And that's 100: A Law Dork update!

This is my 101st newsletter since launching Law Dork this past June. Thanks so much for reading — and for all of the support you've given me. Also: Some litigation updates.

In nine months of publishing my Law Dork newsletter, I’ve brought you 100 newsletters. (This is 101!)

From this perch, I’ve broken major news across the country and from the Biden administration, analyzed litigation and arguments at the Supreme Court and elsewhere, brought you interviews with lawyers involved in some of the biggest issues reaching the courts, tracked the unprecedented wave of anti-trans legislation across the country, covered a national bill-signing, and much more.

I started this newsletter as a way to write about the stories — primarily legal developments, including those actions that lead to litigation — that I felt needed coverage, whether that be initial reporting that gets the ball rolling on national coverage of an issue, reporting out an angle that I don’t see covered elsewhere, or analysis and connecting the dots of what’s going on in DC and across the country. I’ve done so because I think the stories that I’m writing about are important, and I’ve put my own money into starting up this publication as subscriptions tick up.

Nine months in, I am thrilled to write, Law Dork has gotten an incredible response.

More than 8,500 people have subscribed to Law Dork already, with hundreds of paid subscribers. I have appeared on broadcast nightly news, discussing the federal death penalty, and on cable news, discussing Supreme Court arguments and more. Law Dork has been cited in national publications, and I’ve been on podcasts and radio shows, attended conferences, and served as an expert for other journalists who are doing their own work.

Earlier this week, I picked up my Law Dork congressional press pass, a relatively simple step, but one that will help me — and, ultimately, help you as readers. Specifically, this will make my reporting on Capitol Hill — and also on the Supreme Court and White House — significantly easier. As part of that, expect more in-person coverage in the weeks and months ahead.

Because of all of this — and because of the support you all have given me — I’m able to do this work and cover these stories.

As Law Dork grows, my attention to it grows. I’m spending more of my time writing here and less writing elsewhere, although you’ll still see me at times writing in other places.

I also know that I could be doing more to encourage paid subscriptions, and I will, but I truly would love to be able to get enough paid subscribers supporting Law Dork so that I can keep all of my content available for free to those who can’t afford a paid subscription.

That said, I need this enterprise to work financially for it to exist long term, so I will continue to try out paid features to encourage more paid subscriptions. It’s honestly just hard for me to do so when I’m a one-person operation and there is so much happening that I think everyone needs to be able to read.

In closing, thank you all for being here. Share Law Dork with your friends and colleagues and encourage them to subscribe. Consider a paid subscription if you’ve been reading. And subscribe today if you’re just reading for the first time.

---

Litigation updates:

Although the point of today’s newsletter was just to take a moment and thank you all for what Law Dork is becoming, there’s also still a lot happening and I wanted to give a few litigation updates before the weekend.

• The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a death warrant the court issues “authorizes” an execution, but it does not require it. As such, the request filed by Karen Price, sister of murder victim Ted Price, asking for the court to order Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and her administration to carry out the execution of her brother’s killer — covered previously at Law Dork — was denied. Both Hobbs and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes opposed proceeding with the execution of Aaron Gunches, in part given an ongoing review of the state’s death penalty process that Hobbs ordered soon after taking office in January.

• Transgender children and their parents sued Florida officials on Thursday, challenging the state medical boards’ recently implemented regulatory bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The lawsuit claims that the policies violate the U.S. Constitution on two grounds — substantive due process parental rights to direct the upbringing of their children and equal protection of the laws. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle. The families are represented by lawyers with Sidley Austin LLP, as well as the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Southern Legal Counsel, GLBTQ+ Legal Advocates & Defenders, and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

• Spectrum WT, a student organization at West Texas A&M University, sued the university president and others on Friday over the president’s announcement that he would not allow the student group’s scheduled charity drag show to take place on campus. In the email announcing his decision that started this dispute, WTAMU President Walter Wendler wrote that he was not allowing the show because he disagreed with its content and even though “the law of the land appears to require it.” The students are represented by FIRE, and the case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has a history of anti-LGBTQ statements and rulings (and has been in the news, including at Law Dork, as the judge hearing the medication abortion challenge).