2024: The year in Law Dork

Five stories that highlight the type of reporting and analysis you only get at Law Dork.

I started the year at Law Dork with a little more than 25,000 total subscribers. Ending the year with more than 43,000 total subscribers, I thought I would highlight some of the stories that newer subscribers might have missed — and that the more than 2,750 paid subscribers to Law Dork helped to make possible.

First, two notes.

Please, share this post with your friends, family, colleagues, followers, and networks. The best way to get other people interested in Law Dork is when people hear from readers that they recommend Law Dork. I look forward to seeing Law Dork reach 50,000 total subscribers soon, and, with your help, it will happen even more soon than it otherwise would.

As I prepare for covering the continued U.S. Supreme Court term, the incoming Trump administration, Congress, another year of state legislative sessions, lower federal and state courts, and more, I want to make sure that I am able to do that well and responsibly — while maintaining some semblance of sanity.

Before this year ends, if you are not a paid subscriber, I’d ask that you consider upgrading to a paid subscription because the importance of independent legal journalism could not be more important than it is right now. There are still very basic — and needed — functions that I have not added to the business of Law Dork. In order to get through another Trump administration, I’m going to need additional support — in terms of editing and research help, as well as legal and administrative support. That will cost money. So, if you can become a paid subscriber, I’d ask that you do so now so that I can start putting those pieces in place soon.

---

With that said, here are some of the top stories I brought you at Law Dork — stories that exemplify the type of in-depth reporting and critical analysis you only get at Law Dork — this year:

Big SCOTUS cases

I attend arguments at the Supreme Court regularly, as I have done for the past 15 years. Because I bring that experience to my reports, I can add significant context to arguments — and bring a more nuanced perspective to my analysis of decisions.

The justices did toss the case on standing grounds, as I wrote after arguments. The current term has already featured a major argument over bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors, with arguments over a law that could ban TikTok in the U.S. as soon as January 19 scheduled for January 10.

Of course, the court also heard cases over whether an insurrection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment allowed Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot, and whether Trump maintained presidential immunity when no longer president.

Trump, largely, won on both fronts.

Sam Alito

Justice Sam Alito, as I wrote in May, is a problem. One of the key stories I published to that end was an exclusive report about Alito’s 2023 beer stock trades that coincided with a far-right anti-transgender Bud Light boycott.

After 2023 having been the year of ethics stories about Justice Clarence Thomas, 2024 was, essentially, the Alito ethics year — raising questions about Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the media institutions that cover the justices.

The downstream effects

The Supreme Court directly and indirectly creates the legal world beneath it — with rulings and precedent, to be sure, but also with signals it sends and the example it sets. I think this piece summed up my thinking about this moment.

The Title IX coverage

Law Dork provided the most in-depth, extensive coverage of challenges brought by Republican-led states and some other entities to the Biden administration’s sex discrimination rule under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The challenges primarily focused on opposition to transgender protections provided under the rule, and they were largely successful in a series of disturbing rulings that undercut Supreme Court precedent and executive authority.

The Alabama inquiry

I also brought readers an extremely unsettling story of a multi-year judge-shopping investigation brought by federal judges in Alabama against many of the leading lawyers in LGBTQ organizations across the nation.

After publishing my two-part report, I also attended one of the hearings in person where U.S. District Judge Liles Burke considered whether to sanction some of the attorneys involved in cases challenging Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. Despite having held hearings addressing the actions of all of the lawyers in question back in June, there remained no ruling from him as of Dec. 30.

---

This is just a small sampling of the nearly 250 pieces I’ve published this year — posts that garnered around 8 million page views.

I continued to cover other LGBTQ legal and legislative news, the death penalty and other criminal justice issues, developments in the post-Roe legal landscape, immigration news, and — yes — questions about our democracy.

Thanks for joining me — and supporting this work.