This maybe a naive question but it just occurred to me: is there an equivalent ethics rule against a state agency such as an Attorney General’s office accepting a gift without reporting it? They got free legal services. If this was a campaign for an elected office, it would have to reported as a campaign contribution. I believe if it were a federal judge other than a Supreme Court justice who got free legal services for a personal matter they would be required to report it. Does anything similar apply here?
Exactly. It's shocking. Left-leaning organizations - or ones that would be considered by wingers to be such - do legal work pro bono, but probably not for elected officials. Would be curious to know where the line is in terms of legality.
Just a small nit from a pedantic contract lawyer, but section 4.1 of the agreement does not set forth the fees in the agreement (limitation of liability deals with remedies for breaches). Section 5.1 of the agreement covers the compensation which incorporates addendum B and provides that services will be provided pro bono. Under section 5.2 there are a number of categories of expenses the state will reimburse for so may be worth doing another FOIL request to see how much if any the state has paid.
It's unfortunate that Kenneth Paxton's long-term invulnerability to enforcement for his many dubious acts will likely keep this appalling America First assistance from appearing in MSM. The pundits are talking about how each party should present Trump's guilty verdict in pre-election publicity, but the GOP's widespread criminal & voter suppression activity doesn't seem to get much attention.
I will make the probably controversial argument that this could and should be avoidable if SCOTUS relaxed Article III standing. (To be sure, it would let America First Legal sue in its own name, but it would also make it easier for other types of litigation activist to do so too).
I've always thought that standing ought to be best read as incorporating three main parts:
1. A justiciable case-or-controversy : i.e. a real, live *dispute*, which is ripe, not moot, not a political question etc.
2. A quasi-jurisdictional component that bars "strawman" cases or other ways of attempting to legitimise governmental action by getting a friendly plaintiff to sue, or seeking an advisory opinion. To this end, the plaintiff would need to demonstrate an *interest* obtaining the relief sought/challenging the governmental action/rule in question.
3. A prudential "de minimis" component - the less the significance of harm of the challenged action/rule/statute etc., the narrower standing will be. If the rule has no real world repercussions at all, then there may be no standing at all. But the idea of "harm" obviously shouldn't be construed to the same rigour as current standing doctrine.
Alito to my mind hit the nail on the head when he raised the issue about "well someone should have standing shouldn't they". (Even if it's the rare "broken clock" instance though). And I've never been a big fan of "aesthetic standing" whether in environmental law or in the new contexts that some judges (e.g. Judge Ho and abortion) want to extend it to - rather than relying upon that legal fiction, we might be better off taking a long, hard, look at Article III standing and loosening it up a bit.
A comment like yours, I think, is infinitely better than a "don't like" reaction - it raises an interesting point and it inspires thought and discussion.
I agree that "America First Legal" sounds like an awful entity to give standing to. And of course there will be cases in which "America First Legal" might not be entitled to standing. But the law of standing applies to everyone, and a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach is exactly a significant part of what's wrong with what one could call "MAGA-neo-Federalist" jurisprudence - to my mind standing ought to be construed broadly so as to allow adversarial testing of cases and controversies.
Given that they are going to find ways around standing anyway, I at least very much would prefer that they didn't try to borrow the sovereignty and legitimacy of a State to engage in their ideological lawfare-type litigation.
This maybe a naive question but it just occurred to me: is there an equivalent ethics rule against a state agency such as an Attorney General’s office accepting a gift without reporting it? They got free legal services. If this was a campaign for an elected office, it would have to reported as a campaign contribution. I believe if it were a federal judge other than a Supreme Court justice who got free legal services for a personal matter they would be required to report it. Does anything similar apply here?
Exactly. It's shocking. Left-leaning organizations - or ones that would be considered by wingers to be such - do legal work pro bono, but probably not for elected officials. Would be curious to know where the line is in terms of legality.
This might sound a little harsh, but can these people just fuck off and die?
Not harsh at all
Nazis helping Nazis
Their mission statement is laughable - so full of gaslighting.
Stephen Miller, what a sad, sad, sack of a man.
Just a small nit from a pedantic contract lawyer, but section 4.1 of the agreement does not set forth the fees in the agreement (limitation of liability deals with remedies for breaches). Section 5.1 of the agreement covers the compensation which incorporates addendum B and provides that services will be provided pro bono. Under section 5.2 there are a number of categories of expenses the state will reimburse for so may be worth doing another FOIL request to see how much if any the state has paid.
Collusion and Corruption
It's unfortunate that Kenneth Paxton's long-term invulnerability to enforcement for his many dubious acts will likely keep this appalling America First assistance from appearing in MSM. The pundits are talking about how each party should present Trump's guilty verdict in pre-election publicity, but the GOP's widespread criminal & voter suppression activity doesn't seem to get much attention.
not sure if it is your doing, but when I googled "when is Ken Paxton" the first suggested fill in was "up for re-election."
Ken Paxton's legal problems suggest the fox guarding the henhouse quality generally.
I will make the probably controversial argument that this could and should be avoidable if SCOTUS relaxed Article III standing. (To be sure, it would let America First Legal sue in its own name, but it would also make it easier for other types of litigation activist to do so too).
I've always thought that standing ought to be best read as incorporating three main parts:
1. A justiciable case-or-controversy : i.e. a real, live *dispute*, which is ripe, not moot, not a political question etc.
2. A quasi-jurisdictional component that bars "strawman" cases or other ways of attempting to legitimise governmental action by getting a friendly plaintiff to sue, or seeking an advisory opinion. To this end, the plaintiff would need to demonstrate an *interest* obtaining the relief sought/challenging the governmental action/rule in question.
3. A prudential "de minimis" component - the less the significance of harm of the challenged action/rule/statute etc., the narrower standing will be. If the rule has no real world repercussions at all, then there may be no standing at all. But the idea of "harm" obviously shouldn't be construed to the same rigour as current standing doctrine.
Alito to my mind hit the nail on the head when he raised the issue about "well someone should have standing shouldn't they". (Even if it's the rare "broken clock" instance though). And I've never been a big fan of "aesthetic standing" whether in environmental law or in the new contexts that some judges (e.g. Judge Ho and abortion) want to extend it to - rather than relying upon that legal fiction, we might be better off taking a long, hard, look at Article III standing and loosening it up a bit.
When is Substack going to add a “don’t like” button?
A comment like yours, I think, is infinitely better than a "don't like" reaction - it raises an interesting point and it inspires thought and discussion.
I agree that "America First Legal" sounds like an awful entity to give standing to. And of course there will be cases in which "America First Legal" might not be entitled to standing. But the law of standing applies to everyone, and a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach is exactly a significant part of what's wrong with what one could call "MAGA-neo-Federalist" jurisprudence - to my mind standing ought to be construed broadly so as to allow adversarial testing of cases and controversies.
Given that they are going to find ways around standing anyway, I at least very much would prefer that they didn't try to borrow the sovereignty and legitimacy of a State to engage in their ideological lawfare-type litigation.
We also anti-fa, Stephen Miller!
I presume the Miller Group and ADF will be assisting Texas and Idaho in the establishment of religion in both states as well?