Articles Posted in Authors of Articles

by

OVERVIEW:

In their opinion feature “‘The wrong hill to die on’: 3 writers discuss the government shutdown”, Benjy Sarlin (Assignment Editor), Robert Gebelhoff (Editorial Board), and James Hohmann (Deputy Opinion Editor) dissect the unfolding government shutdown standoff. The authors explore the tug of war between Democrats’ demand to extend health care subsidies and Republicans’ insistence on passing a clean continuing resolution,  all while President Donald Trump threatens to fire rather than furlough federal workers. The Washington Post

Together, they engage in a frank conversation about whether Democrats have picked the wrong political battlefield, who currently holds leverage, and how the high stakes of this shutdown could reshape the broader narrative over health care and governance.

Continue reading

by

In their provocative and urgent reflection, Austin Sarat and Steve Kramer confront what they view as one of the most dire questions for America today: what happens the spectacle of a public assassination becomes another battleground for opinion and outrage? In “After the Death of Charlie Kirk, America Needs to Take a Pause,” they examine the violent death of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk not merely as an isolated tragedy, but as a moment pregnant with national significance. Drawing on historical analogies, social media analysis, and a hard-eyed reading of our polarized public sphere, they call on Americans to resist the accelerating drift from deliberation to reaction, from democracy to demonization.

Sarat, a scholar of jurisprudence and political life, and Kramer, a seasoned legal practitioner, bring complementary lenses to this inquiry. For them, the more pressing danger is not just that a life was lost, but that the social response,  rushed judgments, political exploitation, binary narratives,  may deepen fractures in a democracy already saturated with distrust. Their central claim is if we fail to slow down, to “take a pause,” we risk letting the crowd, and the algorithm, decide not only the meaning of death but the future of public life. In their posting in JUSTIA/VERDICT,  Sarat and Kramer unpack the patterns of reaction, the structural forces amplifying them, and the modest but essential act of collective restraint they urge in response.

To see Sarat and Kramer’s complete posting in JUSTIA/VERDICT, click here.

Continue reading

by

INTRODUCTION:

The legal tech landscape is accelerating, with major announcements spanning AI, blockchain, and automation. Highlights include the American Arbitration Association’s partnership with Integra Ledger on blockchain document authentication, Thomson Reuters expanding CoCounsel and Westlaw Deep Research into law schools, law firms, law libraries and new product launches from Exterro, Quo, Tonkean, and UnitedLex. Together, these updates signal how quickly legal practice, education, and dispute resolution are being reshaped by technology.

FROM CO COUNSEL TO BLOCKCHAIN…

Continue reading

by

Introduction

Stanford Law School has recently announced the launch of the Legal Innovation through Frontier Technology Lab (Liftlab),led by Stanford CodeX research fellow Megan Ma, who will serve as liftlab’s executive director, alongside professor of law Julian Nyarko. Liftlab ia a bold new initiative designed to explore how artificial intelligence and other frontier technologies can reshape the practice of law. Unlike earlier waves of legal technology that focused mainly on cost savings and efficiency, Liftlab has a broader ambition: to make legal services not just faster or cheaper, but better, more equitable, and more accessible.

This mission has implications well beyond law firms and classrooms. Law libraries: whether academic, government, court, firm-based, or public stand to benefit greatly from Liftlab’s research, tools, and experiments. By acting as trusted intermediaries between new technologies and legal practitioners, libraries could become vital testing grounds and educational partners in this era of transformation.

Continue reading

by

Introduction

In a recent analysis published in Justia’s Verdict, Cornell Law professor Michael Dorf critiques two high-profile television interviews in which Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor promoted their new books, Barrett’s constitutional memoir Listening to the Law and Sotomayor’s children’s book Just Shine. Dorf suggests that, far from reinforcing the Court’s legitimacy, these media appearances risk reducing the Justices to TV personalities and sidestepping significant concerns about the Court’s institutional health. As Listening to the Law urges readers to engage with originalism and constitutional interpretation while championing judicial modesty, Dorf argues it fails to grapple meaningfully with recent shifts in the Court’s emergency docket and broader threats to democratic norms.

Executive Summary

Continue reading

by

Executive Summary

This article examines whether the Supreme Court’s current standards for determining competence to be executed adequately protect individuals with severe cognitive impairments and mental illnesses. While landmark decisions , Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), and Madison v. Alabama (2019) , established that a person must possess a rational understanding of the connection between their crime and punishment, critics argue the framework remains unclear, inconsistently applied, and insufficiently protective.

The case of Ralph Menzies, a Utah death row inmate suffering from vascular dementia, illustrates these concerns. Despite serious cognitive decline and an inability to comprehend his punishment, Utah continues to pursue his execution. The Court’s standard leaves wide discretion to the states, creating procedural disparities, frequent “battles of the experts,” and significant hurdles for inmates, who bear the burden of proving their own incompetence.

Continue reading

by

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (FinCEN)”is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Director of FinCEN is appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury and reports to the Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit activity, counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and promote national security through strategic use of financial authorities and the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence.”.

On June 25, 2025, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) imposed special measures under Section 9714 of the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, designating three Mexico-based financial institutions, CIBanco, Intercam Banco, and Vector Casa de Bolsa , as primary money laundering concerns. The action prohibits US financial institutions from processing transmittals of funds to or from these entities, or to any account or digital asset address they administer. This marks the first use of these new authorities, aimed at disrupting financial infrastructure exploited by cartels for fentanyl trafficking and precursor procurement.

According to FinCEN’s findings, the designated institutions played a key role in laundering funds on behalf of major cartels including CJNG, the Gulf Cartel, the Beltran-Leyva Organization, and the Sinaloa Cartel. The institutions processed millions of dollars in payments to China-based suppliers of precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production. Examples include a 2023 incident in which a CIBanco employee knowingly created an account to launder USD 10 million for a Gulf Cartel member, and Intercam executives meeting with CJNG associates to design laundering schemes involving US dollar wire transfers to China. Vector was linked to over USD 2 million in laundered proceeds for the Sinaloa Cartel, and over USD 1 million in payments to Chinese chemical exporters from 2018 to 2023. From TRM Blog June 25, 2025.

Continue reading

by

Introduction

Between now and 2030, law-librarian roles will transform rather than vanish. While routine tasks like first-pass reference triage, some technical cataloging, and current-awareness pathfinders will increasingly be automated, demand will rise for librarians with expertise in AI policy, knowledge architecture, data stewardship, research quality assurance, vendor evaluation, and legal analytics.

Institutions that pair clear AI governance, staff training, and data management will not only retain headcount but also create specialist positions, reshaping the profession.
Key sources: AALL State of the Profession 2025 · ILTA 2024 Tech Survey · ABA AI TechReport 2024 · Thomson Reuters Future of Professionals 2024 · WEF Future of Jobs Report 2025

Continue reading

by

A review of  Unlocking the Future: Leveraging Technology for Personal and Professional Success, by Jeffrey M. Allen & Ashley Hallene (ABA Book Publishing 2025), 480 pp., ISBN 978-1-63905-629-3; e-book ISBN 978-1-63905-630-9; Senior Lawyers Division sponsor; list price $39.95.

The Book in Brief

In this book, Jeffrey Allen and Ashley Hallene aim to demystify fast-moving technologies for working professionals, especially lawyers, law librarians  and others specializing in the law, by pairing plain-English explanations with practical checklists, tool rundowns, and risk-management advice. The American Bar Association positions the book as a comprehensive guide to “essential tools, AI, cybersecurity, [and] health tech,” organized into meticulously crafted chapters that double as a reference you can consult as needed. It runs 480 pages and is available in both print and e-book formats, with the Senior Lawyers Division serving as sponsor.¹ The ABA’s “New Books” listing shows a $39.95 list price.²

Continue reading

by

Historical Background

The history of capital punishment in the United States reflects a cycle of reform, reinstatement, and continued controversy. In 1972, the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily halted executions nationwide, finding that death penalty statutes were applied in arbitrary and capricious ways. Just four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia  the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. This decision upheld new death penalty statutes that aimed to address the arbitrariness concerns raised in Furman by providing revised sentencing guidelines and procedures for capital cases. These revised guidelines typically included a bifurcated trial process (separate guilt and sentencing phases) and required the identification of aggravating circumstances before a death sentence could be imposed. 

Since then, abolition efforts have proceeded along two main paths: statutory repeal by state legislatures and judicial decisions striking down death penalty schemes. A small number of jurisdictions, such as Michigan and Puerto Rico, have gone further by embedding abolition directly into their constitutions; a step that offers stronger, more lasting protection.

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design