The Court of International Trade—whatever that is—enjoined Trump’s tariffs. But the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit imposed an administrative stay pending further briefing. We also cover:

• Defending a Zoom depo? If you refuse to go on camera and are accused of improper witness communication, you may be sanctioned. (Remote depos are a game-changer—woe betide the attorney who screws it up for the rest of us!)
• Case settled, but wire of settled funds intercepted by scammers. Who bears the burden depends on the circumstances—best practice is to put the wire info in the agreement itself.
• Fee awards, abuse of discretion, and dueling precedents: Cash v. County of LA vs. Snoeck v. Exactime.
• Supreme Court review granted in Maniago: Is a voluntary dismissal after a loss appealable?
• Appearing at sentencing, Tom Girardi’s pants fall down—but he still gets 87 months.
• Big Oral Argument News: Remote oral arguments are now available statewide without need to show good cause.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Beware using the Judicial Council form dismissal

The Supreme Court faulted the district judge in A.A.R.P. v. Trump for refusing to grant the Venezuelan alleged Tren de Aragua members’ injunction. But on remand, Judge Ho comes to the judge’s defense: after all, the judge only had 42 minutes’ notice. And to conclude that the judge had had some 14 hours, Judge Ho noted, the Supreme Court must have started counting at 12:30 a.m. Last time we checked, Congress has not provisioned courts a budget to operate 24 hours. “This is a district court,” Judge Ho reminds, “not a Denny’s.”

• The Supreme Court doesn’t have appellate jurisdiction without an actual order on the injunction motion. Tim agrees with Judge Ho that the Supreme Court played a little roughshod with the otherwise fussy jurisdictional rules.
• But the Court is losing patience with the Trump Administration’s legal tactics, Jeff suspects, which is why the Court is willing to stretch past the limits on its power.

What do you think? Is the Court’s move defensible exercising power arguably beyond its jurisdiction? Does it hold faith with Marbury, which famously established judicial power by not exercising it?

We also discuss the one-sentence letdown in the high-stakes religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. And we share CALP alum Chris Schandevel’s appellate lessons from a hard-fought loss: how to serve your client when the Court doesn’t serve you the decision you fought for.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?

We discuss:

• Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.
• CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?
• What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?
• Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie gets bench-slapped. Jeff recites the decision’s paean to the plight of lawyers. Tim wonders if Big Law was really hanging by such a slender thread. But on the law, neither is surprised by the result in Perkins Coie v. DOJ.

Also this week:

• A motion to seal to protect privacy goes full Streisand Effect in Marin v. Rayant—filed, denied, appealed... and now, at the request of First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, a full published opinion.
• In Chang v. Brooks, a man loses his Wyoming guns after heatedly accusing his California neighbor of killing his cat and then getting hit with a restraining order. His SLAPP motion? Denied—without a hearing needed. Held: You’re entitled to a hearing, but it would have made no difference. Jeff & Tim ask: if Abrego-Garcia were to get a hearing, would it make a difference?
• A $10M harassment verdict is tossed after a trial judge goes off-script with bizarre commentary and irrelevant evidence in Odom v. LACCD.
• Should courts require lawyers to swear they didn’t use AI? Jeff and Tim say: bad research predates robots.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• You have a right to a hearing only if you have something worthwhile to say
• http://socal-appellate.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-for-appellate-motions-and-more.html
• https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lmfmkodpks2z
• https://bsky.app/profile/roland.cros.by/post/3lmjyk7wejc2o

A civil litigant, hit with $200,000 sanctions for plotting the kidnapping and murder of the defendant, gets the sanctions reversed.

Next week the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether the state can mandate long-term care facility employees to use residents’ preferred pronouns. If this is consistent with the First Amendment, could conservative states mandate hospitals refer to fetuses as “unborn children”?

The State Bar used AI to create bar exam questions.

An attorney used a cartoon dragon watermark in his federal filing.

And Jeff reports some tips from the recent San Francisco CLA/OCBA appellate conference.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.

Apple said no jab, no job. The actor sued. The Court of Appeal holds the jab policy is expressive conduct, and thus the suit was a SLAPP.

Apple Studios dropped an actor from its Manhunt miniseries over a COVID vaccine mandate. The actor sued. Apple filed an anti-SLAPP motion—and won. Jeff and Tim break down Sexton v. Apple Studios and ask:

• Is a vaccine mandate a creative decision?
• Do logistical decisions become “expressive” just because they are part of making a film?
• The court held that following “contemporary conventional wisdom” was reasonable, but what happens when that wisdom was arrived at suddenly in a matter of a few months—and then is abandoned just as suddenly?
• And recall past “contemporary conventional wisdom” that is now abandoned: smoking was safe (even good for you!); thalidomide was good for pregnant women; Fen-Phen and Vioxx were promoted. Tim notes that much medical orthodoxy has a short shelf life and the law needs to allow room for individual choice. Jeff notes that in emergency situations the law needs to defer to coalescing expert opinion and best practices. We discuss, you decide.

Also:

• A pro se litigant tricks a New York court into letting his AI avatar argue for him. (Spoiler: it did not go well.)
• Plus, updates on shadow docket misadventures and deportation do-overs.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Apple’s mandatory vaccine is “creative” expression—employee’s lawsuit held a SLAPP

Alan Dershowitz signed a complaint containing frivolous allegations in Kerri Lake v. Gates. But he’s only “of counsel” who reviewed one paragraph, containing nothing frivolous. So the panel reversed the Rule 11 sanctions—but warns that, going forward, “of counsel” is not a valid defense. Judge Bumatay writes separately to say it should be. Jeff agrees with the majority, but Tim raises a possible chilling effect for trial consultants and appellate counsel—does one bad banana expose the entire trial team to sanctions?

Also:

• Is judicial impeachment a real threat or just cable-news cosplay?
• Discovery fee awards aren’t sanctions unless the judge calls it a sanction.
• A SLAPP fee order isn't separately appealable—even if it feels like it should be.
• Teaser for next week: Sexton v. Apple Studios—where vaccine mandates, historical drama, and anti-SLAPP collide.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• You can appeal discovery sanctions, but not a mere cost allocation
• Can an attorney sign as to only part of a pleading?
• Are articles of impeachment "attacks" on judicial independence?
• Appealability of SLAPP Fee Orders

Judge VanDyke made a YouTube video to accompany his dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, the Second Amendment case in which a Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld California’s ban on handgun magazines over 10 bullets. Judge VanDyke’s video shows him disassembling a gun, comparing accessories, and using a portion of oral argument to claim his point wasn’t being heard. The issue: If a magazine is just an accessory not entitled to Second Amendment protection, then basically the entire gun is just a bunch of unprotected accessories.

Jeff and Tim react:

• Can a federal judge issue a TikTok-style dissent? If so, can lawyers start footnoting their briefs with YouTube links?
• Does a video “illustration” that relies on props cross the line into new fact-finding? Or is it just illustrative of a legal point about distinguish an “arm” from its “accessories”?
• Are judges likely to do more of these dissents? Maybe explainer videos would be useful in patent cases (comparing iPhone and Samsung phone designs), or product defects, or police excessive-force cases?
• And practical questions: Will the video—and transcript—show up in Westlaw searches? How do you cite to something side during a dissent video?

We also discuss a California Supreme Court ruling clarifying that malicious prosecution claims, even against lawyers, get the full two-year statute of limitations. Not the shorter one-year.

And finally, an update from the J&J v. Trump litigation saga: a judge opens with a warning about the “priceless” nature of attorney integrity. The administration then invoked state secrets. Contempt proceedings now loom. Stay tuned.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Video Dissent: https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lkt7yftgqc2g