DeSantis attacks federal judge (UPDATED with order)

UPDATE -- thanks to a helpful reader, here's the TRO.

Oy vey, here we go again.

This time our executive branch is going after Judge Kathy Williams.

From the Miami Herald:

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday called a federal judge an “activist” for blocking the enforcement of a new state law that makes it a crime for immigrants to come into Florida after they entered the country illegally. “Another day, another activist federal judge thinking the judiciary should be setting immigration policy rather than the elected officials,” the Republican governor said in a video posted on X on Monday.

"Activist" seems to mean any judge you disagree with... Instead of going after judges, litigate in court and if you lose, take an appeal  Sheesh.

Here's a Herald article discussing the order, which is just a 14-day TRO.  (Annoyingly, the Herald doesn't post orders that it discusses; if anyone has it, please post it in the comments or email it to me, and I will put it up.)

In the ruling, Williams said the law likely violates the U.S. Constitution because it seeks to enforce an issue that is exclusively reserved for the federal government. “In short, for nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power,” Williams, of the Miami-based U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, wrote.

***

To be charged with the new crime, an individual would need to be at least 18 years of age and law enforcement would need to prove that the person “knowingly” entered or attempted to enter Florida “after entering the United States by eluding or avoiding examination or inspection by immigration officers.” If convicted, a violator would face a mandatory sentence of nine months behind bars. In the ruling, the judge said the state law’s mandatory-detention provision “limits federal law enforcement discretion to recommend pre-trial release and obstructs federal courts’ ability to conduct proceedings requiring defendants’ presence.” “This ruling is a critical victory not only for immigrants and their families across Florida, but all of us who hold dear core principles of our Constitution,” said Bacardi Jackson, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

Conviction against attorney Marion Michael O’Steen reversed

From the intro paragraph of Judge Tjoflat's long opinion:

This appeal is the last chapter of a lengthy FBI investigation of the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida,1 Jeffrey Alan Siegmeister. The investigation began in August 2018, after Andy Tong, whom Siegmeister was prosecuting for maintaining a gambling house in violation of Florida law,2 told the FBI that his attorney, Marion Michael O’Steen, would have to pay Siegmeister $50,000 for a favorable disposition of the case. The investigation concluded in February 2021, when a Middle District of Florida grand jury returned a twelve-count indictment against Siegmeister and O’Steen. Siegmeister was charged in eleven counts, O’Steen in four. Relevant here are Counts One through Four.

Law360 covers it here:

O'Steen, of Cross City, Florida, was convicted on the two charges in June 2022 and acquitted on two other charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and extortion. At trial, prosecutors said that O'Steen requested official acts from Siegmeister, including the favorable disposition of charges filed against his client, to enable O'Steen to get more fees from his clients.

"The offenses alleged in Counts Three and Four are materially unrelated, involve different factual predicates, and are subject to different standards of review. We consider them separately," U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat wrote for the panel.

In August 2018, O'Steen allegedly told a client that if he paid an additional $60,000 fee, O'Steen could then use a "favor" with the state attorney to make "everything go away." O'Steen told his client he could go to trial, but he didn't think the client could win and that the client would not get the same result with another attorney, prosecutors said.

That $60,000 was provided as part of an FBI sting — a fact which is key in the appellate court's decision.

O'Steen was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 44 months on those counts, to be followed by a three-year period of supervised release, and was ordered a fine of $45,000 and make restitution to the United States of $60,000.

On appeal, O'Steen's attorney argued that count three must be reversed because "a private citizen cannot be convicted as a principal to extortion under color of official right." O'Steen also argued that under the Hobbs Act, extorted property 'must be actual property of the victim' rather than 'sting money the government provided.'

"We agree. Although the use of government funds as bribe money depletes the funds available to the government, it does not 'deplete[] the assets of an individual who is directly engaged in interstate commerce.' …Therefore, evidence of an alleged extortion involving purely government money cannot establish even the minimal effect on interstate commerce that is required by the Hobbs Act," the appellate court found.

The Hobbs Act prohibits extortion and conspiracies to commit such acts that affect interstate commerce.

On count four, O'Steen argued he was entitled to acquittal because the government failed to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about a 15-day filing period for a Form 8300, which reports the receipt of more than $10,000 in currency, with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/2321445?nl_pk=fcc4077e-7182-4fa9-84a6-2b612a7aed76&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=1?copied=1

"I helped defend Reagan’s would-be assassin. Law firms that fear Trump, take note."

 That's the title of Greg Craig's op-ed in the WaPo.  Here's a piece:

 On March 30, 1981, I was a young partner at the law firm of Williams & Connolly working for the firm’s senior partner, Edward Bennett Williams, the leading trial lawyer of his generation and one of the greatest in American history.

That day sticks with me because it was the day that President Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly killed by a young man from Colorado named John W. Hinckley Jr. That night, while watching the evening news, I learned that Hinckley’s parents had contacted my law firm in search of representation for their son.

Early the next morning, I walked my normal route to work down Pennsylvania Avenue, past George Washington Hospital. The large, quiet crowd of TV cameras and members of the media stationed outside the hospital — surrounded in turn by police cars and barriers forming a perimeter around the entrance to the emergency room — reminded me that my firm might well be, at that very moment, considering whether to take on Hinckley as a client.

Because I had worked for two years as a federal public defender in Connecticut, Ed suspected that I would be eager for the firm to take the case. He might have been surprised when I told him we should decline if anyone in the firm had the kind of relationship with any of the shooting’s victims such that taking the case would cause them to leave the firm. I knew that some of the lawyers in the firm might well have worked closely with the president, been friends with his family or with James Brady, the White House press secretary who was grievously wounded and, on that day, close to death.

Ed invited me to participate in the executive committee meeting to explain that concern. Everyone agreed that we should check to see whether anyone in the firm had a close relationship with any of the victims, but on the underlying question of whether to take the case, there was at first no consensus.

The lawyers sitting around the conference table were articulate and opinionated — and they were not shy. The arguments against taking the case were straightforward: Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was really nothing that we could do for Hinckley that a public defender could not do for him just as well. In addition, we knew next to nothing about his background. He might have turned out to be a Nazi sympathizer who would try to turn the case into a political show trial.

The economic arguments against taking the case were most compelling. We would eliminate any capacity to build business with the Reagan administration. It was hard to believe that clients who wanted to be on the good side of the administration would ever come to us. Besides that, we would surely lose existing clients who did not want to be associated with a law firm representing a would-be presidential assassin. Having Hinckley as a client could have been a financial disaster for the firm.

After hearing the views of everyone else, Ed finally spoke: “If our law firm isn’t strong enough to take this kind of case — as controversial and as blameworthy as this person is — it would certainly be hard for any other firm to do so.” He went on: “I have seven kids in my family. And I don’t doubt that one day one of them might do something stupid or crazy that would cause me to need a lawyer for him. I would not have much respect for our profession if I called up Arthur Liman at Paul Weiss and told him ‘Arthur, I need your help,’ and he came back and told me: ‘I’m so sorry, Ed. I have consulted my partners, and we think representing your son might do damage to our bottom line. But of course we wish him best of luck.’”

Williams & Connolly took Hinckley on as a client. I was on the team, led by Vince Fuller, that defended Hinckley at trial. The trial lasted three weeks, and the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

 

 

 

Congrats!!

First, to Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga and Judge Miguel de la O:

The Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism and the Standing Committee on Professionalism have named Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and Judge Miguel de la O of the 11th Judicial Circuit as co-winners of the 2025 William M. Hoeveler Judicial Professionalism Award.

The annual award recognizes active judges who exemplify strength of character, service, and competence as a jurist, lawyer, and public servant.

Chief Judge Altonaga and Judge de la O “demonstrate the ideals of professionalism and justice while inspiring others to do the same,” according to the Center for Professionalism.

Second, to blog author John Byrne, who was appointed to the Third DCA JNC:

John Byrne of Coral Gables is a partner at Maderal Byrne & Furst. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Florida and his juris doctor from Cornell University. Byrne is appointed from a list of nominees recommended by The Florida Bar for a term ending July 1, 2028.

 Can't believe the Governor's press release didn't mention the blog!

Jewish American Heritage Month Celebration is scheduled for May 8

 You are cordially invited to attend the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s 2025 Jewish American Heritage Month Celebration on Thursday, May 8, 2025, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom (13-3) at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States Courthouse, Miami.  This year's program is titled The Resilience of the Jewish People: A Conversation with Dan Senor and United States District Judge Roy K. Altman.  A reception will be held on the 14th floor following the program.

 We hope you can join us for this event!  Please RSVP by May 2, 2025 to:  FLSD_Program@flsd.uscourts.gov  

News & Notes

1. Justice Sotomayor speaks out. Via NY Times:

“Judicial independence is critical to everyone’s freedom, because arbitrary power is just that,” she said. “And it means that anyone is going to be subject to unfairness at someone else’s whim.”

Justice Sotomayor’s remarks came in a charged setting. Georgetown’s law school was the subject of an unusual inquiry from Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. In a letter to Dean Treanor, Mr. Martin demanded that the law school end all efforts at achieving diversity, equity and inclusion.

2. Skadden cuts deal with Trump. Via the Hill:

President Trump on Friday announced a deal with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services “during the Trump administration and beyond.” 

The agreement comes as Trump has signed executive orders targeting Big Law firms tied to his critics and perceived political enemies, restricting the work they can do with the federal government. 

3. Jenner & Wilmer do not.  Via NY Times:

Jenner & Block said in a statement that its suit was intended to “stop an unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court.” A third firm, Perkins Coie, has also sued the Trump administration over the same matter, and had some early success in stopping the executive order.

Jenner & Block also created a website — Jenner Stands Firm — to publicize its filing and to highlight newspaper editorials criticizing the executive orders and comments from law school professors questioning the legality of Mr. Trump’s actions.

On Friday evening, Judge John Bates of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order that bars the Trump administration from punishing Jenner & Block. The judge called the portion of the executive order that criticizes the pro bono legal work the firm does for organizations “disturbing” and “troubling.”

Later Friday, another federal judge in Washington, Richard Leon, issued a temporary restraining order granting WilmerHale most of the relief the firm sought from the executive order against it.

The effort to fight back in a public manner stands in contrast with the way other firms have handled Mr. Trump’s campaign against them.

4. Trump pardons Trevor Milton (Nikola) and commutes Carlos Watson's (Ozy Media) sentence.  Via the AP.

5.  Trump fires LA AUSA.  Via LA Times:

A federal prosecutor in Los Angeles was fired Friday at the behest of the White House, after lawyers for a fast-food executive he was prosecuting pushed officials in Washington to drop all charges against him, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Adam Schleifer was terminated Friday morning, receiving an email informing him that the dismissal was “on behalf of President Donald J. Trump,” according to two of the sources, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals from federal officials. Joseph T. McNally, the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California who is Schleifer’s boss, was not involved in the decision, the sources said.

Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg LLP, said Schleifer was fired via a “one line e-mail, and it came from a White House staff account.”

  6.  Finally, your Sunday moment of Zen... one of the clips I always watch for inspiration in trial:

 

FBA Goes to Washington

 By John R. Byrne

Yesterday, members of our local chapter of the Federal Bar Association—myself included—hit Capitol Hill in D.C. to encourage support for the federal judiciary. The main goal was to convince legislators to support the "Judges Act," a bipartisan bill that would create sixty-nine new federal judgeships between now and 2035, including several in Florida.

But the Florida delegation had its own pet cause: getting the new federal courthouse in Broward named after Judge Dimitrouleas. Thanks to Oliver Ruiz, who pressed the issue with several legislators and their staff, great progress was made on that front.

On a separate note, a special shout-out to blogger (and criminal lawyer extraordinaire) David Markus, who added another acquittal to his résumé after a month-long trial in front of Judge Ruiz. His partner, Lauren Field Krasnoff, tried the case with him and was essential to the defense as well. No small feat!

(Pictured from left, Oliver Ruiz, Stephanie Turk, John Byrne, and Jon Osborne)

"Blindfolded Juries, Coerced Convictions: Why Prosecutors Often Win Before Trials Even Begin"

 That's the title of this new Clark Neily article, which is worth a read and starts this way:

The Bill of Rights dedicates more words to the resolution of criminal charges than any other subject, establishing a criminal justice system in which defendants are afforded rigorous protections such as the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and trial by jury.

But the Founders would hardly recognize today’s adjudicative process, which is more akin to an industrial-scale assembly line that prioritizes expediency over fairness and churns out guilty pleas through ad hoc, extraconstitutional dealmaking that systematically excludes ordinary citizens from a process in which they were meant to be the key players. And the small handful of defendants who resist the often palpably coercive pressure to plead guilty will be tried by a jury that has been carefully curated and indoctrinated to ensure it is free of people who understand the historic powers of jurors in our system, including but not limited to conscientious acquittal.