The blog is 18 today.

It's really hard to believe that I started this experiment back in 2005 when I was 32 years old (I'm 50 now). Since then, there have been over 4,400 posts, over 16,000 comments, and over 6.3 million page views.  It's hard to believe!  (The first post called for President Bush to appoint a Floridian to the Supreme Court in Justice O'Connor's seat.  It didn't happen then; instead we got John Roberts.  Of course, we got the first Floridian with Justice Jackson last year.)

The podcast, For the Defense, is catching up. Today is our 33rd episode and we've had over 128,000 downloads. Pretty cool!

Today's episode -- Gerald Lefcourt for Abbie Hoffman -- marks our 33rd episode and we've had over 128,000 downloads. Pretty cool!  The release is below.

The blog and the podcast are labors of love and I really do love keeping up with our district and with the great trials.  Thanks again for reading, listening, and sending tips.  

***

FOR THE DEFENSE -- SPECIAL JULY 4TH EPISODE JERRY LEFCOURT (right) FOR ABBIE HOFFMAN Happy Fourth of July! This is the perfect episode to celebrate our freedom and independence -- Jerry Lefcourt for Abbie Hoffman in the Chicago 8 trial. (Listen on your computer here, or on Apple, Google, Spotify, or Amazon). Jerry is a legend and you're going to love the stories he tells about this once-in-a-lifetime trial -- from how he got the case to getting sent to jail to the impact on our country. Next up, in two weeks, is Lisa Wayne, the executive director of NACDL.  She will discuss her representation of New Orleans district attorney, Jason Williams.  Thanks for your feedback on the first two episodes with Milton Hirsch (Pedro Guerrero) and Todd Blanche (Paul Manafort). That's Jerry and Abbie leaving court in 1969.  As always, you can catch these episodes on all podcast platforms including Apple, Spotify, Amazon, and Google,  All other platforms can be accessed on this website.  Please send me your feedback -- and of course, subscribe, like and comment!  If you have a friend that would like to receive these updates, please have them sign up here.   Hosted by David Oscar Markus and produced by rakontur

Game On (Again) for Sports Gambling in Florida?

 By John R. Byrne

You may remember that brief window when sports gambling was legal in Florida. It was based on a gaming compact between the Seminole Tribe and Florida. But then a few brick-and-mortar casinos challenged the compact in federal court in D.C. They initially won, halting sports betting.

Well, dust off your Hard Rock Sportsbook app. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court, holding that the Secretary of the Interior did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act when she allowed the gaming compact to go into effect.

The opinion, excerpted below, gets into the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and what it can--and cannot--regulate. But the Court dodged a significant question. Under the gaming compact, when a person places a bet electronically in Florida, the bet is "deemed" to take place "where received at the location of the servers" (these servers apparently being located on Seminole land). So, even if the bettor is not physically located on Indian land when placing the bet, the bet is considered to be placed on Indian land. The Court did not address whether that's legal under Florida law (or even whether the Florida statute ratifying the compact is constitutional).

My guess is that the app will be accepting bets again soon, but there'll be more legal challenges to come.  In the meantime, Dolphins at +1100 to win the AFC....

Seminole Gaming Appeal by John Byrne on Scribd

Bench and Bar Conference

Here's an email that went out from Chief Judge Altonaga,  Looks to be a great conference.

On behalf of all of the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, I am pleased to invite you to attend our Court's biennial Bench and Bar Conference. The Conference will be held at the Miami Beach Convention Center on September 8, 2023, in Miami Beach, Florida. The Bench and Bar Conference Ad Hoc Committee has put together a wonderful program.

It is our hope that attorneys with a variety of practice areas and diverse experience levels will attend the Conference. To encourage newer members of the Bar to attend, the Committee has allocated 100 seats for young lawyers (defined as lawyers in their first five years of practice). The discounted price for the first 100 qualifying young lawyers will be $50 for general admission. Once the first 100 spots are filled, all tickets will be sold at the full price of $200. We anticipate that tickets will sell quickly, so if you plan to attend please register as soon as possible. Kindly note that receipt of this invitation does not automatically reserve your spot.

Building on the success of prior Bench and Bar Conferences, the 2023 Conference promises to be exceptional. In addition to attending two plenary sessions, you will also have the choice to attend two of six breakout sessions. During these breakout sessions, attendees will have the chance to communicate informally with Judges and other attorneys in smaller, seminar-type groups.

Please visit the website, www.sdflabenchbarconference.com for additional information on the sessions and to register before the Conference sells out. 

Best wishes, and we hope to see you at the Conference.

Sincerely,

Cecilia M. Altonaga

Chief United States District Judge

Local Lawyer Gets Huge Win Before Supreme Court

By John R. Byrne

Local lawyer and all-around good guy Ashley Keller just got a huge win on a Supreme Court case he argued this term. Personal jurisdiction issue. If a state requires a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction in the state as a condition of doing business in the state, can that corporation be sued in the state even where (1) the dispute does not have any connection to the state; (2) the state is not the corporation's principal place of business; and (3) the state is not the corporation's place of incorporation? Answer: Yes. 

In a landmark reaffirmance of some century-old precedent, the Court held that nothing in the due process clause prevents a state from requiring a foreign corporation to consent to general (personal) jurisdiction as a condition of registering to do business in that state. 

 

The opinion is below and it’s a good read with an interesting mixed majority.

Now all the lawyers down here need to get the Florida legislature to pass the same law! 

Mallory Opinion by John Byrne on Scribd

FOR THE DEFENSE -- BONUS EPISODE: TODD BLANCHE FOR PAUL MANAFORT

 

FOR THE DEFENSE -- BONUS EPISODE TODD BLANCHE FOR PAUL MANAFORT I'm very excited about this bonus episode we have with Todd Blanche, who is currently representing Donald Trump. (Listen on your computer here, or on Apple, Google, Spotify, or Amazon). Todd hasn't spoken with the media so I am very grateful that he took the time to speak with me about his representation of Paul Manafort and others on For the Defense.  There are some wild stories, including his visit to the infamous MCC to visit with Manafort.  You'll hear about the other incarcerated individuals who were in the attorney's rooms to his left and his right.  As you'll hear, Todd is a very nice and humble guy who is now representing the former President of the United States.  Next week on July 4, we will pick back up with Season 5, where we will have Jerry Lefcourt discussing the Chicago 8 trial and his client, Abbie Hoffman.  I hope you enjoyed the premiere last week with Milton Hirsch for World Series MVP Pedro Guerrero.  I know the sound was a little off for that episode and we are working on that.  Thanks for your patience.    As always, you can catch these episodes on all podcast platforms including Apple, Spotify and Google,  All other platforms can be accessed on this website.  Please send me your feedback -- and of course, subscribe, like and comment!  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

Finger Pointing Defense Fails in High-Profile 1983 Lawsuit

 By John R. Byrne

A few years back, you may have read about--or seen pictures of--the injury suffered by a woman named Latoya Ratlieff. During a protest of the killing of George Floyd, Ratlieff was hit in the face by a "Direct Impact Round" (a projectile that seems akin to a rubber bullet but with a tear gas payload). 

Ratlieff brought 1983 claims against the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Fort Lauderdale police force. Judge Ruiz issued an order (which got picked up by the Herald last week) that rejected the officers' qualified immunity defense. Very detailed order on crowd control policies, riot control weapons, and how the police deviated from its own policies as well as third-party guidance on weapons use (e.g., the manufacturer of Direct Impact Rounds advises users to aim the rounds at areas below the belt and, on the day in question, a captain apparently told officers to aim for "center mass").

On the legal front, the opinion addressed the officers' qualified immunity defense. The officer who shot Ratlieff argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he was simply "following orders" and that it wasn't "clearly established" that, under the facts here, doing so could violate a person's First Amendment rights. The Court rejected the argument, and, in so doing, quoted an Eleventh Circuit opinion: "[S]ince World War II, the ‘just following orders’ defense has not occupied a respected position in our jurisprudence, and officers in such cases may be held liable under § 1983 if there is a ‘reason why any of them should question the validity of [an] order.’"

Good read.

Ratlieff Order by John Byrne on Scribd