There are a great many question arising from the fact pattern in Doe v. KIPP NY, a case decided last August that just found its way onto Eugene Volokh’s radar with a rather salacious title. How did the video get into the hands of students? Why would the teacher use a district-provided cellphone to take video of her pleasuring herself? Why did she take video at all? If the plaintiff continued her employment as a junior high and high school teacher, would her students have something other than education on their minds such that she would have difficulty teaching?

[P]laintiff commenced this action a year after her employment as a teacher at KIPP middle school and high school was terminated following the dissemination of a video to students depicting plaintiff in a sex act that was saved on her KIPP-issued cellular phone (the “Video”). On June 3, 2022, plaintiff alleges she became aware of the video dissemination, when students brought it to her attention that the video had just been “airdropped” to certain students at KIPP. The plaintiff maintains that the video was taken on personal time and personal property and was potentially accessed and disseminated by students and others, without her consent. Continue reading →

The salaries range from $190,000 to $235,000 per year, excluding bonuses, numbers that bring tears to the eyes of many hard-working, experienced and highly-skilled trial lawyers, the babies of Biglaw earn incomes that bear no relation to the value they bring to the table. The only drawback is that their work went from engagement in the practice of law that prepared them to be lawyers one day to the indignity of document review, work best suited to back office drones.

With the incorporation of AI by Biglaw into its mind-numbing grind, even that may soon be gone.

There are growing signs that artificial intelligence poses a real threat to a substantial number of the entry-level jobs that normally serve as the first step for each new generation of young workers. Uncertainty around tariffs and global trade are only likely to accelerate that pressure, just as millions of 2025 graduates enter the work force.

Continue reading →

Pending the second flight of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members out of Texas, the ACLU sought an emergency injunction. Time was short. The threat was clear. Once the bodies were on a plane and the plane was off the ground, the government would claim it was out of their hands and there was nothing they could do. It isn’t true, but that’s the presumptive claim since it’s the same contention made about Abrego Garcia in the first flight.

And the district judge sat on it. And the Fifth Circuit wiped its hand of the problem since it was up to the district judge in the first instance to make a decision. That was the orderly process. That was the way it was supposed to work. And the government promised that no flight would take off that day, although it made no promises as to what would happen after midnight. The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 majority, had enough of being played by the Trump administration, which figured out that by ignoring orderly process, flying them to a life in prison in El Salvador and claiming it was out of their hands, they could beat the system. The Supreme Court said no. Continue reading →

The oral argument was interesting, as there are strong arguments and legitimate concerns on both sides when it comes to the authority of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Presidents before Trump hated it, and Trump does too. No president wants 680 district judges to individually possess the authority to put a stop to the president’s actions and thus thwart his agenda.

Then again, if a president engages in unlawful or unconstitutional action, must every person affected bring suit or, as Justice Jackson queried, isn’t an order to stop doing something unlawful more than sufficient for the government to stop doing something unlawful?

But that raised a question posed by Amy Coney Barrett. The colloquy between Justice Barrett and Solicitor General John Sauer was surprising, to say the least. Continue reading →

A.G. Sulzberger, current publisher and scion of the New York Times, writes that a free people need a free press.

The role of a free and independent press in a healthy democracy is under direct attack, with increasingly aggressive efforts to curtail and punish independent journalism. I don’t believe it’s an overstatement to say that this anti-press campaign threatens the special formula that has made the American model so successful for nearly 250 years.

A free people need a free press.

Could any reasonable person disagree? Of course not, which is why Dash, as Sulzberger is called, is full of shit and needs to own up to it. Where was he when editorial page editor James Bennet was sacrificed to the woke? Continue reading →

As Eugene Volokh explains, it may violate the First Amendment. But why, one has to wonder, would the Encinitas Union School District believe treading along, and over, the line of constitutionally protected speech and expression was so important that it would not merely take the risk, but take the risk at the expense of a fifth grade buddy?

The school activity at issue occurred in the context of the buddy program, a weekly class pairing younger and older students. The buddy program is a mandatory part of the school curriculum. P.D. and S.E., both fifth graders, were each paired with a kindergartener. In this program, “students in the older classroom mentor students in the younger classroom.” Continue reading →

In a curious lapse from her attacks on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, Linda Greenhouse raises an interesting question. Should reporting about federal judges include the president who nominated them?

Back when I was a reporter covering the Supreme Court in the early 2000s, journalists in the nation’s capital had begun routinely to identify judges by the presidents who appointed them. I argued vigorously against this approach. The practice was reductive and corrosive, I would say. It implied to readers that a given judge was doing politics rather than law — a serious accusation and in most cases an unfair one. To the extent that journalism plays a role in civics education, as I believe it does, it seemed to me that portraying the legal system in such a misleading way amounted to journalistic malpractice.

Continue reading →

So what if it comes on the bone-spurred heels of Trump buying a luxury golf resort in Qatar? So what if its legality was approved by Qatar’s former $100,000 per month lobbyist, now Attorney General of the United States? After all, it’s free and isn’t that what really matters?

So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane.…

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) May 12, 2025

The way this is supposed to work is that a Boeing 747-8 Jumbo Jet, described as a flying palace, will be given to the defense department to serve as the new and improved Air Force 1 and, after completion of his term of office, will be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library and Market, where he would then might be permitted to use it because, well, he’s Trump. And as emphatically noted, it’s a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” which pretty much sums up all relevant concerns from the White House, other than what he might have mentioned when he earlier toured the plane.

Trump had previously toured the plane, which is so opulently configured it is known as “a flying palace,” while it was parked at the West Palm Beach International Airport in February.

What would a Qatari royal do when the president says “nice plane you got here”? There are, of course, some security concerns involved, such as the outside possibility that there might be a bug or two built in, or perhaps a small explosive device should the royals be annoyed. But the defense department will inspect the plane to be sure it’s safe and silent when it’s outfitted to be AF1 with the requisite Trump gold-plated toilets. If you can’t trust Hegseth to make sure the plane is operationally secure, who can you trust?

But is it legal?

One might think this gift raises legal issues. Administration lawyers apparently have those bases covered:

sources told ABC News that lawyers for the White House counsel’s office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution’s prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts “from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

Sources told ABC News that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump’s top White House lawyer David Warrington concluded it would be “legally permissible” for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump’s presidential library before the end of his term, according to sources familiar with their determination. . . .

Both the White House and DOJ concluded that because the gift is not conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery, the sources said. Bondi’s legal analysis also says it does not run afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on foreign gifts because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, the sources said.

And, indeed, it would appear on the surface to have been structured in such a way as to circumvent the Emoluments Clause and not constitute a bribe, it’s value notwithstanding and the lack of an explicit quid pro quo, even though Qatar has not been shy about offering money for influence.

One might also think a gift of this sort could raise security concerns, particularly given the Qatari government’s efforts to influence U.S. policy (and universities). Apparently such concerns will be addressed when the plane is modified to meet the requirements for presidential use.

And did I mention it’s a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” which has always been Trump’s favorite price?

It would appear, from a technical perspective, that the legal analysis may be correct. It’s not a gift to Trump, personally, even if he gets to use it both as president and, afterward, as beneficiary of his presidential library’s largesse. It’s unseemly as can be, but unseemly doesn’t make it unlawful. And, to be fair, contributions to president’s inauguration and library are similarly unseemly when it comes to the appearance of buying influence and a dinner in the White House, winter or summer, or buy a few million dollars worth of $Trump meme coins.

What distinguishes this “gift” is both the face value of it, which suggests that Qatar isn’t gifting Trump a plane because he’s such a cool guy to whom royals just want to give stuff, and that despite any refitting to turn it into Air Force 1, it exposes huge security risks that are unlikely to be overcome no matter what.

Perhaps the most underdiscussed aspect of his gift is its opulence, that it’s a flying palace if not a flying Emolument Clause. Granted, Trump has already redecorated the Oval Office in early bordello, adding gold doodads to the room reminiscent of one of the Kings Louis more than George Washington. Should president’s be flying in palaces? Is there nothing that says “I am a servant of the people” more than opulence? Then again, given the tastes of a guy whose toilets are gold-plated, perhaps we should be happy that he has yet to paint pubic hair on statues. And after all, it’s a “GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,” and isn’t that what really matters?

Greetings, Simple Justice readers! Your humble humorist, Chris Seaton, is back to sling some Friday funny at you, and this week we’re diving headfirst into the Lycra-clad, obstacle-dodging, sweat-soaked spectacle that is American Ninja Warrior. Because nothing screams “American Dream” like grown adults flinging themselves at warped walls and praying they don’t faceplant on national television. Grab your protein shake, folks, and let’s get to it.

For the uninitiated, American Ninja Warrior is a show where people who spend more time at the gym than in their own homes attempt to conquer an obstacle course designed by a sadist with a PhD in physics. Think Wipeout, but with less foam and more existential dread. Contestants—ranging from firefighters to accountants who moonlight as parkour enthusiasts—tackle things like the “Quintuple Steps” (a fancy name for “stairs that hate you”) and the “Salmon Ladder” (which sounds like a fishy sex move but is actually a pull-up bar from hell). If they make it to the end without slipping into a pool of water or their own tears, they get to hit a buzzer and scream like they just won a lifetime supply of kale. Continue reading →

It’s unfair to argue whether the now-withdrawn nominee, Ed Martin as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, is worse than the new nominee, former Westchester, NY, County Court judge and District Attorney, Jeanine Pirro. As discussed here, Martin is incompetent, by experience, intellect and temperament, to be US Attorney, whether in DC or elsewhere. In contrast, Pirro is batshit crazy atop incompetent, and thus reflects the nadir of prosecutorial choices. But that’s just me.

Continue reading →