Hacked!

 Uh oh... CM/ECF has been hacked.  From Politico:

The electronic case filing system used by the federal judiciary has been breached in a sweeping cyber intrusion that is believed to have exposed sensitive court data across multiple U.S. states, according to two people with knowledge of the incident.

The hack, which has not been previously reported, is feared to have compromised the identities of confidential informants involved in criminal cases at multiple federal district courts, said the two people, both of whom were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the hack.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — which manages the federal court filing system — first determined how serious the issue was around July 4, said the first person. But the office, along with the Justice Department and individual district courts around the country, is still trying to determine the full extent of the incident.

It is not immediately clear who is behind the hack, though nation-state-affiliated actors are widely suspected, the people said. Criminal organizations may also have been involved, they added.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment. Asked whether it is investigating the incident, the FBI referred POLITICO to the Justice Department. The Justice Department did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

It is not immediately clear how the hackers got in, but the incident is known to affect the judiciary’s federal core case management system, which includes two overlapping components: Case Management/Electronic Case Files, or CM/ECF, which legal professionals use to upload and manage case documents; and PACER, a system that gives the public limited access to the same data.

In addition to records on witnesses and defendants cooperating with law enforcement, the filing system includes other sensitive information potentially of interest to foreign hackers or criminals, such as sealed indictments detailing non-public information about alleged crimes, and arrests and search warrants that criminal suspects could use to evade capture.

No Need to Hold on to Your Horses

By John R. Byrne

If Miami-Dade County recently took your horses, you can now sue it directly under the Constitution to get compensated for that taking.

Okay, maybe that's getting a little too specific. Let's zoom out a bit. 

The Eleventh Circuit just held that the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (and by extension, the 14th Amendment) creates an implied right of action for any taking. Before, if the government took your property, you'd have to sue under either a federal statute (42 U.S.C. §1983) or state law. Judge Rosenbaum penned the majority opinion, with Judge Abudu joining.  

The case, excerpted below, came about when a county in Georgia (Fulton County) took the horses of one of its residents (believe it or not, a guy with the last name "Fulton"). In what will henceforth be confusingly known as Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners et al., the majority's reasoning turned largely on the inadequacy of the existing remedies for unconstitutional takings. For example, if you were to sue a municipality under section 1983, you'd need to establish an official policy or custom. The difficulty of doing so would deprive many property owners of their constitutional right to just compensation, the majority said.

Chief Judge Pryor dissented. His position? Courts shouldn't be in the business of manufacturing causes of action to remedy the violation of constitutional rights. That's for Congress to do. And specific to the takings issue before the Court, Pryor pointed out that Congress had already created a cause of action to address unconstitutional takings (a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983). According to him, the majority opinion had left "constitutional wreckage in its wake."

There's a lot more to it than just that. Judge Rosenbaum references the condemnation of Tantalus by Greek gods and the word "unicorn" appears no less than five times. 

Also, since we have references to regular and magical horses, I thought a little horse trivia would be in order. Only thirteen horses have won the Triple Crown (the prize for winning the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont Stakes). See how many you can guess without checking the answer, which I'll post in the comments section.

Takings Order by John Byrne on Scribd

Breaking -- Jason Reding Quinones confirmed as U.S. Attorney

Congrats to our new U.S. Attorney!  He was confirmed 52-44 today.

Get Your Tickets: 2025 Bench & Bar Conference

By John R. Byrne 

Though it may not be as rare as Halley’s Comet, our district court's Bench and Bar Conference still only comes around once every two years. You don't want to miss it. For one thing, it's a rare opportunity to hear from and speak with our judges. For another, you can order a latte that has the seal of our district etched in the foam. Good luck finding that at your local Starbucks!

You can buy tickets here. Details below.

• Date: September 12, 2025 from 7:45 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. 
• Price: $210 (with 100 tickets available at a discounted rate for qualifying "new lawyers")
• Location:  The Miami Beach Convention Center (a stunning venue, if you've never been before)

SDFLA News & Notes

 By John R. Byrne

1. Judge Bloom's Judicial Intern Academy, now in its fifth year, had its year end luncheon this past Friday (picture above). It's really hard to land an internship with a federal judge and the program is designed to give more students the internship experience through pairing with former federal law clerks and programming. If you're a former federal law clerk in the SDFLA who might want to get involved, I can connect you to the right people. 

2. With Judge Goodman's retirement, Judge Matthewman is now the chief magistrate judge in our district. Law.com had a nice write up on him that you can find here. Judge Matthewman, who served as a police officer before embarking on his legal career, said one of his focuses will be on judicial security.  

3. Jay Weaver wrote this article about what the blog proprietor has been doing lately. 

4. Big hearing today in front of Judge Ruiz about "Alligator Alcatraz." Lawyers for the detainees there say that immigration judges are cancelling hearings because they don't have jurisdiction over the detainees. Check out the story here.

AI Gone Wild

 By John R. Byrne

Artificial intelligence is changing the world everyday. Sometimes not for the better. A few weeks back we featured an order from Judge Matthewman sanctioning a lawyer for citing a hallucinated case. That attorney's conduct was child's play compared to the fact pattern Judge Leibowitz just confronted. A preview for you--when the lawyer at issue received an order to show cause about the use of AI-fabricated case citations, he filed a response complete with fabricated AI case quotations. Suffice it to say, things did not end well for said attorney. 

Check out the order below. 

DE 42_Order re AI by John Byrne on Scribd

RIP Roy Black

This one really hurts.

He was 80.  And he really was the GOAT of criminal defense lawyers.  There are so many of us that want to be Roy in the courtroom -- commanding, persuasive, funny.  

The hardest working.

The most determined.

And always so positive about winning.

I was lucky enough to try a 6 week trial with him out of town when I was a young lawyer.  I learned so much.  And he often helped me brainstorm my cases and trials after that.  

He is survived by his wife Lea, their son RJ, and his daughter Nora. And his law partners at Black Srebnick, including Howard Srebnick, Scott Kornspan, Maria Neyra, Jackie Perczek, Mark Shapiro, and Jared Lopez.

If you want to hear from the master, here he is on my podcast talking about his win in the Luis Alvarez case.

And I can't think of a greater tribute you can give him than listening to some of his courtroom performances:

Best of luck to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman

 By DOM and John Byrne

His retirement party was Friday.  We will miss Judge Goodman's wit and humor on the bench.  Here's a picture with his clerks and CRDs from the party:

 A big loss for our bench. It was always a joy to be in his courtroom. He was sharp, funny, efficient, and, yes, for a while I hear he had a puppet though, sadly, I missed that era. Going into a hearing with him, you just knew he was going to get it right (which, depending on who you represented, was sometimes good and sometimes bad).

Trump Sues Wall Street Journal

 By John R. Byrne

President Trump has sued the Wall Street Journal over its Epstein reporting. He's represented again by Alejandro Brito, who recently repped Trump in his successful defamation lawsuit against George Stephanopoulos and ABC. Case hasn't been assigned yet. Complaint is below.

Once again, the SDFLA takes center stage...

Trump Complaint by John Byrne on Scribd

Brain drain at the SDFLA U.S. Attorney's Office?

 Jay Weaver covers the recent firings (Michael Thakur, Brooke Watson, and Anne McNamara) and departures from the U.S. Attorney's office here:

In 2023, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland honored Miami federal prosecutor Brooke C. Watson with a prestigious award recognizing her “exceptional dedication” to prosecuting a ring that used fake identities to commit about $50 million in COVID-19 loan fraud. Last year, Watson received another Justice Department award for “exceptional service” disrupting a ransomware group that threatened to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from computer networks worldwide. But on Friday, Garland’s successor, Pam Bondi, fired Watson in a terse email to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami — providing no reason, according to multiple sources familiar with her termination.

***

Since Trump started his second term, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has undergone a “brain drain,” losing not only Thakur and Watson to firings but also many other veteran prosecutors to retirement or career opportunities. Among them: Joan Silverstein, Bob Senior, Dan Bernstein, Kiran Bhat, Tom Watts-Fitzgerald, Jonathan Stratton, Tony Gonzalez, Ignacio Vazquez, Lisa Rubio, Dexter Lee, Jeff Kaplan and Paul Schwartz.

RIP Bob Josefsberg

Very sad news report today -- Miami legal legend Robert Josefsberg has passed away at 86.

 

Bob was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York and received his B.A. degree from Dartmouth College in 1959. He graduated from the Yale Law School in 1962, and was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1962.

Here's some more of his bio, which does not do justice to the impact he had on this community: 

Bob is one of Dade County′s premiere trial lawyers. He has been listed annually since 1987 in the Best Lawyers in America in two categories–Business Litigation and Criminal Law since 2003 and from 2003 he has been listed in Chambers and Partners as one of the top four commercial litigators in Florida. In 2006 he was listed #1 trial lawyer in Florida by Super Lawyers. He has received the Dade County Bar David Dyer Professionalism Award, the Bnai Brith Professionalism Award, the Florida Defense Lawyers Rodney Thaxton “Against All Odds”award, the American Bar Association Senior Section Pro Bono Award , the Florida Bar Tobias Simon Pro Bono Service Award in (2009-2010) and the Florida Bar Foundation’s Medal of Honor Award in 2013.

In 2012, he was awarded the Florida Bar Criminal Law Section’s Selig I. Goldin Memorial Award, the Greater Miami Jewish Federation Theodore “Ted” Klein Special Recognition Award, named as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by the National Trial Lawyers organization, inducted to the Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame and named a Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year finalist for outstanding contributions to the public interest through his work in the Checking Account Overdraft Class Action litigation.

Bob was a gentle giant.  He will be missed. 

News & Notes

 1.  The SDFLA will be hosting the following program with Chief Judge Altonaga, Judge Seitz, and Joel Motley:

A Conversation with Legal Pioneers

Jul 23, 2025, 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM

Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 400 N Miami Ave, Miami, FL 33128, USA

A short film on the life of Judge Constance Baker Motley will be shown, followed by a panel discussion. RSVP: FLSD_PROGRAM@FLSD.USCOURTS.GOV by JULY 18, 2025

  

2.  A group of retired federal judges, including our own Ursula Ungaro, have banded together to fight for, among other things, judicial independence and judicial security.  From Barrons:

 Five years ago this month, an assailant posing as a deliveryman came to the New Jersey home of Federal Judge Esther Salas and shot and killed her son, Daniel Anderl (it happened to be his 20th birthday) and wounded her husband. The primary suspect was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound a day later. A self-described anti-feminist, he had appeared before Salas and written disparagingly about her.
As if that wasn’t horrific enough, the murderous attack has become something of a touchstone to those apparently opposed to judicial authority. Since then, including this year, dozens of judges have received unsolicited pizza deliveries,some with the recipient named “Daniel Anderl” as a signal that these judges are being scrutinized and their whereabouts known.
Now a bipartisan group of 40-plus retired federal judges has formed an organization aimed at addressing what they see as an increasingly fraught legal environment. Called the Article III Coalition, the group is named after the section of the U.S. Constitution which establishes the judicial branch of the federal government—including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and U.S. district courts.
The coalition has judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W.Bush, and George W. Bush, as well as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, and is looking to fortify the federal court system by emphasizing the importance of the Constitution, the rule of law, the role of the judiciary and its independence, and the separation of powers.

 3.    Rumpole is asking for our help regarding a colleague, Greg Gonzalez:

Many of you know that Greg Gonzalez has battled a deadly brain tumor for the past several years. We have now sadly learned that he has entered hospice care and a go fund me account has been set up for him to receive palliative care at home.  We urge you to donate. 

 https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-gregs-palliative-care-journey?modal=share&source=fundraiser+sticky+footer

Greg was a fixture at the REGJB for decades. He truly was a person who always had a smile on his face. He was the first person to volunteer to help someone - a lawyer or a client.  He was instrumental in supporting the creation of the Veterans Court because Greg served our country as Airborne.  Like his military service, he was often first in on a difficult case or when a lawyer asked for help. 

We cannot think of a better person who deserves an outpouring of love and respect for the life he has lived. If you can, please send something. Let him know that we all support him, as he has supported us with his military service and friendship.  

 

 

New podcast episode dropped -- Arthur Aidala for Harvey Weinstein

 

FOR THE DEFENSE, BONUS EPISODE:
Arthur Aidala for Harvey Weinstein

For the Defense is back with a bonus episode, and I think you're going to really like this one.  I sit down with Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer, Arthur Aidala, for a fascinating look at how the defense strategy evolved from Weinstein’s first trial to his retrial. Arthur is one of the most charismatic and colorful defense lawyers in the country. From cross-examining a complaining witness about faking an orgasm to weaving a story about glass in his mother’s pasta sauce, Arthur brings his signature flair to the courtroom—and to this conversation.

As always, you can catch this and other episodes on the web or on every podcast platform, including Apple and Spotify. I've also put the raw video on YouTube so you can watch if that's what you prefer.  Please subscribe to the YouTube channel here. (At the bottom of this post is a short clip of Arthur recounting a portion of his closing).

I'll have some other episodes coming soon.  In the meantime, I would really appreciate it if you could take a second and leave a review and spread the word about the podcast.

Finally, If you have a friend that would like to receive these updates, please have them sign up here.

Thank you! --David

Hosted by David Oscar Markus and produced by rakontur

Judge Williams backed again...

 ... this time by SCOTUS.  The blog has been covering the State AG case before Judge Williams where she has blocked enforcement of a state immigration law and also held the State AG in contempt.  The 11th Circuit refused to dissolve the injunction, and today the Supreme Court did the same thing.  From the NY Times:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to revive an aggressive Florida immigration law that had been blocked by lower courts. The law would let state officials prosecute unauthorized migrants who enter the state.

The court’s one-sentence order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. There were no noted dissents.

The court’s ruling is not the last word in the case, which is pending in an appeals court and may return to the justices. The litigation to date has been contentious, with a trial judge holding the state’s attorney general in contempt for what she said was defiance of her ruling.

The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration great leeway in pursuing its immigration agenda.

In a series of orders ruling on emergency application from the administration, the justices have allowed it to lift protections for hundreds of thousands of people who had been granted temporary protected status or humanitarian parole, allowing them to be deported.

The court also allowed the administration to pursue so-called third-country deportations, sending migrants to places other than their home nations without an opportunity to argue that they would face the risk of torture.

Wednesday’s order suggested that the court may take a different view of states’ power over immigration.

 

AI is also coming for oral argument

 You gotta read this post by Adam Unikowsky, a top Supreme Court advocate, who discusses whether AI can perform well at a Supreme Court oral argument.  His conclusions:

• Yes, a robot lawyer would be an above-average Supreme Court advocate.
• The DoNotPay people weren’t ambitious enough. You don’t need to have a human read back what the robot lawyer says. You can have an actual robot lawyer.
• Courts should permit robot lawyers at oral arguments and shouldn’t discourage this practice.
• If there’s any aspect of a lawyer’s job where AI is likely to shine relative to humans, it’s oral argument. Oral argument should be the first, not the last, frontier of AI-assisted legal practice.

You can also listen to Adam's oral argument versus Claude's argument in the post itself.  Incredible.

DOJ is coming after naturalized U.S. citizens

 That's the reporting from Jay Weaver in this Herald article:

In his all-out war on illegal immigration, President Donald Trump has branded immigrants as “criminals,” “invaders” and “predators,” as his administration targets millions of Haitians, Latin Americans, gang members and foreign college students for deportation. Now, the president has directed the Justice Department to bolster its resources in a major crackdown on naturalized citizens suspected of unlawfully obtaining their U.S. citizenship. According to a recent memo, the department plans to focus not only on individuals who may have lied about a crime or having done something illegal during the naturalization process. But authorities also plan to focus on others who may have committed a crime after becoming citizens — a generally untested legal frontier.

I wonder how Miamians feel about this new frontier.

HAPPY 20th BIRTHDAY TO THE BLOG

Thank you all for supporting the Southern District of Florida Blog for the past 20 years.  I started this thing on July 4, 2005.  Crazy to think we are still going.  

There have been 4818 posts (or about 240 a year).

You have commented on these posts over 19,000 times.

Some of the most read posts have sadly been about our colleagues passing away -- Steve Chaykin, Chris Morvillo, and Ervin Gonzalez. 

Other really popular posts have been fun -- like an AUSA appearing on the Bachelorette or Judge Rosenbaum presiding over a trial in which a defense lawyer put on a dress during cross or a WPB jury asking for a bottle of wine:

 

We all feel like that during trial!

I want to thank you to John Byrne for his contributions to the blog as well as all of the judges who send me important decisions and updates from their courtrooms.  Most importantly, thank you for reading and commenting and sending me tips.  I appreciate all of you.

I'm not sure how much longer I am going to do this, but it's been an amazing 20 year run. 

Thank you,

 David 

Eleventh Circuit Rules for Florida on Personal Pronoun Statute

By John R. Byrne

Big ruling yesterday from the Eleventh Circuit in another case dealing with transgender rights. A Florida statute forbids public school teachers from asking their students to call them by a name/title that doesn’t correspond to his or her sex (so, if the teacher is a man, the teacher can’t ask students to use “Ms.,” “Mrs.,” “she,” “her,” etc. when addressing him). 

A teacher, Katie Wood, challenged the statute, arguing it violated her First Amendment rights. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction in her favor.

The Eleventh Circuit saw things differently and reversed. The court’s ruling hinged on a threshold question courts ask when a government employee’s freedom of speech is at issue: is the employee speaking as a “citizen" or as a "government employee"? If the answer is government employee, the First Amendment claim is dead. If the answer is citizen, more analysis is necessary. In the specific case of Wood, the court ruled that she had spoken as an employee. Critical to the court’s ruling was the location and timing of the speech at issue—Wood wanted students to use her preferred pronouns in the classroom during instruction hours. That, according to the court, meant she was speaking as a government employee, not a citizen. 

Judge Newsom wrote the opinion and was joined by Judge Brasher. Judge Jordan dissented. He first said that the majority applied the wrong standard of review (he thinks it should have been abuse of discretion, not de novo). But he also wrote that the majority got the citizen/government employee ruling wrong, noting that “not every word uttered by a teacher in the classroom is the speech of the government.” 

That’s a high-level overview, but there’s much more here than just that. If you want to have a read, the opinion is below.

Wood Case by John Byrne on Scribd

Huge win for Diddy

 Now the judge has the tough part on sentencing.  What do you get if the jury acquits you of all the major counts and convicts on the one minor count.  It should be credit time served... we shall see.  In the meantime, who is buying this shirt?