It seems pretty obvious to me what is going to happen. The ad firms are going to have clients request to not have their ads run on MAGA crank websites, the ad firms will list these instances in their "compliance report", and FTC will demand to know which clients made those requests, and harass them.
Apparently FTC settled with the ad firms on that absurd "political boycotts are antitrust" theory. I see why the ad firms settled from a business perspective, but the requirement to give FTC any client exclusion/inclusion lists deemed political is outrageous storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
My thoughts exactly. I’m all about grace for former MAGA, but Carlson is just mad for largely antisemitic reasons, not because he recognizes the vileness of the authoritarian nationalist MAGA project. He can fuck off with Joe Kent and the rest.
XCancel(donate) N Q シ Tweets Tweets & Replies Media kurt lash Thread @ kurtlash1 Stephen E. S... @StephenES... Whatever one makes of these memos, whoever leaked them breached the trust that allows courts to do their jobs. One of the article's coauthors, a licensed atty in NY, may have also violated the state's ethics rules and be subject to discipline. 1/ Search 56s 16h reason.com/volokh/2026/04/20...
Listen here Tony, Kurt is just a free speech purist, he believes that just because you’re licensed doesn’t mean you give up the 1A right to lie to a court with intent to mislead.
You do, however, give up your 1A right to publish documents leaked to you from a case you had no involvement with.
Randy Barnett +1 This goes for me too. @ RandyEBarnett Apr 17 kurt lash @kurtlash1 Apr 17 For those who see California's disbarment of John Eastman as vindication of their efforts to destroy his career: You can pound sand. I've added this case to the viewpoint discrimination section of my 1stA class. In the meantime, I will continue to value my friendship with this good man and fine scholar. Here's the opening footnote to my recent article in the Notre Dame Law Review. Don't find yourself on the sidelines on this one, folks. It won't end with John. E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law. The author is grateful for the generous comments and helpful critiques provided by Greg Ablavsky, Stephanie Barclay, Josh Blackman, John Eastman, Garrett Epps, Andrew Hyman, Benjamin Keener, Gerard Magliocca, Jason Mazzone, Michael Ramsey, Stephen Sachs, David Upham and David Wilkins. All mistakes, omissions, and conclusions are my own. 14 17 30 172 | 8,403
Randy Barnett Thread @RandyEBarnett 15h Stephen E. S... @StephenES... 16h Whatever one makes of these memos, whoever leaked them breached the trust that allows courts to do their jobs. One of the article's coauthors, a licensed atty in NY, may have also violated the state's ethics rules and be subject to discipline. 1/ reason.com/volokh/2026/04/20... The Volokh Conspiracy Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent About The Volokh Conspiracy • SUPREME COURT Court Leaks and Attorney-Journalists The professional-ethics implications of making court confidences public. STEPHEN E. SACHS | 4.20.20264:11 PM The recent leak of internal Supreme Court memoranda to the New York Times. discussed earlier by Jonathan Adler and Josh Blackman—as well as by Will Baude and Jack Goldsmith elsewhere—was plainly a serious violation of the Court's confidentiality obligations. But it may also reflect serious legal-ethics violations by one of the Times article's coauthors, Adam Liptak, whom I understand to be a licensed attorney in New York and subject to that state's Rules of Professional Conduct.
In current conservative legal theory, an attorney, acting in their capacity as such, knowingly submitting false statements to a court with intent to deceive is protected free speech, but a journalist with a bar card publishing leaked court docs from a case they had zero involvement in is misconduct:
"It turns the patrons into demons, and the restaurant into hell. I have never seen any one corporate decision supply more chaos, unhappiness, and disdain for humanity than endless shrimp."
And it's BACK: www.businessinsider.com/return-of-en...
lmao this reads like a eulogy, or at least a Trumpian version of one.
No. Bluesky, don't.
Just because someone agrees with you doesn't make them trustworthy. Know who you are sharing.
Me to the FinTwitter account:
Monopoly-ass post
Same for your view of rule 8.4(f). Wouldn’t your formulation mean that a NY Times attorney advising the Times that it is legal to publish the papers after being told they were leaked by a judge or judicial officer be knowingly assisting such judge or judicial officer in violating those canons?
Attorneys admitted and practicing before your court have the exact same duties and obligations as guys who just happen to have a bar card. Obviously.
Are there people that would say: if it’s about the law and written by a law professor, it’s part of knowledge production? Bill Jacobson used to be my professor, thought he did a pretty good job in his domain in fact, but I certainly don’t mistake his legal commentary on his blog for scholarship
It doesn’t seem to have gone through the kind of thoughtful process legal academics generally put in to published academic works, passing it around to colleagues for critique and refinement, ect. It really just seems to be a piece of advocacy calling for the NYS judiciary to punish this guy.
I guess, but it’s not like it’s a law review article (which, granted, hardly has much checking itself), where you might have a subject matter expert see it and respond in their own published article in a similar publication. It doesn’t seem a part of the traditional “knowledge generating game.”
Maybe I’m missing context, why is that the case? I saw his post in Reason, which is not an academic publication to my knowledge, it’s a publication for consumption by the general public. What checking function from legal ethics experts is expected there?
I mean, that’s why I asked on the license. Wild if they used to let you get a JD without taking legal ethics though.
I would hope you both know *something* about ethics, were not, at least at some point, both licensed attorneys? I know when I went to law school, ethics was mandatory, and we all took the MPRE as a matter of course.
otherwise? Is receiving this from their coworker, who received it from someone on the court, enough in your… unorthodox view of rule 8.4(d)? How about if the Times asked their lawyers if it was legal to publish it? Would they be bound by Rule 8.4(d) to lie to their client and say it isn’t?
How does wielding the attorney discipline system against a journalist that happens to be an attorney do anything to even slightly slow this? Wouldn’t a leaker just go to a non-attorney journalist? Heck, there’s one on the byline, maybe they’re who received it, do you have any evidence to suggest…
I like to think, deep down, it even sucks for them.
Mo money, mo problems.
Their*
What I meant was, all the people on the byline need to move to the subjects state, as well as one member of the LLC’s membership if they’re paper is the LLC.
I’ll figure this out eventually!
Yeah, if he maintains a residence there he’s probably good.
Until we get federal anti-SLAPP, the only option is to always include someone in the byline from the same state as the subject if they’re from an anti-SLAPP state in case you end up in a circuit that considers anti-SLAPP laws procedural.
Y'all are right, as @ottovonbisbark.bsky.social pointed out, they'd have to get it dismissed.
Ah, you're right!
Idk that they're going to, but if they can show Patel is a citizen of DC, rather than Nevada, they could.
They'd have to argue Patel is a citizen of DC.
I presume he means to the Superior Court of DC.
The budget airlines mostly charge for the carry-on and for at least some the price is the same as checked, so a start.
