1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Harvard Law Review investigated for alleged…

Law Schools

Harvard Law Review investigated for alleged ‘spoils system’ that uses race in article selection

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 12:13 pm CDT

The federal government has opened an investigation into the Harvard Law Review “based on reports of race-based discrimination permeating the operations of the journal,” according to an April 28 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

At issue is whether the law review’s policies for membership and article selection violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on race, color and national origin in education programs receiving federal funding.

Allocating opportunities and recognition based on race, rather than merit, is unacceptable, the press release said.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law, ABC News and the Harvard Crimson have coverage.

The civil rights offices of the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are conducting investigation.

“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, in the press release.

The investigation follows a report by the Washington Free Beacon concluding that race “plays a far larger role in the selection of both editors and articles” than previously acknowledged by the Harvard Law Review. The Washington Free Beacon article was based on leaked internal documents.

The press release cited alleged statements by editors at the Harvard Law Review in which they appeared to favor minority writers. In one instance, an editor allegedly voiced concern that four of the five people who wanted to reply to an article about police reform “are white men.” In another alleged incident, an editor suggested that an article should get expedited review because the author was a minority.

The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the Harvard Law School, according to a statement by a Harvard Law School spokesperson cited by publications covering the investigation.

The school is “committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations,” the statement said.

The investigation was launched amid the federal government’s decision to freeze more than $2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard University, which has sued in response.

See also:

Lawsuits target law reviews at Harvard and NYU, saying they favor women and minorities

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

A member of the Merit Systems Protection Board who was removed by President Donald Trump earlier this year has asked for an appellate court to reconsider its opinion allowing her firing to go forward.

On Feb. 10, the 45th and 47th president tried to fire Cathy Harris, a Joe Biden appointee whose term expires in 2028, in an email from an assistant, telling her she was “terminated, effective immediately.”

Harris sued in Washington, D.C., and days later won her job back through a temporary restraining order issued in February — and then a permanent injunction which was issued earlier this month — by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, a Barack Obama appointee.

On Friday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling in the government’s favor, staying the injunction. The ruling allows Trump to fire both Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox — who had also won reprieve from a politically-motivated firing at the district court level.

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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will review Colorado ban on…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will review Colorado ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 1:38 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for LGBTQ minors—which aims to change sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling—violates the First Amendment.

The high court agreed to hear a case challenging a Colorado law that imposes professional discipline on licensed counselors who engage in such therapy, report SCOTUSblog and Law.com.

At issue is whether the ban censors counseling based on the viewpoint expressed in violation of the free speech clause or whether it is a permissible regulation of conduct, as the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver held in the case.

The plaintiff challenging the law, licensed counselor Kaley Chiles, is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group, according to a March 10 press release. She is a counselor with “Christian worldview” who helps clients with gender-identity issues, the press release said.

“Though Chiles never promises that she can solve these issues,” the cert petition said, “she believes clients can accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace.”

The press release said it is significant that the Colorado law “only prohibits counseling conversations in one direction. For example, it allows counseling conversations that aim to steer young people toward a gender identity different than their sex but prohibits conversations that aim to help them return to comfort with their sex when they desire that.”

Circuits are split on whether bans on conversion therapy regulate speech or conduct, according to the cert petition. The 11th Circuit at Atlanta and the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia have ruled that the laws regulate speech, while the 10th Circuit and the 9th Circuit at San Francisco have determined that the laws regulate conduct.

Colorado’s brief opposing cert said its law was “based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective.”

The state argues that Supreme Court precedent “makes clear that the First Amendment allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech.”

The case is Chiles v. Salazar.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

See also:

9th Circuit upholds ban on conversion therapy for minors in First Amendment challenge

Supreme Court declines to consider challenge to conversion-therapy ban; 3 justices would have heard case

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

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. 2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law…

Judiciary

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 17, 2024, 10:10 am CDT

Two federal judges who said they wouldn’t hire future law grads from Columbia University did not commit misconduct, according to a review panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta’s judicial council.

The review panel appeared to be referring to U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch and U.S. District Judge Tilman E. Self III of the Middle District of Georgia, the only judges who signed a letter announcing the boycott within the 11th Circuit.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law covered the Aug. 12 order released last week.

Branch and Self were among 13 federal judges who signed the letter pledging not to hire future Columbia grads for clerkships because of the school’s handling of campus disruptions. All 13 judges were appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The judges’ May 2024 letter deemed Columbia to be “an incubator of bigotry” and said the university should embrace viewpoint diversity and impose serious consequences for students and faculty who participate in campus disruptions and violate university rules.

The no-misconduct finding follows an August 2024 decision drawing the same conclusion by a review panel of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans’ judicial council. The 5th Circuit review panel found no ethics violations by eight federal judges within the 5th Circuit, including, apparently, Circuit Judge James C. Ho.

The 11th Circuit review panel affirmed a decision by the 11th Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. The order included Pryor’s June 2024 decision dismissing the complaint.

There is no basis for a finding of misconduct, Pryor had said.

“Federal judges routinely hire law clerks and must consider applicants’ educational backgrounds in determining whether an applicant is qualified for and will succeed in the job. As part of that consideration, judges are permitted to make reasonable conclusions regarding the value and quality of a school’s educational program,” he wrote.

A person who filed a complaint against the judges with the 11th Circuit said there is every reason to think that judges who are willing to punish a university and its graduates “will skew their judicial rulings in a similar manner.”

“It is no stretch of the imagination,” the complainant wrote, to conceive that the judges will “attempt to discern the political views of the parties and counsel before them and discriminate and retaliate against them.”

The complainant also called for an investigation into whether “outside organizations or foreign governments” orchestrated the judges’ letter.

Pryor responded that that the complainant’s claims lack sufficient evidence, including insufficient evidence to show that the judges “treated or will treat individuals in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DNA issues ‘cast a pall’ over murder conviction,…

U.S. Supreme Court

DNA issues ‘cast a pall’ over murder conviction, warranting SCOTUS review, ABA amicus brief says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 28, 2024, 9:02 am CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court should once again consider the case of a Texas death row inmate whose conviction was based on DNA evidence tested by a lab that “consistently and egregiously mishandled DNA evidence,” the ABA has said in an amicus brief.

The ABA filed the March 27 brief in the case of Areli Escobar, according to an ABA press release. It is the second time that the ABA has urged the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The ABA filed its first amicus brief in August 2022, arguing that Escobar’s conviction “ought not stand as a matter of fundamental fairness.” The brief cited findings by a state habeas court, which found that DNA evidence in Escobar’s case was “false, misleading and unreliable.”

The lab’s mishandling of DNA evidence was so egregious that it was shut down by the state, the first ABA brief said.

According to SCOTUSblog, in January 2023, Supreme Court vacated a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision that upheld Escobar’s conviction and remanded. The Supreme Court said the Texas court should consider the state’s position supporting Escobar and confessing error in the case.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the top criminal court in Texas, once again upheld the conviction in September 2023.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said it was aware that the state was no longer defending Escobar’s conviction when it originally ruled against Escobar, and nothing presented to the court since then changes its conclusion that there was no due process violation. There was no showing that lab deficiencies affected Escobar’s DNA evidence, the court said.

Evidence shown to be false—statistical errors in DNA probability estimates—isn’t material because Escobar would have been convicted anyway, the court had concluded.

The victim in the case, 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado Hernandez, had 46 stab wounds. She lived in the same apartment building as Escobar. Escobar’s girlfriend testified at trial that she called him in the early-morning hours on the date in question, and she could hear moaning and screaming in the background. The girlfriend had concluded that Escobar was having sex with someone and had complained to her friends about it.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cited the girlfriend’s testimony, along with shoe-print evidence, Escobar’s appearance after the offense, and Escobar’s fingerprint on a lotion bottle near the victim’s body,

According to the ABA’s new brief, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals “improperly downplayed the inculpatory effect of the false DNA evidence, and retroactively attempted to rehabilitate certain pieces of evidence” to support the conviction.

“The DNA errors go to the heart of the reliability of the evidence in this case and cast a pall over [Escobar’s] conviction and sentence,” the new ABA brief said.

DNA evidence found to be false and unreliable “ran afoul” of at least four parts of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: DNA Evidence, according to the new amicus brief.

Those standards say labs should maintain accreditation through “scrupulous adherence to scientific best practices,” should collect and keep evidence in a manner that prevents contamination, should implement scientifically valid protocols, and should take steps to minimize bias in the interpretation of DNA test results.

In Escobar’s case, the brief said, lab employees provided misleading testimony that gave the impression they had a system of checks and balances. In addition, the lab had multiple instances of evidence contamination, employed unqualified staff members who used “indefensible” protocols, and failed to minimize bias in interpreting test results.

Lab contamination affected samples from Escobar’s shoe and his sister’s Mazda vehicle, the new ABA brief said.

“It ought to be uncontroversial that when critical evidence in a capital murder trial was based on scientifically unreliable methods and processes of dubious validity, the resulting conviction cannot stand,” the ABA brief said.

See also:

The New York Times: “In Death Penalty Cases, a Texas Court Tests the Supreme Court’s Patience”

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall ordered an investigation into domestic violence cases following a CBS News report that found the military is failing spouses, partners and service members who report abuse.

A lot has been made about how generative artificial intelligence has already changed many aspects of the legal industry. Heck, we’ve already done a few shows on this very topic.

One of the areas that has already felt the effects of ChatGPT and other large language models is contracts. Users can now use these AI-enhanced tools to help them quickly draft, analyze and review contracts. All you have to do is type in what you want, and the tech does the rest.

Of course, it isn’t that simple. The technology is still in its infancy, and there are limits to what it can do. We’ve already seen how it can produce inaccurate results—also known as hallucinations.

Nevertheless, the potential is there for lawyers to save tons of time when it comes to contract drafting, review and analysis. And as the technology continues to improve, who knows what it might be capable of?

In this episode of the Legal Rebels Podcast, Noah Waisberg, co-founder and CEO at AI-powered document processing platform Zuva and co-author of AI for Lawyers: How Artificial Intelligence Is Adding Value, Amplifying Expertise, and Transforming Careers, talks with the ABA Journal’s Victor Li about how generative AI is changing the field of contract review and what we can expect to see down the line.

Waisberg has long been interested in using technology to improve the process of contract review. His current company, Zuva, was spun off from his previous one, Kira Systems, a smart contracts and document analysis platform that was purchased by Litera in 2021.