The notice filed pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stated that it was a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Oddly, the notice went on to present argument that by dismissing the matter with prejudice, the court was divested of jurisdiction and thus unable to render any decision or order relating to the matter.

¹ Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) filings are sometimes colloquially styled as “motions,” the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal is self-executing, terminates the action upon filing, and divests the district court of jurisdiction. See Est. of W. v. Smith, 9 F.4th 1361, 1367–68 (11th Cir. 2021); Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs accordingly file this document as a Notice rather than a motion, as the notice does not require judicial action. Est. of W., 9 F.4th at 1368.

Continue reading →

When Vladimir Zelenskyy was attacked in the Oval Office by J.D. Vance for not being sufficiently appreciative of the largesse of the great and powerful Trump, he did the only thing he could. Ukraine needed all the help it could garner from other nations to defend itself against Russia, so as bad as Trump behaved, he had no choice but to try to curry whatever favor he could to keep access to military aid coming. It was, of course, to little avail, but the alternative, telling Trump to shove it, would do nothing to help Ukraine either. Unlike Trump, Zelenskyy put country before ego.

Taiwan now finds itself in a similar position. Continue reading →

In the Trumpian retconning of history, the January 6th insurrection was a “day of love,” and the insurrectionists, who were just visitors touring the Capital, received “unfair” treatment for beating the Capital Police and shitting on then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk. The prosecutions of more than 1500 insurrectionists denied them due process, as they were treated like animals in jail. Except nothing about this is remotely true. It’s a MAGA fantasy, a lie regurgitated over and over as if repetition will make it so. Then again, history is written by the victors, and Trump won the 2024 election.

There was outrage following January 6th, when Trump failed to pardon the insurrectionists for doing as he instructed, serving him loyally by trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to save him from the humiliation of losing, a reality Trump vehemently denied and continues to deny in ever more hysterical terms. As far as Trump is concerned, it’s been “conclusively proven” that the 2020 election was stolen from him, despite there still not being a shred of evidence all these years later, except in the fevered minds of people who confuse conspiracy for reality. Continue reading →

My eleven-year-old son went to Nashville yesterday. It’s a pretty monumental field trip for fifth graders at his school. Ideally, this is to give him and his friends some level of interest in civics by visiting the Capitol and seeing how government works at the state level in Tennessee. The reality? It’s a long-ass day for parents and one that usually marks the first time we’re in a different time zone from our spawn.

Let me set a bit up for you folks before I continue. The school year is essentially over. The boy and his friends graduate on Monday. Summer starts next Thursday. They are all eleven-year-old boys ready to stop studying for sixth grade and start playing during summer. Continue reading →

Over at Prawfsblawg, Howard Wasserman poses a provocative free speech theory. It arises from New York University’s choice of Jonathan Haidt as graduation speaker, which some students found disagreeable. Ironically, given that Haidt contends that universities insulate students from unpleasant ideas, student government leaders wrote a letter to the administration requesting that Haidt be disinvited.

Since the announcement on Thursday, April 30, many students have reported feelings of
disappointment, disgust, unenthusiasm, defeat, and embarrassment – feeling that their
commencement, intended to be a celebratory moment, has instead become another instance
of being misunderstood.

What to make of students trying to cancel a strident critic of cancel culture? Wasserman offers a paradigm within which to consider the options. Continue reading →

With some exceptions, part of the bundle of burdens assumed when becoming a member of the guild is to adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct. This is one of the basic requirements that distinguishes a profession from an occupation. You have to pass the bar examination to become a lawyer, and subsequently abide by the rules to remain one.

Auditioning Attorney General Todd Blanche, on the taxpayers’ dime, rejects the notion that lawyers working for the Trump administration should be held to the rules of professional responsibility, and he’s suing the District of Columbia bar to stop it from disciplining Jeffrey Clark, the former environmental law assistant at DoJ willing to pretend that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump when no one else would, and Ed Martin, for his abusing his position at DoJ to attack Georgetown Law School, which barely scratches the surface of Martin’s sleaze. Continue reading →

There’s a quiet split among the MAGA faithful. Most say they only support deportation for the “illegals,” assuming your definition of illegals includes anyone with an Hispanic name, accent or appearance who is not a citizen. Then there are those who don’t care about such niceties as citizenship, and just want them all gone because they aren’t “heritage Americans,” basically white Christians of European heritage, even if they were the dreaded Irish or Italian immigrants of last century.

As far as Immigration and Customs Enforcement is concerned, such details as citizenship aren’t their problem. Leo Garcia Venegas found that out. Not once. Not twice. But three times. Continue reading →

Santa Clara Judge Kelly Paul says it’s a conflict of interest for District Attorney Jeff Rosen to prosecute five pro-Palestinian Stanford students following a mistrial, and recused Rosen and his office from the case.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Kelly Paul has ordered lead prosecutor Jeff Rosen to step down from the case against five Stanford pro-Palestine protesters who barricaded themselves inside the University president’s office in June 2024.

Paul recused Rosen and the entirety of his office from retrying the case, which ended in a mistrial on Feb. 14 after a hung jury. The move comes after defense attorneys raised concerns about Rosen’s conflict-of-interest, which included placing the case on a campaign website titled “fighting antisemitism” and using it in a December fundraising email blast.

Continue reading →

Despite Eugene Volokh’s almost daily post about lawyers (and occasional judges) shamed for using AI to perform their work, producing hallucinated citations, phony quotes and generally mediocre content, it has nonetheless managed to finds its way into the offices of a great many law firms. To say they’ve been warned is unhelpful. AI is quick, easy and crappy, unable to defy the iron triangle. Yet that is apparently good enough for these lawyers.

But unlike the use of AI to produce insipid written arguments in court, what could possible be wrong with using at as the magic note-taker to reduce to writing the discussions, whether as a helpful way to remember the details or for later use as evidence of what transpired? Note taking is a bore. It’s often difficult for the note taker to keep up. Often times, the note taker fails to appreciate the “hidden meaning”  or subtleties behind words and misstates the meaning when written in shorthand notations. Could AI be any worse? Continue reading →

The confluence of a few unfortunate circumstances resulted in the Virginia Supreme Court holding that the state constitutional amendment to allow the redistricting plan as a counterbalance to other states’ legislative redistricting plans to eliminate congressional districts deemed “safely” Democratic was unconstitutional. Wags and cynics will imagine this ruling to be the product of radical rightist activists. It was not.

Unlike a state like Texas, which can redraw its districts by legislative fiat, Virginia’s Constitution required that congressional district be fairly drawn by commission to avoid the plague of gerrymandering. It further required that any change to the Constitution span an election, so that two legislative votes, one before the election and one after, be required to prevent whimsical changes, enabling voters to decide whether to vote for, or against, legislators based on their position toward the change. Its purpose was to create a process so that the state constitutional amendments would only be approved after “deliberate consideration and careful scrutiny that they deserve.” Continue reading →