After suffering a decisive loss at the Supreme Court over his birthright citizenship executive order, President Trump is now demanding the justices rehear the entire matter immediately.
Trump chose to accompany his rehearing request with pointed insults directed at the same court he is now asking to reconsider its position.
Legal observers have noted the unusual nature of the strategy, which involves antagonising the very justices whose votes Trump needs to reverse the earlier ruling against him.
Separately, Trump continues efforts to avoid paying the nearly $5.8 million he owes to E. Jean Carroll, with a conservative watchdog group filing a bar complaint against Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan.
Sullivan and Cromwell has become engulfed in an internal civil war after the firm promised its partners it would stay out of Trump’s Carroll cases, then reversed course and joined them anyway.
On Capitol Hill, a member of Congress has called on Chief Justice John Roberts to explain what prevents Supreme Court justices and their clerks from placing real-money bets on prediction market platform Kalshi about cases whose outcomes only they know in advance.
The question raises serious ethical concerns about insider knowledge and financial conflicts of interest at the highest level of the American judiciary.
At Cadwalader, legacy timekeepers have been given until July 20 to re-audit six months’ worth of six-minute billing entries, because the merged firm’s technology systems are unable to communicate with one another.
The University of Chicago Law School is removing laptops from first-year classrooms and returning to the Socratic method as its institutional response to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence.
Yale Law School leads a list of the most selective law schools in the United States, with the twenty most selective institutions admitting an average of just 11 percent of applicants.
Harvard Law School has edged out Yale and Stanford at the top of the Quacquarelli Symonds global law school rankings, reflecting a different set of evaluative criteria than those used by U.S. News.
The QS rankings highlight how international assessments of legal education prestige can diverge sharply from the domestic pecking order that American law students and employers typically rely upon.