Mediaboss Marketing

In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana (SRA-L) is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.[1]

SRA-L was a named defendant in a suit by plaintiffs who own land in Louisiana and Texas. Plaintiffs levied allegations that years-long mismanagement of the Toledo Bend reservoir by SRA-L[2] culminated in damage to plaintiffs properties via flooding, violating their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs alleged that despite advance knowledge of the likelihood for significant downstream flooding, SRA-L decided to open spillway gates freeing water from the reservoir into the Sabine River to alleviate elevated reservoir volumes from a cataclysmic rain storm in March of 2016.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the federal district courts order denying[3] SRA-Ls Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by applying the Circuits well-established six-factor test of Clark v. Tarrant County, 798 F.2d 736, 744-45 (5th Cir. 1986). An entity classified as an arm of the state would be entitled to sovereign immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment; in contrast, a political subdivision is not afforded the same protection. The burden of proof falls on the entity seeking immunity and SRA-L failed to meet its burden.

The six Clark factors are as follows:

(1) whether state statutes and case law characterize the agency as an arm of the state;

(2) the source of funds for the entity;

(3) the degree of local autonomy the entity enjoys;

(4) whether the entity is concerned primarily with local, as opposed to statewide, problems;

(5) whether the entity has authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and

(6) whether the entity has the right to hold and use property.[4]

In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit considered each factor in turn, focusing primarily on factor number twothe most significant of the six. Since one of the Eleventh Amendments primary objectives is preservation of the state treasury, the main question when determining whether an entity is considered as an organ of the State is its source of funding (i.e. who will be liable for payment of a judgment levied against it). By analyzing various Louisiana Statutes pertaining to the SRA-L,[5] the Fifth Circuit concluded that SRA-L appears to have near-total financial independence.[6] The Fifth Circuit found SRA-L failed to meet its burden of showing that the state would be liable for a judgment against it either directly or indirectly (via responsibility for general debt or because the state provides the majority of the levee districts budget).

As for the five other factors, only one weighed in favor of finding the SRA-L as an arm of the state as opposed to a political subdivision, and only slightly. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court that state statutes and case law characterize SRA-L as an arm of the state; but caveated that the factor was restricted and given the inconsistent descriptions in the same statutes and the lack of a more-definite characterization in either statute or case law.[7] The Fifth Circuit noted that even though the SRA-L was made part of the umbrella of the executive branch via its placement in the Department of Transportation and Development after its creation, it maintained substantial control over its operations. That retention of autonomy tilted against finding SRA-L an arm of the state.

To support its position regarding the third factorthe degree of local autonomy the entity enjoysSRA-L harped on the fact that its thirteen board members are gubernatorial appointees confirmed by the state senate with no involvement by local governing bodies or local legislators. The lower court found that although SRA-L board members were susceptible to state influence on account of their serving at the governors behest, the parish residency requirement for board members imposed sufficient limits on the governors control. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, finding that this factor weighed minimally against finding SRA-L as an arm of the state, but for a different reason. The Fifth Circuit focused on the autonomy the SRA-L enjoys in its functional decision-making such as acquiring property, incurring debts, borrowing money, entering contracts, and even establishing an enforcement division. To the extent that independent management authority mattered more than commissioner/board member autonomy, the Fifth Circuit found this factor ultimately weighed toward SRA-L being a political subdivision rather than an arm of the state.

Regarding whether the entity principally focuses on local (as opposed to statewide) issues, the Fifth Circuit found the case cited by SRA-L in support of this factor inappositewherein a state university was afforded Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Fifth Circuit determined that the SRA-L primarily dealt with local or regional concerns, unlike a state university fulfilling statewide higher education demands.

The last two factors hold the least weight. SRA-L did not contest the lower courts finding that the fifth factor did not aid in a finding of SRA-L being an arm of the state. La. R.S. 38:232(B)(2) clearly delineates SRA-Ls authority to sue and be sued in its own name. As for the sixth and final factor, though SRA-L pointed to La. R.S. 38:2325(B) which states that it holds property as an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana[;] the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the statute also states [t]itle to all property acquired by the Authority shall be taken in its corporate name. The argument that the property ultimately belongs to the State and thus weighs in favor of sovereign immunity has been previously rejected by the Circuitand was rejected again here.[8] The pertinent issue is whether the entity has the power to hold property in its name and under state statutes, which the SRA-L clearly does.

The Fifth Circuits ruling in Bonin will impact future flood-damage litigation by making it easier for plaintiff landowners to bring claims against various State River Authorities for decisions made in the maintenance, conservation, and supervision of dams, reservoirs, rivers, and streams in their respective watersheds.

Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, APLC (Liskow & Lewis) and the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice as to an identified problem or issue. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney-client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe, please use the SafeUnsubscribe link located at the bottom of every email that you receive.

[1] Perry Bonin, et al., v. Sabine River Auth., State of Louisiana, No. 20-40138 c/w No. 22-40433 (5th Cir. 2023).

[2] After its creation by the Louisiana legislature in 1950 as a conservation and reclamation district, the SRA-L entered a joint venture with the Sabine River Authority, Texas (SRA-T) to build a dam and reservoir to provide electrical power, promote industrial development in both States, conserve water for agricultural purposes, and create fishing, recreation, and commercial development. Stallworth v. McFarland, 350 F. Supp. 920, 926 (W.D. La. 1972).

[3] Denials of motions to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds fall within the collateral order doctrine, and are thus immediately appealable. Texas v. Caremark, Inc., 584 F.3d 655, 658 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407, 411-12 (5th Cir. 2004)).

[4] Voyt v. Board of Comrs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 690 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2002).

[5] E.g. La. R.S. 38:2324 (B)(1) and 2325(A)(5).

[6] Bonin at 9.

[7] Bonin at 7.

[8] See Voyt v. Board of Comrs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 696 (5th Cir. 2002).

Here is the original post:
Louisiana's Sabine River Authority Not Entitled To Sovereign Immunity - The Energy Law Blog

Austin, TX, 51 mins ago The Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton by a vote of 121 to 23 on 20 charges of disregard of official duty, misapplication of public resources, constitutional bribery, obstruction of justice, false statements in official records, conspiracy and attempted conspiracy, misappropriation of public resources, dereliction of duty, unfitness for office, and abuse of public trust.

On Thursday, the House General Investigating Committee unanimously adopted House Resolution (HR) 2377, which contains the articles of impeachment. The committee members are Chairman Andrew Murr (R-Junction) as well as Reps. Ann Johnson (D-Houston), Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth), Oscar Longoria (D-Mission), and David Spiller (R-Jacksboro).

After he was impeached, Paxton released a statement on social media decrying the outcome of the vote, saying, I am beyond grateful to have the support of millions of Texans who recognize that what we just witnessed is illegal, unethical, and profoundly unjust. I look forward to a quick resolution in the Texas Senate, where I have full confidence the process will be fair and just.

Phelans coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans is now in lockstep with the Biden Administration, the abortion industry, anti-gun zealots, and woke corporations to sabotage my work as Attorney General, including our ongoing litigation to stop illegal immigration, uphold the rule of law, and protect the constitutional rights of every Texan.

The following members voted against impeachment:

Two members voted present, not voting, Reps. Harold Dutton Jr. (D-Houston) and Richard Hayes (R-Denton). Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) had an excused absence.

The Collin County GOP legislative delegation which consists of Reps. Jeff Leach (R-Plano), Matt Shaheen (R-Plano), Justin Holland (R-Rockwall), Candy Noble (R-Lucas), and Frederick Frazier (R-McKinney), all of whom voted in favor of impeachment released a statement on social media after the vote: It became clear to us that sufficient evidence indeed exists to vote to commend articles of impeachment to the Texas Senate for a full-trial.

An impeachment is similar to a criminal indictment. It must be followed by a trial in the Senate, Spiller said on the Floor, advising members that they were acting as a grand jury of sorts.

Johnson provided an overview of each article of impeaching, pointing out that many of the allegations constitute felonies punishable by years of imprisonment. For instance, more than one of the disregard of official duty charges could be chargeable as a third-degree felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.

The last 72 hours has shown us why Ken Paxton is so desperate to keep his case in the court of public opinion, because he has no ability to win in a court of law, Johnson said.

Responding to questions from Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler), Murr agreed that witnesses were not placed under oath and were not cross-examined by members of the committee.

Rep. John Smithee (R-Amarillo) opposed the impeachment resolution on the grounds that he believes the process was flawed and the evidence is not enough, a theme throughout.

Im not here to defend Ken Paxton. Thats not my job, Ill leave that to someone else, Smithee said.

Smithee asserted the evidence presented to members was hearsay within hearsay within hearsay and would not be admissible in any court of law.

We do not need to be relaxing the fairness and due process concerns, Smithee said, discussing the precedent the House set with an indefensible process.

Smithee said the chamber was considering impeachment in the worst possible way.

What youre being asked to do is to impeach without evidence. It is all rumor, it is all innuendo, it is all speculation, Smithee said.

Rep. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg) later rebutted this argument by pointing to the grand jury analogy. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, he explained.

Hearsay is never excluded from an investigation, and thats what this is, Canales said

Canales, a defense attorney, said he has never had a client invited by prosecutors to speak to a grand jury. He contended Paxton is not entitled to speak to the investigative committee and Murrs layout should be compared to prosecutor presenting a case to the grand jury, which does not involve a rebuttal by the defense team.

Rep. Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington) pointed out that all of the investigators that testified before the committee were former Harris County employees and nearly all of them vote in Democratic primaries. Murr suggested he was uninterested in the political leanings of the investigators when considering the articles of impeachment.

This body gave more time to debating tampon tax relief than weve given to impeaching the chief law enforcement officer in our state, Tinderholt said.

Tinderholt said he was sorry Republicans in the House are being used to cram through an impeachment against a popular GOP official. He said it is imprudent at best and gross abuse of power at worst.

Rep. Brian Harrison (R-Waxahachie) spoke against impeachment, saying the allegations should be left to the courts and to the voters.

The only Democrat to come to Paxtons mild defense on the floor was Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston), who said he does not believe Paxtons due process rights have been respected.

I dont have enough evidence that (Paxton) did anything, Dutton said.

Dutton expressed concern that the chamber was asked to vote on the impeachment articles virtually in the dead of night.

Earlier in debate, Smithee made a similar point, saying Texans are focused on observing Memorial Day and not the Legislatures proceedings against Paxton.

Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) said he is an absolute, staunch supporter of the Fifth Amendment and Seventh Amendment and would vote against impeachment because the record before them is predicated on hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay.

Before Saturdays vote, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz came to Paxton defense on social media, calling Paxtons impeachment a travesty.

Virtually all of the information in the articles was public BEFORE Election Day, and the voters chose to re-elect Ken Paxton by a large margin. In my view, the Texas Legislature should respect the choice of the Texas voters, Cruz said.

The senator said the swamp in Austin dislikes Paxton because he is a fierce conservative. Cruz contended the courts should settle Paxtons legal troubles.

Former President Donald Trump, who is running for the White House in 2024, called the impeachment proceeding election interference.

The RINO Speaker of the House of Texas, Dade Phelan, who is barely a Republican at all and failed the test on voter integrity, wants to impeach one of the most hard working and effective Attorney Generals in the United States, Ken Paxton, who just won re-election with a large number of American Patriots strongly voting for him, Trump wrote on his social media platform.

Trump claimed that any issue would have been fully adjudicated by the voters of Texas and that Paxtons victory was conclusive.

Unlike in federal impeachments, Paxton will be removed from office pending his trial in the Texas Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required to convict him. State law gives Gov. Greg Abbott the authority to appoint Paxtons replacement.

The House impeached him on suspicion of corrupt dealings with Nate Paul, a real estate developer who donated $25,000 to Paxtons campaign in 2018. Paxton is accused of accepting bribes from Paul and using the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to harm the Roy F. & JoAnn Cole Mitte Foundation, which had sued several companies Paul controlled.

Paul also hired a woman with whom Paxton has acknowledged having an extramarital affair, an act the House says constituted bribery.

The articles of impeachment allege that Paxton abused his office by appointing a special prosecutor to investigate a baseless complaint and issue dozens of grand jury subpoenas. It also outlines an allegation that Paxton warped the legal opinion process to prevent foreclosure on a number of Pauls properties by saying that foreclosure hearings violated the states then-in-place 10-person limit on gatherings. Paxton allegedly ordered one of his employees to alter the opinion from finding that the proceedings didnt violate the gathering limit to opining that they did.

Lawmakers say Paxton violated Texas whistleblower laws by terminating employees who reported their suspicions to federal authorities in good faith.

Four of those employees, David Maxwell, Ryan Vassar, Mark Penley, and Blake Brickman, filed a lawsuit against Paxton that has been making its way through Texas courts for years. Paxton reached a $3.3 million settlement agreement with the former employees, an amount he asked the Texas Legislature to pay.

Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) said in February he did not believe the payout was a proper use of public funds and the appropriation was explicitly excluded from the state budget.

HR 2377 says Paxton abused the judicial process to thwart justice by acting to delay his trial on securities fraud charges that prosecutors filed against him in Collin County eight years ago. Paxton deprived the electorate of its opportunity to make an informed decision during the elections, they said.

The House also accused Paxton of lying to state officials about his personal finances and other matters.

While holding office as attorney general, Warren Kenneth Paxton used, misused, or failed to use his official powers in a manner calculated to subvert the lawful operation of the government of the State of Texas an obstruct the fair and impartial administration of justice, thereby bringing the Office of the Attorney General into scandal and disrepute to the prejudice of public confidence in the government of this State, as shown by the acts described in one or more articles, the resolution reads.

Paxton said Thursday the allegations are based on hearsay and gossip and dismissed the impeachment as an effort by liberal House members to overturn the results of a free and fair election.

Chief Litigant for the OAG, Chris Hilton, cited Texas Government Code Sec. 665.081 and contended Paxton cannot be impeached on charges of misconduct committed prior to the last election.

That section of code reads, (a) An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officers election to office.

(b) The prohibition against the removal from office for an act the officer commits before the officers election is covered by: (1) Section 21.002, Local Government Code, for a mayor or alderman of a general law municipality; or (2) Chapter 87, Local Government Code, for a county or precinct officer.

It does not specify whether that means the officials most recent election to office or the initial election that placed him in the office in the first place.

In November 2022, Paxton was reelected with 53 percent of the vote compared to Democratic nominee Rochelle Garzas 44 percent.

In the Republican primary, Paxton advanced to a runoff with Land Commissioner George P. Bush after defeating Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01) and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman.

Paxton overwhelmingly defeated Bush with 68 percent of the vote.

Update:The Texan has acquired the list of how each member voted and this article now includes statements from several state officials.

A copy of the impeachment resolution can be found below.

More:
Ken Paxton Impeached on 20 Charges Including Bribery ... - The Texan

Before being clubbed over the head with a metal pipe, Don Carmignani blinded himself with his own pepper spray.

As he rubbed his eyes and tried to wipe off the blood gushing down his face, the man with the pipe hit him again and again.

The only thing I can remember him saying was, Die, motherfucker, die, Carmignani said. And he kept hitting me, and he kept hitting me.

Those were some of the moments that Carmignani recalled in San Francisco Superior Court Wednesday while testifying against Garret Doty, the 24-year-old homeless man who allegedly attacked him near his Marina District home April 5.

The beating stoked fears about public safety in San Francisco, but the narrative around it was later complicated by allegations that Carmignani instigated the attack with a 10-inch canister of bear spray.

Dotys public defender, Kleigh Hathaway, alleged that Carmignani matched the description of a suspect in a series of unprovoked bear- or pepper-spray attacks on homeless people not far from his Marina District home. At least nine such attacks were reported to police between November 2021 and January 2023.

Carmignani, 53, took the advice of his attorney in court Wednesday and invoked the Fifth Amendment, declining to answer questions about the prior attacks or on whether he had previously used pepper spray.

Answering those questions could have opened up Carmignani to criminal prosecution, Hathaway told reporters outside the courtroom.

The attorney is doing his job, Hathaway said. In Mr. Carmignani's case, we have at least six incidents that match his description.

Attorneys for Carmignani have said on his behalf in the past that he is not responsible for the earlier bear- or pepper-spray incidents. The Standard also reviewed police records that suggested more than one suspect may have committed them.

Carmignani was in court Wednesday for Dotys preliminary hearing, where a judge will decide whether there is enough evidence for his alleged attacker to stand trial on assault and battery charges.

Still taking painkillers and recovering after brain surgery, Carmignani pushed a walker up to the witness stand and testified while Doty sat in a char, watching.

Carmignani said he was at his home the morning of April 5 when his mother told him that she and his father were afraid to leave their house next door. The family lives near Magnolia and Laguna streets.

Doty and two other homeless people had set up camp outside her gate, were smoking crack and yelling and screaming, Carmignani testified.

When he leaned out his dining room window to ask them to leave, Carmignani said the campers yelled something back at him. So he called 911, asked police to help move them out of the area and then left for work.

By the time he got home, the campers had moved across the street to a laundromat where Carmignani decided to confront them himself.

Carmignani said Doty was yelling and screaming when he walked up and asked him to move his stuff. He then realized that Doty had something in his hand, which he described as a kitchen knife or metal object or screwdriver.

An argument broke out between the two men that spilled out over to a nearby gas station. Carmignani said he accidentally pepper-sprayed himself in the eyes as Doty began swinging the pipe at him.

Carmignani said he was struck repeatedly and decided to run because he was afraid that he would pass out and Doty would kill him.

I was seeing darkness and stars, Carmignani recalled. I was shaking, and I didnt know if it was going to ever be over.

The last blow hit him in the back of the head as he ran away.

Carmignani made it to safety when someone grabbed him, took him back to his family, and he was put in an ambulance.

The last next thing he remembers is being in the hospital emergency room. He suffered a fractured skull and numerous other injuries including a wound to his cheek that left flesh hanging down from the side of his face.

During cross-examination on Wednesday, HathawayDotys public defenderpressed Carmignani on whether he confronted Doty with pepper spray or bear mace.

Video footage of the encounter appears to show Carmignani walking up to Doty and pulling a black canister out of his sweater pocket.

After repeatedly saying he did not recall having spray while confronting Doty, Carmignani conceded that he did have pepper spray.

He said the spray was given to him by his father.

He also acknowledged during questioning Wednesday by the District Attorneys Office that he had pepper spray on him leading up to the beating.

In an interview with police last week, Carmignani told police he never used the spray before, according to Hathaway.

But if he was going to use it, she said Carmignani told police he would walk up to someone, put it in their face and spray it at them.

Carmignani is expected to continue testifying Tuesday morning.

Read more here:
Don Carmignani Recounts Brutal Beating From Witness Stand - The San Francisco Standard

CORRECTION: Francis Shen, then an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, conducted research on the age of federal judges. Incorrect information appeared in an earlier version of this story.

A growing dispute over efforts to force the retirement of a 95-year-old federal judge is giving the public a rare glimpse into how the judicial system grapples with issues of age on the bench.

Questions about age are looming large over Washington lately, with doubts about whether an octogenarian president is fit for reelection and if the nations oldest sitting senator should finish out her term.

The judicial branch is not without its own issues on the matter, as colleagues of Pauline Newman, a federal appeals court judge, attempt to push her out over concerns about her mental state.

Anonymous court employees have alleged that Newman is simply losing it mentally with some describing her as paranoid, according to court filings.

A formal investigation is being run by three of her fellow judges after Newman rebuffed pressure to retire earlier this year, with new efforts to reduce her role at the court and demands she submit to a cognitive test.

Based on its investigation to date, the Committee has determined that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Judge Newman might suffer a disability that interferes with her ability to perform the responsibilities of her office, the judges wrote in an unsigned order earlier this month.

The fight has since only turned more bitter. Newman this month sued her colleagues to block the investigation, insisting she is still fit to serve and that their probe is unconstitutional.

At all relevant times, Judge Newman has been and is in sound physical and mental health, Newmans attorney wrote in the complaint. She has authored majority and dissenting opinions in the whole range of cases before her Court, has voted on petitions for rehearing en banc, and has joined in the en banc decisions of the Court.

Story continues

Newmans chambers and her attorney did not return requests for comment.

The investigation comes as questions about age are being raised in the two other branches of the federal government.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), 89, faces increased concerns over her health after a months-long absence from shingles complications.

The age of President Biden, the oldest president in U.S. history, has been the source of attack from rivals. Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term.

But unlike the two branches comprised of elected officials, federal judges tenures are not limited, with one key exception: impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate. The feat has only occurred eight times in U.S. history, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

Life tenure designed to provide independence allows federal judges to otherwise serve for as long as they so please.

In her lawsuit against the three-judge committee, Newman argued their investigation skirts those constitutional protections, also contesting their characterizations of her mental state and work output.

Defendants orders and threats constitute an attempt to remove Plaintiff from officeand already have unlawfully removed her from hearing caseswithout impeachment and in violation of the Constitution, Newmans attorney wrote in the complaint.

Its a stark contrast from how her colleagues have portrayed Newmans conduct. By March, half of her fellow active judges on the bench had expressed their concerns to Newman directly or tried to do so, court documents indicate.

Chief Judge Kimberly Moore then took things into her own hands, opening a formal investigation on March 24 under the federal judiciarys conduct and disability procedures. Before docketing the order, Moore showed a draft to Newman, who again refused to retire.

The probe remains ongoing, but the three-judge committee has already prevented Newman from taking on new cases at the court, even if she maintains her title and salary.

They have conducted more than 20 interviews with unnamed court employees, who described Newmans demeanor as paranoid, agitated and bizarre, the documents show. Among other things, the employees alleged Newman needs assistance with basic tasks, claims the court has bugged her phones, and repeatedly seems to have trouble retaining information in conversations.

Though it is difficult to say this, I believe Judge Newman is simply losing it mentally, one court employee said, according to the filings.

One of Newmans chamber employees purportedly invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during their interview. After another was granted the ability to relocate outside of Newmans chambers while continuing their job, Newman allegedly threatened to have him forcibly removed and arrested.

Appointed in 1984 by former President Reagan, Newman, who will turn 96 next month, became the first person to be appointed directly to the Federal Circuit.

She is the oldest active federal judge, but the judiciary overall has generally trended older. In 2020, the average age of federal judges was 69, older than any time in U.S. history, according to research conducted by Francis Shen, who at the time was an associate professor at University of Minnesota Law School.

As judges age, speculation runs rampant about when they might retire, and which president might replace them.

Those battles are even more intense at the Supreme Court, with periodic calls for a justice to retire at a politically opportune time. Just prior to announcing his presidential campaign, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) this week openly discussed the vacancies he could fill, if elected.

But for Newman, who sits on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which focuses on patent and other specialized disputes, the pressure to step aside has come from inside the court. Its a notable shift from Newmans long-respected reputation as the courts great dissenter.

Judge Newmans dissents have enriched the patent dialogue at the Federal Circuit, Daryl Lim, associate dean at Penn State Dickinson Law, wrote in a 2017 paper analyzing Newmans record.

A few have succeeded in gaining traction with the Supreme Court, with her colleagues, and with academics, he continued. Others are pitched to a key for a future court and a true measure of their influence lies in the hands of history. All have become part of its institutional memory, and they provide an unvarnished roadmap of the issues where she saw room for course correction.

Newmans reluctance to give into mounting pressure about her abilities is nothing new. Newman had told Lim that she had faced sexism when nominated, now nearly 40 years ago.

When I was nominated to be a judge, a number of people spoke out, including some who I thought were my friends, saying that they didnt think that I could handle the job, Newman said at the time.

This story was updated at 8:53 a.m.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

Read the rest here:
Simply losing it: Bitter fight brews over federal judges forced retirement effort - Yahoo! Voices

The Trump Organization, the company led by former President Trump and his family, finished last in an Axios Harris survey of brand reputations for the second year in a row. 

The annual poll compiles views of what respondents identify as the 100 most visible companies in the country. The company calculates its Reputational Quotient (RT) by measuring various characteristics — character, trajectory, trust, culture, ethics, citizenship, vision, growth and products and services. 

The Trump Organization scored a 52.9 out of 100, making it the only company to receive a “very poor” score, according to the rankings. FTX, Fox Corporation, Twitter and Facebook received the next lowest scores, rounding out the bottom five. 

The top-performing companies were Patagonia, Costco and John Deere. 

The Trump Organization, which has come under heavy legal scrutiny in the past couple years, scored last in each of the categories the poll measured. Among its rankings, the company performed best in vision, with a score of 58.6, and worst in trust, with a score of 50.1. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) is pursuing a civil case against the organization, alleging the former president and his children — Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump — systematically inflated the company’s assets to receive loans on favorable terms and then deflated them for tax purposes. 

Trump sat for a deposition in the case for almost seven hours last month. He pleaded his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition last year in the case. 

Allen Weisselberg, who served as the company’s chief financial officer, also pleaded guilty in August to charges of tax evasion following an investigation from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. He was sentenced to five months in prison but was released early last month for good behavior. 

The Trump Organization was subsequently found guilty in December of tax fraud, with much of prosecutors’ argument based on Weisselberg’s confession that he and other executives worked to conceal bonuses and perks from being considered taxable income for about a decade. 

The Axios poll was conducted from March 13-28 among 16,310 Americans.

See the rest here:
Trump Organization finishes last in brand reputation survey for second straight year - The Hill