A federal appeals court will leave in place an earlier ruling allowing the president to terminate the head of a board that reviews firings of federal employees after the Justice Department argued that staying its order would effectively disenfranchise those who voted for President Donald Trump.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia had previously rejected a request to stay its decision allowing President Trump to fire Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Mirroring the appellate panel’s Friday tally, the judges voted 2-1 in rejecting a request to stay its Friday decision, which granted a stay of a lower court’s order that required Harris be returned to her role on the board.

U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, on Friday both voted in favor of staying the district court’s ruling, while U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, dissented. Harris immediately requested a stay of the appeals court’s order pending her request that the case be presented to the court “en banc,” meaning all of the judges on the circuit.

Walker and Henderson again voted to reject Harris’ request for a stay of the stay while Millett said she would grant the request.

Harris, a Democrat who was nominated to the MSPB by President Joe Biden, was supposed to serve until her term expired in 2028 before she received notice last month that she was “terminated, effective immediately.” Without Harris, the board lacks a quorum, which could hamper its ability to function as the Trump administration continues its sprawling efforts to gut the federal workforce.

“As a panel of this Court explained in Dellinger v. Bessent — when staying an order reinstating another principal executive officer whom the President removed — and as Judge Henderson reiterated in this case, ‘it is impossible to unwind the days during which a President is directed to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed,”” the DOJ’s 12-page filing opposing both Harris’ second stay request and her request for a rehearing en banc states. “Judge Walker similarly recognized that ‘[t]he forcible reinstatement of a presidentially removed principal officer disenfranchises voters by hampering the President’s ability to govern.’”

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday, took the Trump administration to task over its use of an 18th-century wartime power to summarily deport more than 100 alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. The case quickly became a legal tinderbox, beginning when the administration allegedly ignored a court order directing it to have two planes full of migrants immediately returned to the country.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wasted no time in calling out Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over the Justice Department’s conduct in connection with the case, particularly highlighting the tone and tenor the government has employed in recent court filings.

The judge said the filings contained “the kind of intemperate and disrespectful language that I am not used to hearing from the United States.”

Boasberg also repeatedly indicated that he was skeptical that President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 could be used during peacetime and against a nebulously defined “enemy” — in this case the Venezuelan gang Tran de Aragua (TdA) — as opposed to a foreign government.

The judge appeared even more concerned that those detained and deported under the statute seemingly have no way to challenge being detained and shipped off to another country’s prison.

“I agree the policy ramifications of this are incredibly troublesome and problematic and concerning,” Boasberg said. “I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has only been used in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was.”

The first case involving the second Trump administration has come to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the court has not gotten involved at this stage in the litigation, the case involves an issue of enormous significance: May a president fire anyone who works in the executive branch of government even when there is a statute limiting firing? More generally, will the court continue to allow the existence of “independent regulatory agencies” with some degree of independence from a president?

The facts of this case

The case, Bessent v. Dellinger, involves Hampton Dellinger, who is the head of the Office of Special Counsel. This is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding whistleblowers and enforcing ethics laws. Dellinger was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 to a five-year term and confirmed by the Senate under a law that says that the Special Counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

On Feb. 7, Dellinger was fired in a one sentence email that gave no reasons. In none of its filings in court, has the government tried to claim that there was cause for removing him.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, following Supreme Court precedent, issued a temporary restraining order against the removal. On Feb. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied a request to stay the temporary restraining order. The majority explained that TROs are generally not reviewable on appeal. If the district court, on the expiration of the TRO, issues a preliminary injunction, that would be subject to appeal.

The next day, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO. On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court, in a short order, declined to hear the matter at this point, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Independent regulatory agencies and the removal power

Independent regulatory agencies have a long history. In 1887, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates. Over time, a myriad of important agencies were created, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and many more.

As with cabinet officers, commissioners for these agencies are nominated by the president with a requirement of Senate confirmation. But unlike cabinet positions, members of the agencies have protection from removal. The statutes creating the agencies provide that the commissioners serve for a set term and can be removed only for cause, usually defined as permitting firing by the president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that prevented removal of commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission unless there was just cause for firing. The court stressed the importance of Congress being able to shield federal regulatory agencies from direct presidential control. The court declared: “The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted; and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime.”

In Wiener v. United States, in 1958, the high court went further and held that even without a statutory limit on removal, the president could not remove executive officials where independence from the president is desirable. Wiener involved the president’s firing a member of the War Claims Commission. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission Act in Humphrey’s Executor, the statute creating the War Claims Commission did not expressly limit the president’s removal power.

However, the court concluded that the functional need for independence of the War Claims Commission limited the president’s removal power. The court explained that Congress’ intent was for the War Claims Commission to award claims based on merit rather than on political influence. The court said that there was a “sharp differentiation” between “those who are part of the executive establishment and those whose tasks require absolute freedom from executive interference.”

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress can provide protection from removal where independence from the president is desirable. In Morrison v. Olson, in 1988, the court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law which created an independent counsel to investigate wrongdoing by high level executive branch officials and allowed firing only for cause. In a 7-1 decision, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, upheld this limit and stressed that the independent counsel, who exists to investigate and prosecute alleged wrongdoing by those in the executive branch of government, ideally should be independent of the president.

In 2020, the Supreme Court clarified these principles and even spoke of the office held by Dellinger. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the court, 5-4, held that Congress could not limit the removal of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The court distinguished Humphrey’s Executor. It said that the Congress cannot limit removal where an agency is directed by a single person, as was the case for the CFPB. But the court reaffirmed that Congress can limit removal where it is a multi-member commission as with the Federal Trade Commission in Humphrey’s Executor.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, contrasted the Office of Special Counsel, which Dellinger heads, to the CFPB and said: “In any event, the Office of Special Counsel exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing federal government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB.”

The Trump administration position and the opposition

The Trump administration is arguing that cases such as Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison v. Olson should be overruled and that Congress never can limit the firing of anyone who works in the executive branch of government. In a letter, dated Feb. 12, Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris wrote to Sen. Richard Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Department of Justice has concluded that limits on removal are unconstitutional, that Humphrey’s Executor is wrong, and that it will not abide by statutes limiting firing.

On Feb. 18, the Trump administration issued an executive order, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, which declared that all federal agencies are under control of the president. It said that the president can fire those within the agency without needing to comply with statutory limits on removal and that all within the agencies must adhere to the president’s policies.

President Trump has fired many individuals who have statutory protection from removal such as Dellinger, a commissioner on the National Labor Relations Board, members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the head of the Federal Election Commission.

The Trump administration relies on what is referred to as the unitary executive theory. This is the view that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president who then is in charge of the entire executive branch of government. Any limit on presidential control, such as restrictions on removal, are unconstitutional.

Critics argue that the unitary executive theory has no historical support. The framers of the Constitution were deeply distrustful of executive authority. Those who oppose the unitary executive theory say that it ignores that federal powers are both separate and interdependent and the importance of checks and balances within the federal government.

In addition, critics argue, there are times when it is very desirable to have protection for those who are formally in the executive branch of government. For example, it is widely thought that the Federal Reserve Board, which has enormous influence over the economy, should not be directly answerable to the president. And it makes sense that the person who is handling whistleblower complaints against the government should have protection from removal.

The Supreme Court

Although the Supreme Court did not hear the Trump administration’s appeal in the Dellinger case at this time because of its procedural posture, the issue surely will come back to the court, in this or another case, soon. The court will then have to decide whether to overrule long-standing precedents and give the president powers that could extend to the ability to fire all government officials and employees.

On the one hand, there now may be a majority on the court disposed toward accepting the unitary executive theory. In Trump v. United States, the court, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, stated “The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme as the only person who alone composes a branch of government.” The court may well say that the distinction between single-member and multi-member heads of agencies that it drew in Seila Law is arbitrary.

On the other hand, for 90 years, the law has been that there can be independent agencies and there can be limits on presidential removal. It would be a dramatic expansion of presidential power for the court to embrace the unitary executive theory.

Perhaps the court will take an intermediate position, giving the president authority to remove the heads of agencies, but not finding civil service protection for federal employees unconstitutional.

The only sure thing is that one of the first tests of the Trump administration’s expansive assertion of executive power will involve whether Congress can impose limits on the president’s removal power. If the court embraces the unitary executive theory, the implications will be enormous.

---

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 (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. In ‘power move’ over independent agencies,…

Administrative Law

In ‘power move’ over independent agencies, Trump demands review of proposed regulations

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 21, 2025, 9:47 am CST

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Tuesday that requires all agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review, with no carve-out for independent agencies.

The Feb. 18 executive order applies to “so-called independent agencies,” such as the Federal Trade Commission. the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a White House fact sheet. The only agency not fully included in the mandate is the Federal Reserve, which still has the power to make decisions about monetary policy.

The order also gives the Office of Management and Budget the power to adjust funding for the agencies based on presidential priorities. It also states that a president and the U.S. attorney general will interpret the law for the agencies.

Law.com, Law360 and the New York Times have stories.

“This is a power move over independent agencies, a structure of administration that Congress has used for various functions going back to the 1880s,” said Peter M. Shane, a legal scholar in residence at the New York University School of Law, in an interview with the New York Times.

According to the New York Times, the executive order and Trump’s firings of independent agency leaders “constitute a major front in the president’s assault on the basic shape of the American government and his effort to seize some of Congress’ constitutional power over it.”

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of stealing over $31K from…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer accused of stealing over $31K from jailed woman after she signed power of attorney at his request

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 13, 2024, 9:51 am CST

A lawyer in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, has been accused of stealing more than $31,000 from an imprisoned woman awaiting a competency hearing after she agreed to sign an agreement giving power of attorney to his employee.

Lawyer John Allen Roth, 69, of Pennsylvania is accused of using the stolen money to support his gambling habit, according to a Nov. 7 press release.

TribLive (here and here) and WJAC-TV are among the publications with coverage.

Roth has been charged with nine felonies, including theft, financial exploitation, deceptive business practices and receiving stolen property.

In a preliminary arraignment last week, Roth asked to be released without cash bail.

Roth said he was struggling financially after losing clients because of a cancer diagnosis, according to TribLive’s coverage.

“I don’t have money to be able to post anything at all, I don’t even have $1,000 to post,” he said. “Cancer has ruined my life, and it has made it impossible for me to even make a living.”

Pennsylvania Judge Chris Flanigan set bail at $250,000. Roth has since sought a bail reduction and a venue transfer from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

The 70-year-old jailed woman told detectives that Roth visited her in prison and offered to represent her for $2,500, even though she already had a lawyer. He returned a few days later and allegedly asked the woman to sign the power of attorney. The woman signed the form in March, according to the press release.

Fourteen withdrawals ranging from $100 to $5,000 were made from the jailed woman’s account, court records indicate.

Roth’s “Player’s Club” account at the Live! Casino indicated that he made more than $382,000 in transactions at the casino from April to September, according to the press release.

The employee with power of attorney sometimes accompanied Roth to the casino, she told investigators. She is also facing charges in the case.

Roth was disciplined in 2016, receiving a public reprimand for alleged conflicts of interest in two cases. In one, Roth filed a divorce case against a client he was representing in a civil matter, the reprimand said.

In another, Roth filed a bankruptcy for a woman, even though he represented her husband in their divorce case. The husband was listed as a co-debtor for various creditors, the reprimand said.

As we reflect on our journeys through the legal profession, one theme emerges: the power of mentorship, particularly female mentorship. The power of female mentorship cannot be overstated, as it can play a critical role in transforming a talented yet uncertain junior attorney into a highly skilled and autonomous senior attorney.

Female mentorship is also a mutually beneficial relationship that encourages growth, resilience and dedication relative to navigating the challenges of a demanding profession. While women have been graduating from law school in equal or greater numbers to men for years, there is still a gender disparity among practicing lawyers beyond the associate level, and it grows wider with seniority.

Hallmarks of mentorship

One of the key hallmarks of a successful mentor-mentee relationship is an unwavering commitment by the mentor to nurture talent, foster professional growth and provide comprehensive support to the mentee—professionally and personally. Truly successful mentor-mentee relationships are built on a foundation of inclusivity and respect—not unbalanced power.

As the ABA has noted, the higher you look in the legal profession, the greater the gender disparity. In 2021, the ABA issued a report examining the reasons behind the exodus of senior women from the legal profession.

This report examined the challenges faced by senior female attorneys. While the report examined several factors, most notable for this article is isolation and the billable hour and its negative impact on relationship building. In the post-pandemic world, it is harder than ever to connect with colleagues and teammates.

Real-world mentorship

We have been mentor-mentees since 2019. Annie had just returned from her second parenting leave and was navigating the challenges of being a litigator with two children when she first began working with Tonya. Tonya, also a mother of two, had just expanded a client relationship and needed support in a new geographical region where Annie was admitted to the bar. Over the coming months, our relationship evolved from supervising attorney and midlevel associate into one of mentor-mentee.

During the pandemic, balancing work and child care became particularly challenging for working parents, and we worked late nights to accommodate the needs of our clients. For example, during emergencies with tight deadlines, such as preliminary injunction hearings, we never left one another to handle the workload alone. Instead, we would stay up and handle the task at hand, even if it meant staying up until 3 a.m.

We think that this leadership approach makes a significant difference. Knowing that someone else is in the trenches with you makes the work more bearable and motivates everyone to give their best effort. If you’re going to ask someone to take on an unenjoyable task, especially one that will require working all weekend or late into the night, it’s crucial to show that you’re willing to do it with them. It builds trust and loyalty and shows much-needed support.

Mentor-mentee relationships should be considered strategic partnerships. The more that a mentor invests in a mentee, the greater the payout is for both parties. Over the course of our mentorship, Tonya has spent countless hours counseling Annie on navigating difficult professional scenarios, such as unconscious bias and sexist comments at a previous law firm and positive professional transitions into a senior associate and a new firm.

Tonya has advocated tirelessly for Annie to have a seat at the table, including pitching client work, presenting in webinars and serving in a client-facing role. But it is not just Annie who has benefited. As Annie has become more senior, Tonya has gained a valuable first lieutenant on her team.

Evolving mentorship

We have seen firsthand how mentorship is professionally rewarding and deeply inspiring, which is why we think that others can find tremendous benefits. In a successful relationship, a mentee is given the opportunity to observe the mentor’s ability to balance their role as a top attorney and a supportive mentor.

This includes studying how a mentor treats their mentees as equals, respecting their opinions and encouraging healthy dialogue. Over time, a respectful and inclusive mentorship has the potential to have a profound impact upon a mentee.

One of the biggest challenges that we’ve faced is navigating the perceptions and expectations of others in the legal profession. Over time, we’ve encountered situations where others attempted to define our practices, identities and career trajectories based on their assumptions of us, rather than our knowledge and skill set.

It is crucial for us to believe in the value that we bring, even if it doesn’t align with someone else’s perception or fit neatly into predetermined boxes. Building a team, including mentees who understand their mentor’s leadership style, helps to create a supportive environment where everyone’s contributions are valued, and each team member has the opportunity to pursue their career goals.

An empowered mentee has learned the skills to continue the cycle by becoming a mentor to more junior attorneys. The mentee-turned-mentor will be focused on not just professional growth but also building a supportive and collaborative community within the legal practice.

Going forward, the mentorship triad will continue to thrive and grow. With each new attorney added to the mentorship, new skill sets and perspectives are gained, offering new opportunities for personal and professional growth and evolution.

Successful mentorship

Mentorship is more than teaching someone how to draft a brief or win a case. It is about empowering women to have a voice in a room where they are often outnumbered, to trust their instincts and to aspire to leadership positions.

We think that strong female mentorship can play a key role in the continued growth and equality in the legal industry. A junior female attorney benefits immensely from observing strong female leadership, recognizing their potential and evolving over time to mentor those more junior to her.

For more senior attorneys, there is an opportunity to impart legal knowledge and helpful wisdom garnered through years of practice and to learn from their more junior colleagues as they navigate the complexities of ethical dilemmas and professional challenges. Ever-evolving mentorship provides a nurturing environment for growth and development for mentors and mentees.

---

Anne V. Dunne, a litigation associate in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office, focuses her practice on commercial litigation, concentrating on financial services, class action defense, government investigations and whistleblower litigation. Tonya M. Esposito, a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig’s litigation practice, focuses on a variety of consumer issues, including financial services, antitrust and marketing and advertising.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

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. Judge accused of ‘casual and illegal use’…

Judiciary

Judge accused of ‘casual and illegal use’ of contempt power; crime victim cuffed

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 23, 2024, 10:45 am CDT

A Florida judge has been accused of conducting “improper or legally deficient” contempt proceedings in which she ordered the handcuffing of a crime victim and the jailing of the mother of traumatized, truant children.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission accused Judge Anne Marie Gennusa of Putnam County, Florida, of violating ethics rules in an Oct. 21 complaint.

Gennusa has practiced law for 29 years, yet she blamed deficient proceedings on the fact that she hadn’t yet attended the Florida Judicial College, the ethics complaint said. In one case, she also said she had been vomiting with a fever prior to ordering the handcuffing of a misdemeanor battery defendant and the alleged victim.

The ethics complaint accuses Gennusa of “casual and illegal use” of her contempt power in these three cases.

  • State v. Boone: In January, Gennusa held a misdemeanor battery defendant and an alleged victim in contempt after they twice argued in open court. The victim was handcuffed in court and held in custody for nearly three hours.

After the defendant and the victim argued the first time, Gennusa told the defendant that he was acting disrespectful.

“This is not The Jerry Springer Show,” she said, and, he can’t “lash out” and say whatever he wants. The defendant protested, “I’m not lashing. This ain’t no lashing out. Lash out I’m going to get loud on you.” Gennusa replied, “You gonna get loud on me?” and ordered the defendant taken into custody until after lunch.

When the prosecutor asked whether the victim should remain, Gennusa replied that she wouldn’t accept a plea because it appeared that the victim would not accept a plea. At that point, the victim spoke up from the gallery, saying, “I never said I did not want the plea.” The defendant and the victim began arguing again.

Gennusa then admonished the victim and asked whether the prosecutor wanted to speak with the victim. During the conversation with the prosecutor, the victim said she was getting irritated, she didn’t like being spoken to like a child, and she didn’t understand what was going on. Gennusa overheard the conversation and ordered the victim taken into custody until after lunch.

  • In re: M.R.A., J.F.A.: In November 2023, Gennusa held the mother of three truant children in contempt and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. Gennusa had claimed that the mother’s conduct was “belligerent” and “deplorable,” but the hearing recording did not support the assessment, the ethics complaint said.

The mother had violated a court order for her children to attend a specific school program. The mother said the children weren’t in school because their maternal grandfather had recently been murdered by the children’s father. Gennusa interrupted the mother and said, “I get all that, but that’s not a reason for the kids not to go to school.”

The mother said one of the children had witnessed the murder and had to go out of town to speak with the investigating detective.

“My kids are mentally unstable to go right now, and you’re not understanding, their father is gone,” the mother said. Gennusa said an order was already in place.

Gennusa also scolded the mother when she talked about a different case and when she nodded during testimony by the school truancy counselor.

“You’re shaking your head like you’ve done something wonderful,” Gennusa said, “and you haven’t. You’ve failed to comply with the court’s order.” She sentenced the mother to jail after a court recess.

  • State v. Morrison: In November 2023, Gennusa sentenced a misdemeanor defendant to 60 days in jail after he told a courtroom deputy to “Go f- – – yourself.” The deputy had asked the defendant to remove his hat and leave the courtroom when his cellphone rang.

Gennusa held the man in contempt before asking him to explain his comment. The man then asked for “a little bit of grace” because he had a stressful week and had just obtained his first “career job” in hopes of getting his daughter back. Gennusa sentenced the man to jail as he was crying.

The ethics charges said Gennusa’s behavior and use of her contempt power “raise serious questions about your fitness to serve as a judicial officer.”

Law360 and the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union have coverage of the charges.

Gennusa was appointed to the court last year and is running for reelection in November, according to the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union.

Her lawyer, Warren Lindsey, told the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union that Gennusa “has served the Putnam County community with great distinction since her appointment to the county court bench. … She is an excellent judge and person. However, the rules do not allow her to respond to the allegations except in legal filings, which will be submitted in the near future.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judiciary ‘has no power to unimpeach,’ federal…

Judiciary

Judiciary ‘has no power to unimpeach,’ federal judge says while citing Dr. Seuss

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2024, 8:57 am CDT

A federal judge has tossed former Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pro se lawsuit seeking the right to run for political office, despite his impeachment and conviction, saying the complaint is “riddled with problems” and is an “Issue-Spotting Wonderland.”

U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois said Blagojevich made several mistakes when he claimed that the Illinois Senate violated the First Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and the 14th Amendment by disqualifying him from future office in the state, in violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.

Among the problems cited by Seeger: Blagojevich wrongly sued the state of Illinois and the Illinois General Assembly, rather than naming a person as a defendant under Section 1983; he cites the Sixth Amendment, but it applies to criminal cases and not impeachment proceedings; he lacks standing to assert First Amendment voting rights of voters; and he has said he is unsure whether he even wants to run for office, which could mean that his claim isn’t ripe for adjudication.

The bigger problem, Seeger said in his March 21 opinion, is that a federal court can’t get involved in impeachment decisions.

“The bottom line is that the judiciary has no power to unimpeach, unconvict and unremove a public official,” Seeger wrote. “The legislature taketh away, and the judiciary cannot giveth back.”

The Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press and Law360 are among the publications with coverage.

In 2011, Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in prison for political corruption, but he served only eight years before then-President Donald Trump commuted the sentence in February 2020. Blagojevich was a lawyer before his May 2020 disbarment, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Seeger is known for his opinions pillorying lawyers. He said a food labeling lawyer’s “warehouse of complaints” are “not fit for public consumption,” a Chicago lawyer’s motion was littered with “unnecessary potshots and hyperbole,” and lawyers in a trademark suit should be aware that “‘judge shopping’ ain’t a thing here.”

In the hyperbole case, Seeger declared that “searching for over-the-top sentences in the motion is like shooting fish in a barrel.”

Seeger returned to the analogy in Blagojevich’s case.

“The complaint is riddled with problems,” he wrote. “If the problems are fish in a barrel, the complaint contains an entire school of tuna. It is a target-rich environment. The complaint is an Issue-Spotting Wonderland.”

Seeger noted that the case began with “great fanfare” as Blagojevich announced with “a gaggle of press in tow” that he might want to return to public life.

“The case started with a megaphone, but it ends with a whimper,” Seeger wrote. “Sometimes cases in the federal courthouse attract publicity. But the courthouse is no place for a publicity stunt.”

Seeger quoted from the 1972 Dr. Seuss book Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just Go. Go. Go! I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go now!”

A New Jersey man with a history of mental illness and addiction killed his father in particularly gruesome fashion on Christmas Eve, authorities and family members say.

Kyle Meyer, 33, stands accused of one count each of intentional murder, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon, for the brutal slaying of Gregory Meyer, 61, according to the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office.

The grim crime is believed to have been committed using an ax and a battery-operated pole saw, according to court documents.