Dimitri Vorbe Entitled to Bond Hearing

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Dimitri Vorbe is a prominent businessman who previously ran one of Haiti’s biggest electrical utilities until a clash with the administration of the since-assassinated President Jovenel Moïse. The U.S. Government claims that Mr. Vorbe supported armed gangs officially designated as foreign terrorist organizations. He was arrested in September 2025 by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and has remained in custody without a bond hearing (and without an order of removal). A planned deportation to the Dominican Republic seemingly had to be abandoned after the govenrment of that country refused to accept Mr. Vorbe.

On Monday, Judge Gayles ruled that Dimitri Vorbe is entitled to a bond hearing befoer the immigration judge or that he should be removed under reasonable conditions of supervision. The decision is a significant win for Mr. Vorbe’s legal team. In granting the habeas corpus petition, the district court engaged in a complicated jursidictional and adminsitrative-exhaustion analysis, and ultimately reject the government’s position that Mr. Vorbe could remain in mandatory detention based on a letter from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Secretary Rubio’s letter stated that Mr. Vorbe's presence in the United States could have serious adverse foreign-policy consequences. Mr. Vorbe's bond hearing must occur by August 24 or he must be released, and Judge Gayles is requiring a status report from the parties on August 31. Case number is 1:25-cv-24964-DPG and the order is here.

"District Court" Finds that Race Didn't Predominate

By John R. Byrne

I put "District Court" in quotes because this isn't your typical opinion from a district court judge. Instead, three judges--Judge Britt Grant (from the Eleventh Circuit), Judge Ruiz, and Judge Becerra--sat as the district court. Why? Federal law requires constitutional challenges to congressional or statewide legislative apportionment to be heard by a special three-judge district court. And at least one member of that panel must be a circuit judge. 

The panel actually found that race played a role in the redistricting process. But that's not enough. The plaintiffs in these cases have to prove that race predominated over other considerations when the map drawers drew up the new lines. In this instance, the panel found that the plaintiffs didn't meet their burden.

You can read the opinion, which is replete with colorful maps, here. 

One more procedural wrinkle: if the plaintiffs appeal the denial of injunctive relief, it goes right to the Supreme Court, with no stopover at the 11th Circuit. 

Some Friendly, Random Advice from Judge Huck

By John R. Byrne

Through our years of practicing law, we're constantly learning—whether from watching opposing counsel, co-counsel, or through good old-fashioned trial and error. But one of our judges has quite helpfully published "some friendly, random advice" about federal court practice that should be required reading for every federal practitioner. That judge is Judge Huck, and you can read his tips on his SDFLA webpage. 

But Judge Huck is now taking his show on the road, so to speak. Beginning in September, he is embarking on a CLE breakfast series in which he (and another district judge) will expand on this advice in person. If you're a young professional—a lawyer with four years of practice or less—you can register for one of these breakfasts, which will be held at locations throughout Miami (Coral Gables, Coconut Grove, etc.).

The first breakfast, featuring Judge Huck and Chief Judge Altonaga, will be held at the law firm of Leon Cosgrove Jimenez in Coral Gables on September 9, 2026, and has already been approved for 1.5 Professionalism Credits by The Florida Bar. Space is limited to 20 attorneys. You can register here. 

Oh, and if Judge Huck ever gives you a pop quiz on what the first rule of "Judge Huck Club" is, don't mess it up like I did. It's this: "Judges do not like surprises!" I went with Rule #2, which is to "learn about your judge."

Kudos to Judge Huck for giving back to our federal bar through this CLE series.

SDFLA Judge update

By David Oscar Markus

Two judge updates in our District:

1.    District Judge Jeff Kuntz was informally sworn in today and is now hearing cases in Ft. Lauderdale.

 

2.    Magistrate Judge Brandy Galler was sworn in on July 30 and is hearing cases in Ft. Pierce. 

 Congratulations!

 

Judge Donald L. Graham

 

By John E. Thornton, Jr.:

Shrewd, wise, pensive. Courteous, disciplined, respectful. Cultured, traveled, adventurous. These are the first words that come to mind when reflecting upon the last fifteen years I have known Judge Graham.

I interned for Judge Graham during the summer after my 1L year, and I clerked for him from 2015 to 2017. For those who have served as judicial law clerks, clerking is one of the best legal jobs one can have. Besides the rigorous education clerking provides, its true value comes from the unwritten nuggets of wisdom received from the judge for whom one clerks. For two years, I learned from him—how to: interpret the law; analyze the facts; distinguish effective advocacy from the ineffective; properly prepare for every challenge, no matter how small; and navigate a legal career, an esteemed profession—not industry, while also serving the community in which we practice.

Judge Graham personifies professionalism. He never demands more from litigants or their counsel than what he demands from himself or his staff. Preparedness, thoughtfulness, accountability, excellence, integrity and, of paramount importance, respect for the court. As a jurist, Judge Graham is a perpetual student of the law. Because of that, he approaches every matter with astute clarity, which ensures every case and ruling is handled efficiently and judiciously.

Having served over thirty years on the bench—thirty-four to be exact, Judge Graham has presided over and ruled upon many consequential cases, both locally and nationally. These cases include: Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 1991 WL 330942 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 1991), where he granted the emergency application for a temporary restraining order to halt the United States from forcing the repatriation of Haitians to Haiti; Meek v. Metropolitan Dade Cnty, Fla., 805 F. Supp. 967 (S.D. Fla. 1992), where, in a forty-one page opinion, he ruled that Miami-Dade County’s then-present at-large system of voting violated the mandate of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—affirmed on the merits by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; and Wojcieszak v. U.S., 196 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2016), where he vacated and set aside the petitioner’s original sentence and concluded that his three prior Florida burglary convictions, because of the elements constituting burglary in Florida, did not qualify the petitioner as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) enumerated or residual clauses. At a time when ACCA sentencing litigation was exceptionally high, and flooding the courts nationally in light of Descamps v. United States,  Johnson v. United States, and Welch v. United States, Judge Graham was the first Article III judge in the Southern District of Florida to issue an opinion granting a first-filed motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based upon Florida’s burglary statute once the legal dust settled.

Before the judiciary, Judge Graham served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, in West Germany and at the Homestead Air Force Base and then as an Assistant United States Attorney in Miami where he dutifully served that Office as both the Chief of the Narcotics Unit and Special Prosecutions Unit. After that, he went into private practice with Martin Raskin, Esq., where they engaged in criminal and civil trial practice in state and federal courts throughout the United States, including right here in South Florida when Miami’s “Cocaine Cowboys” were at their peak.

As a dedicated public servant, Judge Graham has served as a lecturer in the United States Department of Justice Trial Advocacy Program on behalf of the Department of Justice and Department of Commerce in: Cebu and Manila, Philippines; Shenyang, Hangzhou, Xiamen, and Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; Kathmandu, Nepal; Kampala and Jinja, Uganda; Gaborone, Botswana; Monrovia, Liberia; and Nairobi, Kenya. He has also served as a member of the United States Advisory Board on the Investigative Capacity of the Department of Defense, and as a faculty member for the Trial Advocacy Workshop at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The breadth and depth of Judge Graham’s community activities and professional involvements include having served as a president, board member, or member of the following: Federal Bar Association, South Florida Chapter; National Bar Association; Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. Bar Association; District Judges Association – Eleventh Circuit; Council of Florida Bar Presidents; the Just The Beginning Foundation; and the 5000 Roles Models of Excellent Project.

Judge Graham has served as a professional and personal mentor to me. To wit, he graciously agreed to serve as the officiant when I married my lovely wife, Jennifer. That said, I am not the exception. He has provided prescient advice to innumerable law clerks, interns, attorneys, and staff. Judge Graham takes a keen interest in the lives of everyone with whom he encounters, and he guides those who request his stewardship.

Ever the traveler, Judge Graham has traveled to numerous countries and has visited every continent except Australia and maybe Antarctica. Maybe. From traversing rivers in Southeast Asia to exploring jungles in Africa, his knowledge and understanding of many different cultures is only rivaled by his knowledge and understanding of the law. Indeed, he has on multiple occasions spent time with the Maasai people of Kenya, for whom he has an affection and appreciation, who immediately took to him due to his warmth and kindness.

I would be remiss to omit Judge Graham’s affinity for all things Ohio State Buckeyes, especially football. Let’s just say I am glad I was not clerking for him when the Buckeyes played my Florida Gators in the 2007 BCS National Championship Game (the Gators won). But the Buckeyes have won two national championships since then and the Gators only one, the fact of which he will politely remind me when we discuss college football.

Judge Graham is fair, even keeled, and has a presence that fills any room but never seeks the limelight. Indeed, and unknown to many, Judge Graham periodically presides over matters in the Fort Pierce Division, despite sitting in Miami, and he has dutifully done so for years. Unknown to more, he was only the second Black American nominated and confirmed to the federal bench in the Southern District of Florida at a time when there were no Black judges in this District. If Judge Graham ever decides to hang up his robe, unlikely considering his vitality and vigor—he is in the gym four to five times a week, seriously—this community will owe him an unpayable debt of gratitude for his over 40 years of public service.

And with that, I will leave you with a quote I think captures the spiritual essence Judge Graham imprints upon anyone who knows him:

“Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.”

-Booker T. Washington

FBA Post Below:

 Judge Donald Graham was nominated to the district bench in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush; he continues to serve as a senior judge. After graduating from law school at The Ohio State University, Judge Graham served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps from 1974 to 1979 and in the Army Reserve JAG Corps from 1983-1991. He worked as an Assistant United States Attorney and later as a private criminal defense attorney until he was nominated to serve the Court. In 2004, he was the first judge in the Southern District of Florida to hold a provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional; his decision tracked Blakely v. Washington, decided that same year, and anticipated United States v. Booker the following year, which made the guidelines advisory nationwide.

Former AUSA Will Rosenzweig sues DOJ after being fired

 By David Oscar Markus

We previously blogged about the Rosenzweig saga, including the Golden Hammers.

The next chapter is here -- and the former AUSA has sued (here's the complaint, which is now before Judge Moore and has a blog reference).  He's represented by Margaret Donovan, Dan Fridman, and Adam Fels.

From the Herald:

“The Department’s conduct rests on a single premise: a citizen must forever refrain from criticizing the government and its leaders to remain eligible to serve it,” says the suit, which was filed in Miami federal court. “That rule would force every American who might one day serve to choose between speaking freely now and working for the government later. Conditioning public employment on political loyalty, where a party card rather than merit opens the door to a government job, is a way of life in Havana and Caracas. It has no place here.”

***

The South Florida office — with roughly 120 prosecutors on staff, about half the usual number of lawyers — was once known as one of the busiest in the country, but it’s now under siege. Reding Quiñones, a former Miami-Dade County judge, took over as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in August 2025. In a break from tradition, Reding Quiñones, a member of the conservative Federalist Society and a Trump loyalist, was sworn in by Bondi in Washington instead of by the Southern District of Florida’s chief federal judge. Despite being the head of the South Florida office, Reding Quiñones “never contacted Mr. Rosenzweig about his termination” by Bondi the following month, according to the fired prosecutor’s suit.

Judge Altman Pauses Order Requiring Trump to Send Financial Date to the BBC

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman has temporarily blocked an order entered by Magistrate Judge Lett that required President Donald Trump to hand over financial records of his business empire to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

This week, the BBC was supposed to receive that financial data through discovery in Trump's ongoing $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the outlet, which claims a 2024 BBC documentary damaged his business and reputation by deceptively editing footage of his speech on January 6, 2021. Non-Party Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust sought an emergency stay of the order requiring financial disclosure arguing the irreperable harm casued by the disclosure of that information and Trump's intent to amend his complaint to eliminate allegations of harms to his business. The amended complaint will supposedly seek damages only related to the purported harm to Trump's reputation. The BBC, however, argues that Trump's financial records remain discoverable because his reputation is closely tied to his business interests. If the case goes forward, what Trump's reputation is and how it was harmed is sure to be interesting.

The order was filed yesterday. Judge Altman agreed with the non-party Trust's argument, calling it "compelling," and added that “If the plaintiff’s amendment obviates the need to compel a non-party to disclose confidential financial information, we think it’s prudent to enter a brief stay of the order until the amendment request is resolved.” Judge Altman's order postpones discovery of Trump's financial information until the court determines whether amendment of the complaint is appropriate and what effect, if any, the revised claims will have on the scope of discovery. No deadline has been set at the moment for when Trump has to file the updated complaint. Judge Altman's order can be found here.

Hamburger Mary's Gets Flipped

By John R. Byrne

In an en banc decision, the 11th Circuit has upheld a Florida law that barred persons from knowingly admitting children to an "adult live performance.” What’s an "adult live performance," you ask? Well, that’s what the lawsuit was all about. Sure, the statute defined adult live performance, saying it was a live performance that satisfied the following four requirements:

• Requirement #1: depicts “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities [as defined], lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts”;
• Requirement #2: “[p]redominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest”;
• Requirement #3: “[i]s patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community of [Florida] as a whole with respect to what is suitable material or conduct for the age of the child present”; and
• Requirement #4:  “[t]aken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.”

But, according to the plaintiff (restaurant Hamburger Mary’s), parts of that definition were the problem. According to the restaurant, which puts on drag shows,  the use of the word “lewd” and the phrase “age of the child present” made the law unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. A majority of the 11^th Circuit disagreed. It noted, among other things, that the Florida Supreme Court supplied a definition for “lewd” back in 1971 (in a case called Chesebrough) and that the “age of the child present” requirement wasn’t a problem because  age-variable standards are an established feature of obscenity law (plus, the Court had previously upheld an even broader statute that prohibited works “harmful to minors” as a class). 

Lots of dissenting judges here (five) and two dissenting opinions. Judge Rosenbaum said that the Court had embraced the “mess-around-and-find-out” First Amendment jurisprudence (“mess” replacing a different word in the more familiar saying). The idea there being that the the "age of the child present” is so vague that live performance venues will only know what the law means by putting on a performance and “finding out” what happens—will they be charged with a misdemeanor or not? Judge Abudu also dissented, saying that the Florida legislature enacted the law for an unlawful purpose (to target protected speech it didn’t like by passing a law that chills it).

You can read the whole thing here. 

Mr. Impeachment

By David Oscar Markus

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who has called for the impeachment of many really good judges, is now asking Congress to impeach Judge Nancy Abudu of the Eleventh Circuit.

Sigh.

If it wasn't so outrageous, it would be comical.

His reason? Before she took the bench, she worked at the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

The Constitution sets a high bar for removing a judge. Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. In more than two centuries, the House has impeached only fifteen federal judges. The ones actually removed committed real crimes. Bribery. Perjury. Tax fraud. Not "used to work at a place the government now doesn't like."

Judges come from somewhere. Prosecutors. Public defenders. Big firms. Legal aid. Civil rights groups. If a lawyer's prior employer becomes grounds for impeachment, no judge is safe. Today it's the SPLC. Tomorrow it's a firm that represented a company under investigation, or a prosecutor's office with a bad case, or a defender who represented someone awful.

And Abudu isn't the only target. Uthmeier has called for impeaching some of our best judges. Most recently, Miguel de la O. Judges with sterling reputations, dragged into this because someone didn't like a ruling. Absurd.

This is becoming normal, and that's the problem. A judge rules the wrong way, or has the wrong resume, and someone calls for impeachment. It's a threat, and it's meant to be one. Rule against us and we'll come for your job.

Lawyers know better, and lawyers have to say so. An independent judiciary is the thing standing between our clients and the government. We defend it whether or not we agree with a given judge. The alternative is judges who decide cases with one eye on Congress.

Judge Abudu is a wonderful judge -- thoughtful, hard-working, liked by her colleagues.  But she comes from the other side of the aisle of Mr. Impeachment, so he is on the attack.  

Please don't say silent about this. The bar should be loud in its defense of our judiciary.

Our system has lost its way

By David Oscar Markus

Imagine the World Cup final goes to penalty kicks. The referee announces that one team gets five kicks and the other gets four for no good reason. 

The four-kick team loses. On review, the officials agree the referee got it wrong. But the result stands, they explain, because the winning team was better anyway. The advantage didn't matter. Then one of the three officials on the review panel writes separately to say there was no error at all. The losing team got to take some kicks. That's all the rules require.

No league in the world could survive that. But apparently it's good enough for our criminal justice system.

On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit decided United States v. Hernandez, No. 24-10047 (11th Cir. July 31, 2026). Elizabeth Hernandez, a nurse practitioner from Homestead, went to trial before Judge K. Michael Moore on charges that she defrauded Medicare of $111 million. The trial lasted six days. 

The court gave the government 40 minutes and the defense 30. When defense counsel hit her 30 minutes, the court cut her off mid-argument. She asked for ten more. Denied. After the government's rebuttal, she objected again, explaining that 30 minutes hadn't been enough to cover the false statement counts, the loss amount, or good faith. 

The panel, in an opinion by Judge Brasher joined by Judge Jill Pryor, agreed this was error. The government carries the burden in every criminal case, the court explained, so that "cannot justify dividing argument time unequally as between the parties." The district court "abused its discretion by applying this unusual presumption of unequal treatment."

But as is often the case, the court found harmless error: "It is inconceivable that granting Hernandez ten extra minutes could have overridden the extensive trial evidence of her guilt."

In other words, the winning team was better anyway.

And believe it or not, that was the defense-friendly part of the opinion. 

Judge Luck concurred in the judgment only, because he saw no error in the first place. In his view, a defendant is only entitled to an opportunity to give a closing argument, and enough time to make her legally tenable arguments. In his words: "That's it."  So one of the three judges on this panel wouldn't even call five kicks against four a problem.

There's a lot more to this opinion that will get your blood boiling. Good faith was one of the defenses Hernandez said she ran out of time to argue. When the court then read the instructions aloud, it told the jury that "[a] defendant is required to prove good faith." 

The law, of course, is exactly the opposite.

The panel held that error wasn't reversible because the written instructions were correct. 

Hernandez got 20 years.  Is it too much to ask for a defendant to get a fair fight before getting decades in prison?

Farewell to Judge Matthewman

By John R. Byrne

It was a heartfelt--and very funny--sendoff for Magistrate Judge William Matthewman yesterday at the Wilkie D. Courthouse. Magistrate Judge McCabe served as master of ceremonies, and the other speakers included former Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan, Magistrate Judge Reinhart, and Judge Williams.

At the outset, Judge McCabe unveiled an incredible throwback photograph of a young (and mustachioed) Judge Matthewman from his days as a K-9 officer with the City of Miami. Yes, his dog, Fuzz, was pictured too. I wish I had snapped a photo of it. As Judge Williams observed, Judge Matthewman looked ready to audition for CHiPs.

Although the speeches prompted plenty of raucous laughter, they also made clear how much respect and admiration Judge Matthewman’s colleagues have for him. And, although I probably should have known this already, I learned that Judge Matthewman was an accomplished criminal defense lawyer before taking the bench, including trying a high-profile death-penalty case before Judge Ungaro.

In his own remarks, Judge Matthewman cracked a few jokes, of course. But he also shared some words of wisdom that judges and lawyers alike could take to heart. For judges, he recalled what Judge Cohn told him when he first took the bench: “This job isn’t that hard. Listen carefully to the arguments and just be reasonable!” And for lawyers, this: Be concise. In your openings, your examinations, and your closings. 

And with that, I’ll end this blog post.

Girl you know it's true

By David Oscar Markus 

Do jurors know who Milli Vanilli is? A lawyer for a Goldman Sachs banker is betting on it as he invoked the lip synching group from the 1980s in his opening statement.

From Law360:

Jurors heard opening statements in the trial of former Goldman executive director Asante Kwaku Berko, 52, who's facing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and money laundering charges stemming from an allegedly corrupt deal for a Turkish power producer to make hundreds of millions of dollars by supplying much-needed electricity to the West African nation while taking kickbacks for himself.

Goldman client Turkish Aksa Enerji Uretim AS was looking for an edge to secure a contract with the Ghanaian government in 2015 and 2016 to build and operate an electrical plant, prosecutors say. To make it happen, Berko arranged for the power producer to funnel corrupt payments to state officials "up and down the chain."

While prosecutors say they have strong evidence, such as Berko's "damning admission" to bribery on tape, and purported email correspondence about the bribes, after jurors heard the government's openings Tuesday, defense attorney Robert Boone of WilmerHale told the jury that just like the fact that Milli Vanilli stars Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus did not provide the actual vocals for their songs, the government's case is devoid of proof that Berko committed any crime.

Boone told the jury "there were signs if you looked for it," in reference to the lipsyncing by the R&B-inspired German pop sensation that was credited with singing hits like "Girl You Know It's True" and "Baby Don't Forget My Number," namely, embarrassing technical snafus at performances and the heavy accents of Morvan and Pilatus that were conspicuously absent from their songs.

Despite the flashy presentation, Boone said that, like Milli Vanilli, "what you just heard from the government was an incredible story, but it wasn't true."  

I like creative lawyering and taking risks, but wondering if the jury will get it.

Tate Brothers Facing Extradition From Miami

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

I'm old, or at least too old to know much about Andrew and Tristan Tate. The internet says that they are British-American social media influencers and former kickboxers who built a large online following through content focused on wealth, entrepreneurship, fitness, and self-described masculinity. Critics (and maybe themselves?) describe them as misogynists. Having been filmed signing along to Kanye's Heil Hitler at Vendôme in Miami Beach along with other "manosphere" influencers does not help their image. That alone was not enough to hit the blog, but the cocktail of weird now includes some local legal trouble. The brothers were arrested here awaiting extradition to the United Kingdom for rape, assault, human trafficking, and related charges.

The cases are before Magistrate Judge Louis and have been assigned numbers 1:26-mj-03529 and 03260. Abbbie Waxman, presumably with the help of the State Department, for the United States. The brothers are represented by a team of lawyers, including Howard Srebnick, Steve Binhak, and Thomas McBride who is known for operating the January 6th Legal Fund. The brothers are seeking release on bond, but extradition proceedings are sui generis, odd proceedings where bond is governed by a case decided in 1903 called Wright v. Henkel. The brothers' lawyers will need to argue that "special circumstances" apply. If you want bond, you are better off committing a crime in the United States. Complaint against Andrew, the seemingly more famous brother can be found here. Should be an interesting case and well covered.

The "NED" and the "BOB"

By John R. Byrne

Since 2010, the South Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association has presented the Edward B. Davis Award for Service to the Federal Bench and Bar. The award came to be known informally as the “NED,” after Judge Davis’s nickname. Several of our currently serving federal judges have received the award, and this year Judge Gayles will join their ranks.

More recently, in 2024, the Chapter created an additional award to recognize lawyers who have gone above and beyond in their service to both the Chapter and the broader federal legal community. Until this year, however, the award did not have a name. It has now been formally christened the Bob Josefsberg Distinguished Service Award. So, we now have both a “NED” and a “BOB.” My understanding is that Judge Davis and Bob Josefsberg, in addition to being universally beloved, were close friends. Oh, and this year’s “BOB” recipient is none other than the blog proprietor himself, David Markus.

I hope you can join us in celebrating these deserving recipients at this year’s FBA Installation and Awards Gala. The event will take place on Saturday, October 3, at the Frost Museum of Science. Individual tickets are not yet on sale, but I will let you know when they become available.

Latest Warning about AI

 By John Byrne

Let this be your daily reminder not to use fake cases in your briefs. The Eleventh Circuit devoted an entire section of its recent opinion in Akerlund et al. v. Atlas Air, Inc. to lambasting a lawyer for citing hallucinated cases in his brief even after he was warned. Opening that section by noting that it had “saved the worst for last,” the Court got into granular detail about the lawyer’s misuse of AI. Judge Grant wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Rosenbaum and Judge Kidd. The Court wrote: 

"We expect that when lawyers submit briefs, they give us their best view of what the law is, and how that law supports their clients. We read those briefs carefully—not just because they are the product of counsel’s time, effort, and skill, but because they help us as we try to reach the right answer. All that is lost if a lawyer decides that it is not worthwhile to do the work to persuade us—if he is willing to sign his name on whatever a machine churns out without so much as checking it for accuracy. We cannot do our job the same way unless lawyers do theirs.” You can read the opinion here. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/1064918283/Atlas-Air

Judge Federico A. Moreno

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

There are judges who preside over cases, and then there are judges who become institutions. Judge Federico Antonio Moreno is the latter. He is not simply one of the longest-serving and most recognizable judges in South Florida. He is, in many ways, part of and emblematic of the district’s idealized identity. He is practical, direct, warm, funny, demanding, humane, and guided by the charge to follow the law, do what is right, and—very importantly to him—move cases along. He is a foreign-born citizen that has put his love of country and community at the forefront of his life, working hard to make this district a better, more united place.

Judge Moreno has spoken movingly about being naturalized by Judge Robert Grant in the Northern District of Indiana, and often tells new citizens at naturalization ceremonies that a naturalized citizen is “super-wanted”—the person must want to embed themselves in their new country and the new country must want to welcome that person. That “wanting” is a thread that runs through Judge Moreno’s entire life. He wants to be a great Catholic, (grand)father, husband, judge, citizen, and person. But to paraphrase the Bible, want without works is dead. Judge Moreno’s “want” is alive and well. He is still alive, too, which I am sure he will remind me of after he reads this post. Judge Moreno has demonstrated throughout his entire life how much he deeply cares about this country by working ceaselessly to improve it.

His docket has reflected the extraordinary range of the Southern District itself. Judge Moreno has presided over hundreds of jury trials (I believe he stopped counting after 800), has sat by designation many times on the Eleventh Circuit, has handled multidistrict litigation involving managed care and the Takata airbag recall, oversaw litigation relating to Everglades restoration, and has presided over cases involving civil rights, public corruption, environmental law, international disputes, and lots and lots of fraud and drugs. He took and still has handwritten notes from every jury trial over which he presided. That detail speaks to a larger point. Judge Moreno is as interested in getting things right as he is in getting things resolved. And on the rare occasion he might be wrong, as he often says, “there are three wiser judges in Atlanta who can correct him.”

As Chief Judge, Judge Moreno worked to unite our community. He initiated the Southern District of Florida Bench and Bar Conference. He recognized our diversity by initiating Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage celebrations. He began the tradition of honoring attorneys who had served the district as “Unsung Heroes” and was a driving force in having the federal courthouses named after local legends. And in a very practical move that every lawyer can appreciate, he became the first to set parameters allowing jurors, witnesses, and attorneys to bring cell phones into the courthouse.

His service also extends beyond the courtroom and our district. A scholarship at the University of Miami School of Law was endowed in his honor. He has served on the Nicklaus Children’s Hospital Board of Directors, the Notre Dame Law School Advisory Council, and the University of Miami School of Law Visiting Committee. He has taught trial advocacy and regularly invited students to observe court proceedings—carefully selecting cases to make the experience meaningful. He also served as a member of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 2014 until 2019, working to improve efficiency and the administration of justice across a nation that would be better served if more judges were like him.

No portrait of Judge Moreno would be complete without talking about his clerks, and not solely because we are spectacular. The “FAM Family” is not a throwaway phrase. He keeps pictures of every law clerk in chronological order in chambers and, over the years, adds photographs of their children. He visits clerks when he travels, plans gatherings so clerks can meet one another, and tells new clerks enough stories about former clerks that they know their predecessors before meeting them. Even if our omertá would preclude me from saying otherwise, I can honestly say that he has done an exceptional job of bringing together a great group of people and fostering a sense of family. All of this has created a true feeling of kinship, and it is almost entirely because of him.

And anyone who has spent time around Judge Moreno knows that that mentorship and warmth is not limited to clerks. He has taught generations of lawyers how to behave in federal court: be prepared, be direct, be courteous to the courtroom staff—especially his longtime Courtroom Deputy, Shirley Christie—and let the judge handle most of the theatrics. In his Federal Bar Association interview, when asked whether young lawyers appreciate the importance of being courteous to the courtroom deputy, his answer was simple: be nice to the staff because “they’ll tell the judge.” It is funny because it is true. It is useful because it is wise. It is quintessential Moreno because it is all of those things, plus efficient.

Judge Moreno’s legacy is therefore not confined to the Federal Reporter, the courthouse, or even the Southern District of Florida. It lives in the lawyers he has trained, the clerks he has adopted into the Moreno family (some of whom have taken the bench themselves), the judges he has advised, the staff he has respected, the litigants he has heard, and the countless citizens who have watched him model what public service should look like. He has made this district feel more like itself: serious but not (too) self-important, diverse but connected, demanding but humane, practical but principled, and deeply committed to the rule of law.

Thank you, Judge Moreno. FBA write-up below:

Judge Federico Moreno was nominated to the district court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 and continues to serve as a senior judge. As evidenced by the proudly displayed wristband in his portrait, Judge Moreno is a distinguished alum of the University of Notre Dame, where he befriended and tutored Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger and served as the inspiration for the character D-Bob in the film Rudy. Judge Moreno attended the University of Miami School of Law. After a brief tenure at the Federal Public Defender’s Office, Judge Moreno worked in private practice before serving as a state judge in the county and circuit courts. He has presided over numerous notable cases in our district, including the infamous 1996 drug trafficking trial of Miami “Cocaine Cowboys” Sal Magluta and Willy Falcón, United States v. Falcón, et al., Case No. 91-CR-6060.

Want to be a Magistrate Judge?

By John R. Byrne

Want to be a Magistrate Judge? The court has a vacancy in Fort Lauderdale. And the timing is perfect with the new federal courthouse (maybe the future "Judge D." Courthouse) expected to open soon. Just think, you can enjoy that new courthouse smell as you preside!

Details below. 

*******

The Judicial Conference of the United States has authorized the appointment of a

full-time United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida at

Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The current annual salary for the magistrate judge

position is $229,908 per year. The term of office is eight years.

A full public notice for the magistrate judge position is posted on the Court's

Internet website at: https://link.edgepilot.com/x/qgw9eQ6jRd94PfuAwYLKrA?u=http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/ [https://link.edgepilot.com/x/qgw9eQ6jRd94PfuAwYLKrA?u=http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/].

Interested persons may contact the Clerk of the District Court for additional

information and application forms. The application form is also available on the

Court's website https://link.edgepilot.com/x/qgw9eQ6jRd94PfuAwYLKrA?u=http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/ [https://link.edgepilot.com/x/qgw9eQ6jRd94PfuAwYLKrA?u=http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/].

Applications must be submitted only by applicants personally to;

Flsd_magistratejudgerecruitment@flsd.uscourts.gov by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, August

9, 2026.

Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

Breaking -- Jeffrey Kuntz confirmed to the SDFLA

 The final vote was 51-46.

Congratulations Judge Kuntz.

Get ready for a landslide of transferred cases! 

 

From Reuters:

A Florida state appeals court judge who was nominated by U.S. President Donald Trump to serve as a federal judge after ruling in the president's favor in a ​defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board was confirmed to the federal bench by ‌the U.S. Senate on Wednesday.

The Republican-led Senate voted 51-46 in favor of Jeffrey Kuntz becoming a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, marking the second time the chamber approved the appointment of a ​judge who had sided with Trump in the Pulitzer case.

For the Defense Bonus Episode with Teny Geragos

FOR THE DEFENSE, BONUS EPISODE:
Teny Geragos for Diddy

For the Defense is back with a bonus episode, and I think you're going to really like this one.  I sat down with Teny Geragos, an amazing trial lawyer. In the last year, she's tried three high-profile criminal sex trials -- Diddy, Harvey Weinstein, and the Alexander Brothers. 

Teny is no stranger to the bright lights and you may recognize her last name. She is Mark Geragos' daughter. Mark has also appeared on the podcast where he discussed the Susan McDougal case.  Like father, like daughter -- they win big cases.  

As always, you can catch this and other episodes on the web or on every podcast platform, including Apple and Spotify.

Sorry I haven't been cranking out as many episodes recently.  I have an excuse as I've been in a bunch of really long trials over the past year myself.  Hopefully I can get some additional episodes out 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

CONTACT: info@rakontur.com, dmarkus@markuslaw.com

Judge Williams 56 page Order explaining "improper purpose" of Trump's IRS lawsuit

By David Oscar Markus

Sorry to write over Jordi's post below, but woooooweeeeee, this is a doozy and I wanted to get it out there.  I can't do Judge Williams' order justice in a short post, so you'll just have to read it here.

The conclusion:

John Adams warned, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Thus, whatever may be the Parties’ wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court did not have to “sally forth” to look for a wrong to right. See DE 89 at 17 (citing Margolin v. Nat’l Ass’n of Immig. Judges, 608 U.S. __ (2026)). The Court need only look to the uncontroverted facts here:  

 1. Donald Trump is President. 

 2. President Trump controls the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury Department Scott Bessent, IRS CEO Frank Bisignano, and all Executive Branch actors.  

 3. President Trump, through Executive Order § 7, also controls the litigation strategy and interpretation of the laws guiding the Department of Justice. See supra note 28.  

4. For the 109 days that this case was pending, no attorney representing the United States filed a notice of appearance or any document indicating the government’s position, interest, or awareness of this matter. 

5.  Defendants’ actions are consonant with the dictates of Executive Order § 7.  

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the “settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest. And the unilateral revision and renunciation of the “Fund” component of the “settlement” demonstrate the fact that all Parties were aligned, and ultimately, undifferentiated. This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it.  

In sum, the facts before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.   

And MSN's coverage is here:

 A Florida federal judge in a blistering order on Monday said that President Donald Trump had filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service "for an improper purpose" — to gain the appearance of "judicial legitimacy" for a controversial settlement with the Justice Department that briefly led to the creation of a $1.8 billion fund to compensate purported victims of prosecutorial misconduct.

Judge Kathleen William referred Trump's lawyer in the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar for consideration on whether Brito should be disciplined in light of the findings in the new order.

Williams also ordered that a copy of her ruling be mailed to the State Bar of New York, of which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is a member, as well as to the District of Columbia Bar, of which Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward is a member.

A spokesman for Trump's legal team, which includes Brito, in a statement responding to the order, said, "The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people."

Eleventh Circuit Awards Sanctions Tied to AI Usage

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

The published opinion in Parnell v. Florida Department of Corrections begins with "Marion Parnell, Jr., an African-American male represented by counsel," appealing Judge Moreno's grant of summary judgment. Affirming Judge Moreno seemed to be an easy call as that part of the opinion may not even be a full page long. The section dealing with Mr. Parnell's counsel, however, was much longer.

Respondent asked for the appeals court to impose sanctions under its inherent authority because the reply bief "cites two non-existent court opinions and at least five non-existent quotations from our opinions." The Eleventh Circuit requested supplemental briefing on the issue of bad faith and, though Respondent's counsel did respond, they did not explain how the halluciniations appeared in the brief. The court awarded sanctions and held that counsel "has failed to use the required legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation at hand." Ouch.

The moral of the story is one every should know, especially by now, but always carefully verify the use of artificial intelligence. And if you get caught, come clean and beg for mercy. Deal with any malpractice claims at a later date.

Judge William J. Zloch

By John R. Byrne

We're moving into the modern era of our portrait post series. Up this week is Judge William J. Zloch. 

I never tried a case before Judge Zloch but, when I was a prosecutor, I had a couple of cases in front of him where the defendants pled guilty. I remember him asking the defendants, "Why did you do it?" or some variation on that question. That led to some interesting moments and some close calls on getting through the colloquy! 

FBA write up below. 

*****

Judge William J. Zloch was nominated to the district court by President Reagan in 1985 and continues to serve as a senior judge in the district. A South Florida native, Judge Zloch attended the University of Notre Dame, where he had a successful football career, playing both as a wide receiver and quarterback. After college, Judge Zloch served in the U.S. Navy for three years, before returning to Notre Dame for law school. He then worked in private practice in Fort Lauderdale until his judicial appointment. From 2000 to 2007, Judge Zloch served as the chief judge of our district. He presided over several notable cases, including a 2016 class-action claim against the Democratic National Committee that the Committee had worked to tip the scales in primary elections in favor of certain candidates. Wilding, et al. v. DNC Servs. Corp., 2017 WL 6345492 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017). 

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Injunction of Stop WOKE Act

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

The Stop Woke Act, also known as the Individual Freedom Act, seeks to restrict schools and businesses from promoting certain concepts related to race, gender, and social privilege. In an opinion by Judge Grant, joined by Judge Wilson, and with a dissent by Judge Lagoa, the Eleventh Circuit upheld an injunction blocking enforcement of the Stop WOKE Act as to universities.

The majority characterized the government's position as attempting to create a salary-for-speech rule and grappled with how to balance professors' First Amendment rights with the government's interest in regulating work-related communications. The majority argues that the dissent cherry-picks from Supreme Court precedent (as well as from a Third Circuit opinion drafted by then-Judge Alito). The majority instead ultimately finds that "managerial concerns are not at play here" and that "the law is a per se ban on speech the State disagrees with."

Judge Lagoa, in dissent, argues that precedent and the majority establish that the State can restrict a professor's speech and that the State's authority "is at its zenith in public classrooms[.]" She criticizes the majority as creating an unworkable judge-created test reflecting their policy preferences that overly relies on the relatively recent principle of academic freedom which is not enshrined in the First Amendment. Judge Lagoa concludes by saying that "the majority shifts that decision-making authority [to limit what can be taught] from the people to federal judges. The test now is: Does the presiding judge believe that the professor’s viewpoint is within the range of permissible views?"

It will be interesting to see if this one is heard en banc or if it makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Full opinion here.

Court Celebrates America's 250th

By John R. Byrne

The blog turned 21 yesterday, and America turned 250 on Saturday. Two great institutions, just at different stages of life.

The Court celebrated America’s 250th in style last Wednesday in Judge Bloom’s packed courtroom. Judge Bloom opened with thoughtful remarks about what makes our Court so special, including the number of foreign-born judges who have served it, and about the vital role lawyers play in protecting the Constitution.

That set the stage perfectly for Judge Ruiz’s featured lecture on the so-called 18th Grievance in the Declaration of Independence: King George III’s deprivation of the colonists’ right to trial by jury. Judge Ruiz shared powerful quotes from the Founders about that right. Just as powerful, though, were the quotes he shared from real jurors reflecting on their own experiences serving on juries. Judge Ruiz sends a survey to jurors after their service, and their responses were a reminder that, while most people dread jury duty, their service often leaves a profound impact on them. 

All in all, it was a special day, and I’m grateful the Court marked this historic milestone in such a meaningful way. I hope one day future generations will gather to celebrate the blog turning 250, maybe from the comfort of an air-conditioned Mars.

And good luck to the US men’s national team tonight in the World Cup!

Happy Birthday to the Blog

By David Oscar Markus

21 years old!

We can drink now, woohooo! 

I started the blog on July 4 weekend in 2005, calling for the President to appoint a Floridian to the Court (we now have one!). 

Since then we've had 12,850,251views and over 5,000 posts, with over 20,000 comments.

Pretty remarkable, especially because not many blogs are still around. 

I am lucky that we've added some great writers -- John Byrne and Jordi Martinez-Cid.  And we are always lucky to have some great guest posts.

I am also thankful for all of the tips that you send -- from lawyers to judges to politicians.  The blog would not function without your help.

But most of all, thanks for reading.

Let's see if this thing will run for another 20 years!

Thank you,

David 

NY Times v. Sullivan Lives to Fight Another Day

By John R. Byrne

We've blogged several times about Alan Dershowitz's lawsuit against CNN. Judge Singhal granted summary judgment to CNN and the 11th Circuit affirmed. But in their opinions, both Judge Singhal and Judge Lagoa questioned the continuing vitality of the NY Times v. Sullivan standard. But it looks like the standard will live to see another day. This past Monday, the Supreme Court denied Dershowitz’s cert petition. But that denial came with a dissent from Justice Thomas, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Citing Judge Lagoa, among others, Justice Thomas wrote that "The actual malice' standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.” You can read the one-page dissent here. 

That sound you heard Monday was the sound of media outlets collectively exhaling!

NOT GUILTY

By Anonymous Court Watcher

Today brought a remarkable result and a hard-fought victory for one (former) criminal defendant and the Federal Public Defender’s Office: a jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts against Harun Abdul-Hamid Yener. 

Mr. Yener, a 30-year-old Coral Springs resident, had been charged in a superseding indictment in connection with an alleged plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange. The charges were as serious as they come, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction; attempting to use an explosive device to damage or destroy a building used in interstate commerce; and threatening to murder federal law enforcement officers. A conviction on these charges would have carried life-altering consequences—and a guidelines life sentence.

The defense centered on a theory of entrapment. That’s the principle that the government cannot induce a person to commit a crime he was not otherwise predisposed to commit—and then turn around and prosecute him for it. The trial team made the case that the conduct at issue originated with the government, not with Mr. Yener.

Mr. Yener was represented at trial before Judge Bloom by Assistant Federal Public Defenders Abby Becker and Victor Van Dyke. Mr. Van Dyke delivered an extraordinarily powerful closing argument, and the jury seems to have agreed with his impassioned presentation. The verdict is a testament to their preparation, advocacy, and unwavering commitment to their client and to the Constitution. This is a particular special win for Mr. Van Dyke, as this trial marks the end of his tenure at the FPD. He's about to begin a new chapter at Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale. 

This outcome is a powerful reminder of why the work of the Federal Public Defender’s Office matters. The presumption of innocence and the right to a vigorous defense are not abstractions. They are the safeguards that produced a just result in this case. Congratulations to Mr. Yener, Abby Becker, Victor Van Dyke, and the entire defense team on a tremendous and well-earned win.