbia Superior Court by a Republican president and to the federal court in Washington, D.C., by a Democratic president.

He also appears for speaking engagements at Yale with U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee, where they emphasize a commitment to rule of law, according to NPR.

But Boasberg is being targeted by Trump, who wrote on social media that the judge is a “radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator” who should be impeached.

Boasberg is overseeing a lawsuit challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. Boasberg ordered the administration not to use the law for deportations and told Department of Justice lawyers Saturday that planes carrying the deportees should be turned around.

Three planes carrying 238 immigrants reached their destination in El Salvador in Central America, the New York Times reports. Boasberg gave the administration a Wednesday deadline to provide details on the flights, which was met with a government request for a stay that said the judge’s quest for information was a “micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition,” NBC News reports.

“Continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the executive branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case,” the DOJ said.

In a March 19 order, Boasberg agreed to provide the government an extra day to decide whether to invoke the state secrets privilege, “although their grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive.” Rather than engaging in a fishing expedition, he said, he was seeking information “to determine if the government deliberately flouted” his orders.

Boasberg grew up in Washington, D.C., where his father worked for former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, according to the New York Times.

He attended Yale as an undergraduate, where he played basketball and also obtained a master’s degree in history from the University of Oxford. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1990.

After graduation, Boasberg worked as a law clerk for a federal appeals judge, as an associate at two law firms, and as a homicide prosecutor at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. He was appointed to the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2002 by former President George W. Bush and to the federal bench in 2011 by former President Barack Obama. He also served a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

On the bench, Boasberg “is something of a stickler for footnote brevity,” according to a prior ABA Journal story. He has tossed briefs in several suits for violating a local court ruling banning excessive footnotes.

He is also known “for his booming baritone voice and for peppering legal opinions with colorful language and pop culture references,” according to Reuters. In one opinion, Boasberg “cited a Star Trek reference to the Borg catchphrase ‘Resistance is futile,’” the article reports.

He has also been involved in other cases involving issues of importance to Trump.

“In his 14 years on the federal bench,” the Associated Press reports, Boasberg “has resolved secret grand jury disputes that arose during the special counsel investigations into Trump, oversaw improvements after the Trump-Russia investigation in how the Justice Department conducts national security surveillance, and handled his share of sentencings for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

One of the rioters called Boasberg a “clown” and a “fraud” during a court hearing. Boasberg “calmly listened,” according to the AP.

The deportation suit is J.G.G. v. Trump.

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

A Texas teenager who allegedly stabbed another teenager to death during a high school track meet told police that he acted in self-defense.

Days after the April 2, stabbing death of Austin Metcalf, 17, new details have emerged about the events that led up to the altercation that resulted in his death. In an arrest affidavit obtained by local ABC outlet WFAA, police said that following the alleged incident, suspect Karmelo Anthony, 17, told officers, “I was protecting myself.”

As he was led away from the scene, the defendant reportedly stated, “He put his hands on me, I told him not to.”

Local CBS affiliate KBTX also reported on the arrest affidavit, which contained several redacted names of almost 30 students who were witnesses to the alleged altercation.

The Judicial Conference of the United States today agreed to recommend to Congress the creation of new district and court of appeals judgeships (pdf) as the Judiciary faces a worsening shortage of Article III judges and caseloads continue to mount.

Approved by the federal Judiciary’s national policy-making body at its biannual meeting in Washington, the Judiciary asked Congress to create two judgeships in the courts of appeals and 69 judgeships in district courts, where the need is greatest.

District court filings have grown by 30 percent since 1990, when the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. Since 1991, the overall number of authorized district court judgeships increased by only four percent. 

Burgeoning caseloads can lead to significant case delays. Delays result in increased costs for litigants and raise access to justice concerns, especially in civil cases that may take years to get to trial. Over the past 20 years, the number of civil cases pending more than three years rose 346 percent, from 18,280 on March 31, 2004, to 81,617 on March 31, 2024.

In developing judgeship recommendations, the Conference and its Committee on Judicial Resources use a formal survey process to study and evaluate Article III judgeship needs. Before a judgeship recommendation is transmitted to Congress, it undergoes several levels of careful consideration and review. The surveys are conducted every two years and the resulting recommendations are based on established criteria, including current workload factors and empirical standards.

In fiscal year 2024, weighted filings, which account for the different amounts of time district judges require to resolve various types of civil and criminal actions, were above 500 per judgeship in 20 of the 25 district courts where the Conference is recommending additional judgeships.  

In 12 of these courts, weighted filings exceeded 600 per judgeship and in five courts filings were greater than 700 per judgeship. The Conference generally requires district courts to have over 430 weighted filings per judgeship to recommend additional judgeships. Weighted filings data for each district court are published in Federal Court Management Statistics.

Congress in 2024 approved a bipartisan bill to address the critical need for new judgeships throughout the federal courts, the first such comprehensive bill in more than three decades. However, President Biden vetoed the bill on Dec. 23, 2024.

The Conference today also received two new reports required by statute, the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), which reports on the activities of the AO and the Judiciary during the previous year, and Judicial Business, the Judiciary’s comprehensive annual statistical workload report. 

The 26-member Judicial Conference (pdf) is the policy-making body for the federal court system. By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as its presiding officer and its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade.

The Conference convenes twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge fed up with ‘fiddle-faddle’…

Judiciary

Federal judge fed up with ‘fiddle-faddle’ requires lawyers to meet for lunch; how did it go?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 21, 2025, 2:17 pm CST

Lawyers who met for lunch upon the orders of a federal judge have submitted their report as directed.

According to the the Dec. 19 report, the lawyers chatted about personal matters, and then they had a “healthy dialogue regarding professional norms.” The wait person received a hefty tip.

Law.com, Above the Law (here and here) and AL.com have coverage.

Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama ordered the lunch after he criticized lawyers from Wheeles & Garmon, who represented former Koch Foods employee Pamela McCullers in a sexual harassment and gender bias lawsuit against Koch Foods.

McCullers’ lawyers had opposed a request by opposing counsel Littler Mendelson to extend a responsive pleading deadline—unless, the plaintiff’s lawyers said, Koch Foods agreed that it would not file a motion to dismiss in response to the suit.

In his Nov. 26 lunch order, Proctor called the gambit by the plaintiff’s counsel “wholly inappropriate, particularly in light of the looming Thanksgiving holiday. Such nonsense wastes time, damages professional relationships, and makes the lawyer withholding consent (or conditioning it) appear petty and uncooperative.”

“Conditioning or denying consent to an extension in this way is fiddle-faddle for an additional reason: It rarely provides any legitimate strategic advantage,” Proctor continued. “Refusing such a reasonable extension request stinks of petty gamesmanship. Professionalism demands that lawyers pick their battles wisely, and minor extension requests simply are not the place for unnecessary posturing.”

Proctor granted the request for an extension, ordered lawyers to go to lunch, and required the plaintiff’s counsel to pay the bill and the company’s counsel to pay the tip.

Proctor is an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

The lunch meeting was at Saw’s BBQ in Hoover, Alabama, on Dec. 16, according to the lawyers’ joint report.

“The discussion covered the practice of law, families, some big-ticket items for the 2024 holiday season, everyone’s small-town bona fides, and the plan for communication going forward in this matter,” the lawyers wrote. “A healthy dialogue regarding professional norms ensued.”

The report noted that the plaintiff’s lawyers paid the $74 bill, and the defendants’ counsel left a $74 tip.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Meet Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias,…

Election Law

Meet Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, who wears GOP scorn ‘like a badge of honor’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 4, 2024, 11:23 am CST

Updated: Even his detractors call Democratic lawyer Marc Elias one of the toughest election lawyers in the country.

“In his three-decade career,” the New York Times reports in a profile, Elias “has arguably done more than any single person outside government to shape the Democratic Party and the rules under which all campaigns and elections in the United States are conducted.”

Supporters celebrate Elias’ many victories, including his fight against efforts to overturn the 2020 election and two significant decisions last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, the New York Times says. This year, Elias “has been in the middle” of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign’s response to dozens of Republican lawsuits challenging voting rules.

“My team of lawyers is better than the GOP’s,” Elias recently bragged, as recounted by the Hill. “And we’re ready to beat them again in 2024.”

Elias was similarly combative when Republicans recently targeted him in an ad campaign highlighting his work to keep third-party candidates off ballots. The campaign portrayed Elias as a hypocrite for trying to eliminate voter choice, according to the New York Times. Elias responded in a social media post.

“Republicans hate me because I stand up to them and fight. I wear their scorn like a badge of honor,” Elias wrote.

Elias grew up suburban New York, according to the New York Times profile. His father was a small-business owner and both parents were “New Deal Democrats,” he once told Roll Call. He has a law degree and a master’s degree in political science from Duke University.

Elias joined Perkins Coie after law school and became leader of its political law practice in 2009. In that role, the New York Times says, he “expanded its team of lawyers, its client roster and its profits while becoming increasingly influential with key Democratic leaders.”

Elias left Perkins Coie and formed the Elias Law Group in 2021 following controversy over his involvement in the hiring of opposition research company Fusion GPS. That company compiled a dossier with “largely debunked” allegations about former President Donald Trump’s Russia connections, the New York Times says. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for the research without their knowledge.

Elias took more than 40 Perkins Coie lawyers with him to form his new law firm.

Firm members helped achieve two Supreme Court victories. In one, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional map that diluted Black voting strength in Alabama. In the other, the Supreme Court rejected the “independent state legislature” theory contending that state legislatures have the exclusive power to regulate congressional elections. The high court ruled that state courts have the power to review congressional maps created by state legislatures.

In a controversial move in January, the Elias Law Group asked the Federal Election Commission to allow a political action committee funded by billionaire George Soros to coordinate with Democratic campaigns and party committees in Texas for voter turnout efforts.

The FEC approved the petition. It wasn’t long before the Trump campaign used the opinion to coordinate with groups funded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and other wealthy donors, according to the New York Times.

One critic is Tom Moore, a former chief of staff for a Democratic member of the FEC who opposed the petition.

“Opening the money faucets up as wide as they go strikes me as a bad idea for Democrats because Republicans just have a bigger faucet,” Moore told the New York Times.

Elias responded to the New York Times in a statement.

“I am proud of my record in fighting back against Republican voter suppression, election subversion and gerrymandering in court,” he said.

See also:

5th Circuit sanctions Marc Elias and other Perkins Coie lawyers for ‘redundant and misleading’ motion

Perkins Coie hired company that compiled Trump dossier

Updated Nov. 4 at 12:20 p.m. to move information regarding sanctions to a “See also” list.

1. Home
2. The Modern Law Library
3. Meet the sheriffs who believe they are ‘The…

The Modern Law Library

Meet the sheriffs who believe they are ‘The Highest Law in the Land’

By Lee Rawles

October 24, 2024, 1:30 pm CDT

The first image conjured in your mind by the word “sheriff” might be the protagonist of a Wild West movie or Robin Hood’s foe, the sheriff of Nottingham. But unless you’re a resident of Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii and Rhode Island, there’s likely an elected law enforcement official in your area who has that title.

In The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy, lawyer and journalist Jessica Pishko takes a deep dive into the history of this position in American life and at a far-right movement hoping to co-opt the role of sheriff to advance extreme conservative policies.

There are about 3,000 sheriffs in the United States, one per county (or county equivalent). In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Pishko and the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles discuss how the rural/urban divide impacts the demographics of sheriffs. Ninety-seven percent of the land area in the United States is considered rural, but only 20% of the people live in those rural areas.

In the 2020 census, Greene County, Alabama, had 7,730 residents and one sheriff. Cook County, Illinois, which contains the city of Chicago, had 5,275,541 residents and one sheriff. This leads to a larger proportion of sheriffs representing a rural and more conservative demographic, Pishko says.

Pishko explains the “constitutional sheriffs” movement, including its similarities to other fringe movements like the sovereign citizens. Adherents claim that sheriffs alone have the power to interpret how the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments should be enforced in their counties. They claim that state governments, the federal government, the president and the U.S. Supreme Court have no power over sheriffs, and that as elected officials, sheriffs are answerable only to their constituents.

In this episode, Pishko also describes the large role that sheriffs have in incarcerations, how their enforcement powers differ or overlap with police, and what disciplinary or oversight measures are available when a sheriff abuses their office. Pishko and Rawles also discuss the roles that sheriffs might have in local elections and whether they might have an impact on the 2024 presidential election.