Friday, August 07, 2026

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.

Thursday, August 06, 2026

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 11th 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

Wednesday, August 05, 2026

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.

Sunday, August 02, 2026

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?

Friday, July 31, 2026

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.

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

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.


Tuesday, July 28, 2026

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.

Friday, July 24, 2026

The "NED" and the "BOB"


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.

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

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. 

Monday, July 20, 2026

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.

Friday, July 17, 2026

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

Interested persons may contact the Clerk of the District Court for additional
information and application forms. The application form is also available on the
Applications must be submitted only by applicants personally to;
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.


Wednesday, July 15, 2026

Breaking -- Jeffrey Kuntz confirmed to the SDFLA

 The final vote was 51-46.

Congratulations Judge Kuntz.

Get ready for a landslide of transferred cases! 

Chief Judge Jeffrey Kuntz of Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals appears before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C. 

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.

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

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

Monday, July 13, 2026

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.

Thursday, July 09, 2026

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). 

Tuesday, July 07, 2026

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.

Monday, July 06, 2026

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!


Sunday, July 05, 2026

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 

Thursday, July 02, 2026

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!