The National Law Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court will not intervene to stop the development of a large copper mine at a sacred site for the Western Apache, prompting a fierce dissent from tribal ally Justice Neil Gorsuch over what he called the court’s “grievous mistake.” The high court on Tuesday turned away an appeal from the advocacy group Apache Stronghold to review a splintered 6-5 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejecting its challenge to mining construction on land where tribe members have performed cultural ceremonies for centuries. The group had challenged the development project under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. Gorsuch, the most court's most vocal advocate for tribal interests, issued a blistering dissent all but accusing his colleagues of being indifferent to Native American religious practices. “An ancient sacred site will be destroyed, replaced by a 2-mile wide crater,” Gorsuch wrote in the dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “Even the government has acknowledged that the destruction of Oak Flat will inflict ‘indescribable hardship’ on the Apaches.” “Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historical cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning,” Gorsuch added. “I have no doubt that we would find the case worthy of our time. Faced with the government’s plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.” Full story from Jimmy Hoover: https://lnkd.in/eakQWgMr

McDermott Appellate Co-Chair Jumps to Winston & Strawn

'Grievous Mistake': Over Gorsuch's Dissent, High Court Won't Stop Copper Mine on Sacred Apache Site

Supreme Court Turns Down First Amendment Appeal Over 'Only Two Genders' Shirt

Although she attended but did not graduate college, Kardashian, 44, had amassed enough credits to qualify for a four-year apprenticeship permitted by the State of California as an alternative to attending law school. California is one of only four states that allows "reading the law" as a route to becoming a lawyer. Kardashian's mentors for her apprenticeship were REFORM Alliance attorneys Jessica Jackson and Erin Haney, with whom she had also collaborated on the Johnson pardon. She passed California's notoriously difficult First-Year Law Students' Examination, also known as the "baby bar exam," on her fourth try in 2021.

The families of people killed in the 2018 and 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crashes are pushing back against a proposed plea deal by the U.S. Department of Justice that would allow Boeing to withdraw its guilty plea in a pending fraud case. In a conferral and subsequent letter to the families dated May 16, attorneys representing some of the families said the DOJ told them a deal was in the works with the aviation giant, where Boeing would be allowed to withdraw its not-guilty plea and enter into a nonprosecution agreement. The families had until 5 p.m. Thursday to respond. "It's the second sweetheart deal the Department of Justice has made with Boeing," claimed Robert A. Clifford of Chicago's Clifford Law Offices in a statement through spokesman Gary Hanauer. "It's totally a sweetheart deal." Clifford's firm represents 70 families from the Ethiopian crash. "It's like the closing scene in the movie 'Chinatown' when you finally knew 'The Fix' was in. It's a done deal that's in the bag and you should forget about it," Clifford alleged. Full story from Lisa Willis: https://lnkd.in/ejnxgj9K

Lawyers go through tremendous lengths to prepare for a Supreme Court argument. As the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, however, Elizabeth Prelogar took things to a new level in a case about whether online gun kits should be regulated like normal firearms. Displaying a facility with the mechanics of firearms and online gun kits, Prelogar explained to the court that she “actually had the experience of putting one of these kits together." What followed was her description of how, with the help of a tool called a "jig," some pliers and dog nail trimmers, "you have a fully functional frame or receiver, and you can quickly assemble it into a gun in no time at all," she said. But it wasn’t just veterans who showed a bit of creativity this term. First-time advocate Nathaniel Zelinsky demonstrated as much when he offered the court “five very brief points” during his rebuttal in an excessive force lawsuit about a police shooting during a routine traffic stop. Zelinsky then addressed five different justices by name and answered questions they had asked earlier in the hearing. This innovative use of an advocate’s rebuttal period stands in contrast to an attorney’s traditional closing statement summarizing his or her main points. Zelinsky had a practical reason for his approach. "The rule in any case is we gotta get to five," he said, referring to the number of justices necessary for a majority. "We were lucky to get 9. But in terms of getting to five, figuring out what's motivating each justice and trying to speak directly to their concerns or motivations is how you get to five." Read "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗴𝗹𝘆: 𝗔 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗺" by Jimmy Hoover: https://lnkd.in/eWy6cFkE

Overturning its own precedent, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday sided with Texas county officials in dismissing claims that a local library’s removal of several books violated patrons’ free-speech rights. In a 10-7 vote, the majority brushed off arguments from patrons of Llano County’s public library that removing eight books about sex, gender and racism from the shelves violated their “right to receive information” under the Constitution's Free Speech Clause, saying that right doesn’t extend to public libraries. “[W]e note with amusement (and some dismay) the unusually over-caffeinated arguments made in this case," wrote Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan (below), joined at least in part by nine other Republican-appointed judges. "Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library.” The court said libraries have discretion to keep certain ideas off shelves and knocked the contention that books were being banned, saying people can still buy them online. “Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books,” the 55-page opinion stated. “All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide which books they want in their collections. That is what it means to be a library. … If you doubt that, next time you visit the library ask the librarian to direct you to the Holocaust Denial Section.” Full story from Avalon Z.: https://lnkd.in/ejRttagZ

White House Moves to Fast-Track Nuclear Reactor Approvals

U.S. District Judge John Bates granted Jenner & Block’s summary judgment motion against the Trump administration, writing that a majority of the sections in an executive order against the firm are “null and void.” “This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full,” Bates wrote. Bates also outlined the high risk to Jenner if the executive order were to stand. “More than forty percent of Jenner’s revenue comes from government contractors, subcontractors, or affiliates,” he wrote, adding “the order puts that revenue at great risk.” Jenner is the second law firm to have won summary judgment in a case against the Trump administration, after Perkins Coie, and comes just days after Jenner notified the courts that some of its attorneys’ security clearances had indeed been revoked, impacting the firm’s work. Bates said the Trump administration picked Jenner “because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed.” The Trump administration’s attacks against law firms in this way “is doubly violative of the Constitution,” he wrote. “Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not ‘use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,” Bates wrote. Full story from Abigail Adcox and Amanda O'Brien: https://lnkd.in/ekMwARxu