This week’s Judicial Notice is sponsored by
With a presence in over a dozen cities across the United States and Asia, Lateral Link boasts an expert recruiting team of former practicing attorneys dedicated to sourcing top-tier legal talent for a diverse clientele, including major international law firms and Fortune 500 companies. To learn more about Lateral Link, please visit our website.
Over the past few weeks—thanks to popular stories like my deep dives into the most prestigious law firms and the most profitable firms, as well as my discussion of a recent AI fail by a top firm—I’ve picked up many free subscribers here at Original Jurisdiction. If you’re a new OJ subscriber, welcome!
What you’re now reading is Judicial Notice, my handy, time-saving summary of the past week in legal news. JN allows paid subscribers to read (or skim) a single post—sometimes a long one, hence the reference to skimming—and get caught up on what’s going on in the law and legal profession. Busy lawyers find it very useful (and occasionally entertaining, depending on the news cycle).
I typically begin JN with a brief personal update, but this week I don’t have much to report (other than a series of annoying health issues, of interest to no one except my loving physician parents). I’ll just say a quick thanks to chief legal officer Jonathan Leiken and his colleagues in the legal department at Danaher, who invited me and Professor Kevin Ashley to discuss how AI is transforming the legal profession. I love hearing about how innovative corporate legal departments are harnessing the power of AI (see also my recent podcast interview with Salesforce CLO Sabastian Niles).
Now, on to the news.
Lawyer of the Week: James Comey.
Last year, the Trump administration obtained an indictment against former FBI director (and Trump adversary) James Comey, charging him with false-statement and obstruction offenses. But that case was dismissed by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie (D.S.C.), who ruled that Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan (E.D. Va.), the prosecutor who single-handedly secured the indictment, wasn’t validly appointed.
Last Tuesday, the Trump administration landed a new indictment against Comey, this time charging him with making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat across state lines. Comey allegedly did so by “publicly post[ing] a photograph [on Instagram] which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,’ which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President.” As explained by The New York Times (gift link), “86” is a slang term “often used to mean dismiss or remove.”
As eight experts told The Washington Post (gift link), the new Comey indictment appears to be on shaky legal ground—especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v. United States (2015), which held, per The Post, “that prosecutors seeking to convict someone of sending a dangerous message must prove the person intended to make a violent threat—or at least knew there was a substantial chance it would be viewed as threatening.” Here, according to The Times, “[a]fter an uproar ensued over the post, Mr. Comey deleted it, saying that he did not know that it could be seen as having a violent connotation and that he opposed violence of any kind.”
Elonis isn’t the only precedent that’s problematic for this prosecution. As David French pointed out on Advisory Opinions, there’s also Watts v. United States (1969), in which the Court ordered the acquittal of a defendant who said this about then-president Lyndon B. Johnson: “I have already received my draft classification as 1-A, and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
Trump supporters might dismiss The Post and David French as less than objective, given their past criticisms of the president. But even Professor Jonathan Turley, who frequently defends Trump, wrote a piece for Fox News arguing that “this indictment is facially unconstitutional, absent some unknown new facts.”
Raising that possibility, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told NBC News that the case rests not just on the Instagram post, but on “a body of evidence that [prosecutors] collected over the series of about 11 months.” And the indictment does indicate that “the unredacted version of this document has been filed under seal.” [UPDATE (8:13 p.m.): Actually, it appears that the redaction pertains only to the signature of the jury foreperson being deleted—just as it was with last year’s Comey indictment.]
So it’s theoretically possible that there’s more here. But based on the cases brought so far against Comey and other Trump foes, there’s reason to be skeptical. Indeed, there’s reason to think that Trump DOJ officials—including Blanche, who’d like to go from acting AG to presidentially nominated, Senate-confirmed AG—feel a certain amount of pressure “to execute [Trump’s] increasingly extreme demands without much pushback,” in the words of The Times (gift link).
If the seashells indictment ends up getting dismissed—or 86’ed, if you prefer—that doesn’t spell clear sailing for Jim Comey. The DOJ is also investigating Comey for possibly leaking classified information, according to Bloomberg Law. When it comes to going after Trump enemies, the motto of the administration seems to be, “If at first you don’t succeed, try—and try, and try, and try—again.”
Other lawyers in the news:
-
The seashells indictment was signed by W. Ellis Boyle, currently serving as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina—and nominated to serve as the permanent U.S. Attorney. Although he’s a Trump loyalist, Boyle at least has some relevant experience, having previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney (on the civil side). Other Trump U.S. attorney picks have been more problematic, as discussed by Jeffrey Toobin in The Times (gift link).
-
Is William “Bill” Burck, the global co-managing partner of Quinn Emanuel, back in the good graces of the Trump family? As reported by Bloomberg Law, Burck—who was fired last year by the Trump Organization as an outside ethics counsel, after he started defending Harvard in litigation against the administration—is now representing World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture co-founded and co-owned by Trump family members (among other investors).
-
As I mentioned last week, trial in Musk v. Altman—Elon Musk’s lawsuit against fellow billionaire Sam Altman, OpenAI, and Microsoft, challenging OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit company—is now underway, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (N.D. Cal.). I expect to have more to say about this trial, which should go on for a few weeks; for now, I’ll just highlight the breakout star of the proceedings so far: William Savitt, co-chair of the executive committee and co-chair of litigation at Wachtell Lipton. For more on Bill Savitt and his contentious cross-examination of Musk—with whom Savitt has a history, having successfully sued the gazillionaire to follow through on his purchase of Twitter (now X)—see this Business Insider profile by Jacob Shamsian.
Judge of the Week: Justice Elena Kagan.
One of the biggest legal news stories of last week was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a major ruling concerning the interaction between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment. It’s an incredibly controversial and consequential case—and I discuss it in more detail below, as Litigation of the Week. [UPDATE (5/4/2026, 9:31 p.m.): For a clear and concise explanation of what the Court held in Callais, see the first seven or so paragraphs of this analysis by Henry Wray.]
For now, I’d like to highlight Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the liberals’ dissent in this 6-3 case, taking on the majority opinion of Justice Samuel Alito (who was Judge of the Week quite recently, so I’m not featuring him again today). Because Justice Kagan is the most moderate and least confrontational of the liberal justices, she sometimes takes flak from the left. But her Callais dissent got her major props, in progressive circles and beyond—as did her reading it from the bench (for 14 minutes), the her first oral dissent of the Term (as noted by Mark Walsh of SCOTUSblog). [UPDATE (8:08 p.m.): As pointed out by Nikki in the comments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson read from her dissent from the bench in Chiles v. Salazar, the conversion therapy case out of Colorado.]
As Elie Mystal wrote in The Nation, “Justice Elena Kagan brings clarity to what Alito tries to hide.” Professor Richard Hasen, at Election Law Blog, commended her “strenuous” dissent for getting the analysis “exactly right.” At The Bulwark, Professor Kim Wehle praised the justice’s “fierce, eloquent 48-page dissent” (which was, as noted by Adam Feldman over at Legalytics, “52% longer than the majority”).
Here’s the dissent’s eminently quotable conclusion (and yes, many commentators noted the absence of the traditional “respectfully”):
[T]he Court’s gutting of Section 2 puts [the] achievement [of the Voting Rights Act] in peril. I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent.
Whether you agree or disagree with Justice Kagan on the merits, you can’t deny her writing chops. There’s a reason legal writing guru Ross Guberman once told me—half-jokingly, but only half—that BriefCatch, his powerful legal writing and editing tool, was “sort of normed” on Justice Kagan (who “consistently earns the highest BriefCatch writing-quality scores of any living Justice,” per Guberman).
In other news about judges and the judiciary:
-
Justice Kagan and her two fellow liberal justices didn’t attend last Tuesday’s White House state dinner honoring King Charles. It’s not clear whether they were invited—but their six conservative colleagues were, since they all showed up.
-
Last week’s featured jurist, Judge Alan Albright (W.D. Tex.), recently announced his plan to retire this coming August. He said he wanted to return to litigating—but one can’t help wondering whether he also wanted to escape his massive backlog of cases. As reported by Ryan Autullo of Bloomberg Law, Judge Albright had 446 undecided motions on his latest “six-month list,” the list of civil motions ripe for a decision for six months or longer but not yet resolved. Many district judges I know aim for a six-month list of zero, or maybe a number in the low single digits—so 446 is staggering. (For perspective, Judge George Daniels (S.D.N.Y) wound up on the front page of The Times (gift link) back in 2004 because he had, as reported by Ben Weiser, 289 motions on his six-month list.)
In memoriam: Judge James Lawrence King—who served on the federal bench for some 55 years, including a stint as chief judge for the Southern District of Florida—passed away at 98. May he rest in peace.
Job of the Week: an opportunity at a leading legal recruiter.
Lateral Link seeks a high-caliber recruiter for a leadership-capable role on its Am Law–level platform. This is an opportunity to grow within a flat, merit-focused organization that rewards ambition and fosters lifelong careers in legal recruiting. Lateral Link partners with firms and corporate legal teams nationwide, handling a wide range of senior and niche placements. Qualified candidates will have a J.D. from a top school or a proven track record at a premier search firm, along with the integrity and drive to advance eight core values: Trust, Respect, Integrity, Accountability, Cooperation, Resourcefulness, Diversity, and Compassion. Compensation is market-leading: 50–70% ramped commissions, year-end discretionary bonuses up to 15%, and principal-level bonuses, with total earnings frequently above peers. To learn more, please contact Mike Allen at mallen@laterallink.com.