1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“The president is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the executive branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a president such power,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

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

A federal judge in Colorado this week appeared skeptical of allowing the Trump administration to resume using an 18th-century wartime authority to fast-track the removal of Venezuelan migrants with limited notice and minimal, if any, due process.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on Monday heard arguments from attorneys representing the Justice Department and immigration rights groups regarding whether she should renew a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the government from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) to deport migrants to a notorious work camp in El Salvador.

The hearing came after the U.S. Supreme Court in the early morning hours of Saturday issued an order — the first and only Saturday order issued this term — directing the government “not to remove” any immigrant detainees subject to President Donald Trump’s proclamation invoking the AEA in northern Texas.

The Saturday order follows the justices April 7 order in which they unanimously held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal” under the AEA “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

In light of the high court’s ruling, an incredulous Sweeney questioned how the government could prevail in the instant case, asking the government’s attorney, “How could I not continue the temporary restraining order?” the Daily Camera reported.

Seeking to have the TRO lifted, the DOJ assured the court that any individuals subject to removal under the act would be given 24 hours to challenge their deportation before a judge, Denver CBS affiliate KCNC reported.

Attorneys from the ACLU and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, the organizations representing the two unnamed petitioners in the case, pushed back on the administration’s position, asserting that affording migrants only one day to file individual habeas corpus petitions could not possibly comply with the Supreme Court’s directive requiring “reasonable time” for court challenges.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court appears likely to rule against…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2025, 12:46 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to side with U.S. gun companies arguing that Mexico cannot sue over the flow of firearms into the country because of a 2005 law providing gun-makers with immunity for third-party crimes committed with their products.

“After a nearly two-hour argument,” the Washington Post reports, “a majority of justices—if not a unanimous court—appeared likely to block the lawsuit from proceeding, with several suggesting Mexico had not shown a close enough connection between guns made in the United States and drug cartel violence.”

Several other publications also reported that the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to gun company arguments, including Reuters, the New York Times, CNN and SCOTUSblog.

Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not shield gun companies because they sell to “red-flag dealers” known for illegally selling to straw purchasers who traffic guns across the border. Mexico’s suit seeks injunctive relief and about $10 billion in damages, according to an ABA Journal case preview.

The suit cites a provision in the law that allows civil liability when businesses knowingly violate a state or a federal law regarding the sale or marketing of firearms or when the the companies aid and abet the violation. The violation must also be the proximate cause of the harm—in this case, drug cartel violence—that is the basis of the suit.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had allowed Mexico to pursue the suit.

Suit defendants Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, a gun distributor, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 1st Circuit’s decision. Initial defendants included seven firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler, but a federal judge dismissed six of them for lack of personal jurisdiction while the cert petition was pending, according to a brief filed by the gun companies.

Noel J. Francisco, a Jones Day partner and a former U.S. solicitor general during President Donald Trump’s first term, argued for the companies.

Mexico “asserts that defendants are liable for every illegal sale by every retailer in America because they know that a small percentage of firearms are sold illegally and don’t do more to stop it,” he said. “If Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”

In an exchange with Catherine Stetson, a lawyer for the Mexican government, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the suit does not contend that gun companies violate any U.S. laws.

Instead, the suit allegations “just go to whether or not the defendant had knowledge that at the end of the day, … some dealers might be doing something wrong,” Jackson said.

The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Forget originalism; some conservatives back…

Legal Theory

Forget originalism; some conservatives back ‘common-good constitutionalism,’ its embrace of strong rule

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 19, 2025, 11:37 am CST

Adrian Vermeule, a professor at Harvard Law School, is an “ideological lodestar” among conservatives who are impatient with originalism—the idea that the Constitution’s meaning can be determined by its text and the founders’ intent, according to a story by the New York Times.

Vermeule, dubbed “the godfather of post-originalism” by the New York Times, argued in a March 2020 essay in the Atlantic that originalism has “outlived its utility.”

Vermeule instead embraced an approach that he called “common-good constitutionalism” that goes beyond originalism in incorporating conservative values. Common-good constitutionalism is based on the idea that government helps direct society generally “toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate,” he wrote.

The main aim of common-good constitutionalism “is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power,” Vermeule wrote. Instead the aim is “to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well,” Vermeule wrote.

Critics on the left side and the right side of the political spectrum criticized Vermeule’s essay. On the liberal side, Garrett Epps, then a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said in an April 2020 article in the Atlantic Vermeule was arguing for “authoritarian extremism.”

Some judges are also expressing interest in Vermeule’s theory, the New York Times reports. Two federal appeals judges attended a 2022 conference on common-good constitutionalism. They are Judge James C. Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans and Judge Paul B. Matey of the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia.

In addition, some footnotes in federal appellate decisions have referred to Vermeule’s book on common-good constitutionalism, according to the New York Times.

Vice President JD Vance is familiar with Vermeule. Earlier this month, Vance shared a social media post on X, formerly known as Twitter, by Vermeule that read: “Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers.”

The next day, Vance posted: “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

According to the New York Times, Vance is hinting at “wholesale ultra vires executive-branch impunity,” an idea that “is increasingly part of the Republican mainstream.”

Vermeule didn’t think that Vance went that far when he defended his comments in a Feb. 11 article in the Wall Street Journal.

Vance appeared to be referring to legal doctrines used by courts to determine whether they have jurisdiction to review executive action, Vermeule wrote.

“Judges often invoke the separation of powers to limit their own authority, to put certain classes of executive action off-limits from judicial review, or to shape and constrain the remedies they provide,” Vermeule wrote.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Florida considers exception to lawyer confidentiality…

Ethics

Florida considers exception to lawyer confidentiality rule to protect minor clients

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 5, 2025, 3:59 pm CST

The Florida Bar’s board of governors could propose an ethics rule change as early as March that would allow lawyers to disclose confidential information to protect minor clients from harm.

The board of governors’ rules committee presented the proposed amendment to the ethics rule on lawyer confidentiality at a January board meeting, the Florida Bar News reports.

The proposed amendment adds a new section to Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6 “permitting a lawyer to disclose confidential information to protect a minor client from a substantial risk of danger or harm,” the article reports.

The rules committee acted after the Florida Supreme Court asked the board of governors to propose revisions by May 1, according to the article. In a Nov. 12 letter, the state supreme court referred to a 2013 appellate decision that quashed a judge’s order for attorneys ad litem to reveal the location of a minor client who ran away from foster care. The minor had requested confidentiality.

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal said in R.L.R. v. State it could not “carve out an altogether new exception to the attorney-client privilege,” which is a job for the legislature or possibly the Florida Bar, the appeals court said.

The Florida Supreme Court will make the final decision on a rule change, the Florida Bar News article reports.

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

In 80 countries around the world over the past 30 years, the ABA Rule of Law Initiative (ROLI) has worked with lawyers, judges and civil society to promote the rule of law.

Key among its programs have been safeguarding the independent judiciary; emphasizing the important role the judiciary plays in a democratic society; working with civil society and non-governmental organizations to strengthen the judiciary and provide access to justice; and training judges, lawyers and government officials on ethics, transparency, constitutional protections and substantive areas such as procedure, corruption, human trafficking, Internet freedom and human rights.

In addition, ROLI has developed tools to assess judicial independence. This sustained effort over three decades has had a major impact in shaping judiciaries and protecting judicial independence. This work has been done through judicial and lawyer volunteers, and professional staff drawn primarily from the locales where ROLI has worked.

In recognition of this work, the Federal Judges Association of the United States successfully nominated ROLI to receive the Judicial Independence Award from the International Judges Association (IAJ), the largest association of jurists with member organizations in 92 countries across all continents.

In making the award, IAJ President Duro Sessa of Croatia highlighted “The role of ABA-ROLI, the courage and the absolute commitment of its prestigious members” and “the long standing engagement of ABA ROLI in defense of the values of rule of law and judicial independence and its programs aimed at strengthening legal institutions, supporting legal professions, fostering respect for human rights and advancing public understanding of the law and of citizen rights.”

On behalf of ROLI, Judge M. Margaret McKeown from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco accepted the award in October in a ceremony in Cape Town, South Africa, at the General Assembly of the Central Council of the IAJ. McKeown serves as vice chair of the ROLI Board (along with Debra Enix Ross) and is a United States delegate to the IAJ. The chair of the ROLI board is former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Origins of ROLI

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, a renaissance in legal and political reform spread through Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states. In response, the ABA founded the Central and European Law Initiative (CEELI), which responded to calls for help in drafting constitutions and statutes, building legal institutions and promoting a culture of law. Instead of advocating for an American-centric approach, CEELI let the host country partners take the lead in shaping the programs.

By 2000, over 5,000 volunteers from around the world had focused on judicial restructuring in both criminal and commercial law. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, was a leader in the initiative.

Building on the success in Europe and Central Asia, the initiative expanded to Asia in 1998 and, by 2000, to Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. Several years later, the programs extended to the Middle East and North Africa. ROLI is governed by a board of volunteer judges and lawyers.

Strengthening governance and justice systems

An essential component of ROLI’s work is the strengthening of governance and justice systems. These efforts extend across the justice section, from the bench to the bar, the public square and the classroom. Importantly, this work has focused on long-term institutional changes that strengthen the judiciary. While ROLI has sponsored a number of meetings and conferences focused on judicial independence, understanding the nature of the on-the-ground work provides a more nuanced view of ROLI’s impact.

Some projects undertaken by ROLI

   • Developing and implementing the Judicial Reform Index to assess judicial reform and independence, using comparative analyses of legal traditions, international standards and regional norms. Not long ago, ROLI brought together key players in the area to consider how to measure success in justice reform.

   • Collaborating in 2023 with the Southern East African Chief Justices Forum to provide legal guidance for judicial officers and creating the Bench Book on Computer Crimes and Cybercrimes in Southern Africa.

   • Working with judges from Pakistan, Egypt, Poland, Turkey, Algeria and Venezuela, among others, to craft and implement ethics codes.

   • Sponsoring an international symposium for East African high court justices and judges on combating international and transnational crimes, including participation by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

   • Cooperating with the courts in the Philippines to address access to the court system, automation of court records and nationwide implementation of small-claims procedures.

   • Partnering with ministries of justice, local courts, law schools and national training centers to assist in the monumental process of shifting from the inquisitorial to the adversarial model in criminal justice. Intensive training has been the hallmark of programs in the Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Peru, Ecuador, Panama and Mexico.

   • Building confidence in the judiciary through community trust, including working with hundred of judges on a Judicial Media Guide, instructing on the ethical bounds of judges’ relationships with the media.

   • Opening mobile courts in Africa to promote access to justice in human trafficking and domestic violence cases.

   • Sponsoring “Roads to Justice” programs in Mexico, Morocco and Panama to promote transparency and combat corruption by education citizens and connecting courts to the citizens.

   • Promoting transitional justice programs in Mali after a coup resulted in massive human rights abuses. Similarly, ROLi as worked in Moldova, Armenia, Nepal and Russia, undertaking training on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

   • Prioritizing judicial work in the human trafficking arena, including creating a Human Trafficking Assessment Tool to measure compliance with the United Nations Trafficking Protocol. Recent programs included a collaboration with the judiciary in Colombia. Given the magnitude of the challenge, nearly 28 million victims worldwide, ROLI has worked with judiciaries in countries ranging from the Solomon Islands to Haiti.

The award is particularly timely in light of ROLI’s expanding work in the judicial arena and the increasing pressure on judicial independence from authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world.

---

ABA Abroad is a column highlighting the work of the ABA’s Center for Global Programs, which comprises the Rule of Law Initiative, Center for Human Rights and the ABA’s presence at the United Nations.

---

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyers who critique critical race theory…

Lawyer Discipline

Lawyers who critique critical race theory may challenge Connecticut’s anti-bias ethics rule, 2nd Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 10, 2024, 12:45 pm CST

Two lawyers who fear their comments could lead to discipline under Connecticut’s anti-bias ethics rule have standing to sue, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a First Amendment lawsuit by Mario Cerame and Timothy Moynahan, report Law360, Reuters and Law.com.

Cerame and Moynahan say they regularly speak out “in forceful terms” on issues that include the free exercise of religion and critical race theory. Those with opposing viewpoints may construe the remarks as personally derogatory or demeaning, they say.

Contemplated comments by Cerame and Moynahan “are arguably proscribed” by the Connecticut ethics rule, the appeals court said in the Dec. 9 decision by Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(7) took effect in 2022. It bars conduct related to the practice of law that a lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination based on 15 protected characteristics. Those characteristics include race, color, ancestry, sex, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

The rule defines discrimination to include “harmful verbal or physical conduct directed at an individual or individuals that manifests bias or prejudice on the basis of one or more of the protected categories.” It defines harassment to include “severe or pervasive derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct.”

A “carve-out” in commentary to the ethics rule states that conduct protected under the First Amendment does not violate the rule.

While the First Amendment carve-out could make an ethics complaint more unlikely, it “is not enough to negate [the lawyers’] reasonable fear that their proposed speech” may be banned by the rule, Livingston said.

Connecticut is one of just a few jurisdictions that have adopted anti-bias rules that are “substantially similar” to Rule 8.4(g) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which was adopted in 2016, the appeals court said.

In their lawsuit, Cerame and Moynahan listed the kind of comments that could lead to ethics complaints in Connecticut if made by other lawyers. Examples could include a failure to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns, using the term “gender preference” rather than “gender orientation,” telling jokes that could offend some members of protected groups, publishing cartoons that mock a religious deity, or espousing theories that socioeconomic disparities are largely due to disparities in cognition and social behaviors among racial groups.

Cerame and Moynahan are represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. NCLA president Mark Chenoweth commented in a press release.

The 2nd Circuit decision “gets the rules of First Amendment standing right,” Chenoweth said. “The court distinguished on two grounds the 3rd Circuit’s recent case denying standing to plaintiffs challenging a similar rule. First, Pennsylvania’s rule, unlike Connecticut’s, focuses on intentional harassment or discrimination. Second, the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel interpreted the rule there not to prohibit general discussion of controversial ideas and specifically blessed plaintiffs’ planned speech as not violating the rule. Not so in Connecticut, where the rule at issue is stricter.”

The Connecticut case is Cerame v. Slack.

A federal judge in Texas has struck down a policy aimed at allowing undocumented spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to stay in the country instead of being deported while waiting for green card status.

The so-called “parole in place” policy was announced by President Joe Biden in June, and the “Keeping Families Together” program was implemented on Aug. 19. According to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the purpose was to allow “certain noncitizen spouses and noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens to request parole in place” and avoid deportation. Specifically, it allowed spouses and stepchildren to stay in the U.S. while applying for Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status, instead of leaving the country and seeking an immigrant visa, waiting for approval — which could potentially take years — in their home country.

At least one government official was unamused by Kamala Harris‘ appearance on Saturday Night Live last night.

Senior Republican Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr said in a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter) that NBC violated the agency’s “Equal Time” rule.

“This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” Carr wrote. “The purpose of this rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct – a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election. Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns.”

Carr was first nominated by Trump and then again by President Biden. He’s one of five commissioners, including a chairperson.

More coverage from Law&Crime: Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against CBS over Kamala Harris ’60 Minutes’ interview mocked as ‘outrageous violation of First Amendment principles’

Just days before Tuesday’s Presidential election, the Democratic nominee appeared on SNL opposite her impersonator Maya Rudolph for a skit as part of the show’s cold opening.

Generally speaking, the Equal Time rule requires broadcasters to provide the same amount of airtime for one candidate as the other. If one candidate appears on a broadcast channel, it must provide an opportunity for the other candidate(s) to appear for the same amount of time. News broadcasts, political ads and documentaries are exempted from the rule. According to Carr, the FCC chairman under the Obama Administration in 2016 election said the agency would enforce the rule. The stations filed equal opportunity notices when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared on the show, Carr said.

 

WASHINGTON —The Bureau of Land Management is seeking nominations for a new Federal advisory committee that will help inform how the Bureau implements the Public Lands Rule. The Committee will advise on outreach and engagement, best management practices, and the development and refinement of agency guidance to support implementation of the Rule across the country.

The Public Lands Rule provides the BLM with new tools and guidance to inform the balanced management of our natural resources. The Committee will allow the Bureau of Land Management to continue working with the public and a full range of experts to support successful implementation of the Rule, protecting our best and healthiest lands and waters, restoring those that need it, and making informed management and development decisions based on the best available science and data, including Indigenous Knowledge.

Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland recently signed the charter establishing the Committee and is seeking 15 members to serve two-year terms. The Committee will consist of:

• two representatives of Tribal governments;
• two representatives of State governments;
• one representative of local governments;
• two representatives of the public at large;
• at least one representative of the science community, including archaeological or historical interests;
• at least two representatives of non-governmental organizations specializing in environmental, conservation, or watershed interests; recreation interests; or hunting and fishing interests;
• at least one representative of energy or mineral development;
• at least one representative of Federal grazing permit holders or other permittees; and
• at least one representative of commercial recreation activities.

Additionally, the Secretary will appoint 15 alternates to deliberate and vote on Committee matters in the absence of the primary representative.

The 30-day nomination period is open until November 18, 2024. Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee’s qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make informed decisions to meet the membership requirements of the Committee, as well as appropriate contact information.

Nominees are strongly encouraged to include supporting letters from employers, associations, professional organizations, or other organizations that indicate support by those interest groups or communities they are representing.

Completed nomination packages or questions about the Committee should be emailed to BLM_PLR_IAC@blm.gov.

For more information about the nomination process, please contact Carrie Richardson, National Advisory Committee Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; phone: (202) 742-0625, email: crichardson@blm.gov.