The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
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.
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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:
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)
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.
Trump has issued executive orders against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Perkins has decided to fight. Paul Weiss has decided to settle.
The managing partner of Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, issued this firm-wide email explaining his decision to bend the knee and settle. It's hard to blame him. Here's a snippet:
We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.
At the same time, we learned that the Administration might be willing to reach a resolution with us. So, working with our outside counsel, we did exactly what we advise our clients to do in “bet the company” litigation every day: we talked with the Administration to see if we could achieve a lasting settlement that would not require us to compromise our core values and fundamental principles.
In a matter of days, we were able to negotiate such a resolution. That resolution, the terms of which I shared with all of you on Thursday evening, had three primary components. First, we reiterated our commitment to viewpoint diversity, including in recruiting and in the intake of new matters. Second, while retaining our longstanding commitment to diversity in all of its forms, we agreed that we would follow the law with respect to our employment practices. And third, we agreed to commit $10 million per year over the next four years in pro bono time in three areas in which we are already doing significant work: assisting our Nation’s veterans, countering anti-Semitism, and promoting the fairness of the justice system.
To be clear, and to clarify misinformation perpetuated from various media sources, the Administration is not dictating what matters we take on, approving our matters, or anything like that. We obviously would not, and could not ethically, have agreed to that. Instead, we have agreed to commit substantial pro bono resources, in addition to the $130+ million we already commit annually, in areas of shared interest. We will continue all of the existing pro bono work we already do and will continue in our longstanding role as a leader of the private bar in the pro bono and public interest sphere.
This existential crisis required the leadership of our law firm to make incredibly difficult decisions under extraordinary time pressure. In making those decisions, we were guided by two fundamental principles. First and foremost, we were guided by our obligation to protect our clients’ interests. As I mentioned earlier, we concluded that even a victory in litigation would not be sufficient to do so, because our firm would still be perceived as persona non grata with the Administration. We simply could not practice law in the Paul, Weiss way if we were still subject to the executive order. This resolution was unambiguously in our clients’ best interests.
You're the managing partner of Paul Weiss. What would you do?
There’s been a trend in multidistrict and class action litigation of federal district judges expressly seeking diversity in plaintiff-side leadership, which is court-appointed. Yesterday, Chief Judge Pryor issued an order explaining that such a practice violates the Constitution as well as certain judicial codes of conduct.
The order stemmed from a judicial misconduct complaint filed against Judge Casey Rodgers of the Northern District by influential conservative lawyer Michael R. Davis, who runs the Article III Project.
Judge Rodgers, an experienced MDL judge who is presiding over the Depo-Provera MDL, had made comments at a case management conference about striving for diversity in plaintiffs' leadership—particularly gender diversity. She said, “I think diversity is still an important thing to strive for, so diversity, you know, of all types, but particularly in this litigation, because of the Plaintiffs, I want that particular diversity reflected in the leadership. Now, that doesn't mean I'm looking for every single leader[] to be female, but females need to be adequately represented in your leadership.” Judge Rodgers later issued an order consistent with her comments. Davis filed a complaint, which led to Judge Pryor’s review.
Ultimately, the issue resolved itself, with Judge Rodgers making clear through later orders and comments that she wouldn’t be giving preference to female attorneys when appointing leadership. All the same, Judge Pryor wrote that “the Judicial-Conduct Rules, the Code of Conduct, and the Constitution prohibit federal judges from engaging in discrimination based on sex,” and went on to point out that commentators in the space were “openly encouraging [judges] who preside over these actions to consider impermissible characteristics like sex or race when they appoint leadership counsel.”
"This is the first video like this I've ever made." -- Judge VanDyke at 4:45 mark of a video that goes on for over 18 minutes.
He then goes on to demonstrate with a gun.
Judge Marsha Berzon takes him to task in her concurrence, calling it "wildly improper" and saying that VanDyke “appointed himself as an expert witness” in an appeal. “Although I am surprised that it is necessary to do so, I write to reemphasize that as judges, we must decide cases as they are presented to us by the parties, leaving advocacy to the attorneys and testimony to the witnesses, expert and otherwise."
