Motions to compel arbitration almost always succeed. One that did not was addressed in Parrott v. International Bank of Commerce, 778 F.Supp.3d 888 (W.D. Tex. 2025). In Parrott, the plaintiffs filed a class action regarding the employees’ profit-sharing plan. The proposed class sought to attack the investment strategy of IBC. Mr. Parrott left his job at IBC before the employer added the arbitration provision to the profit-sharing Plan. The Defendant then argued that the arbitration provision related back to the profit-sharing plan as it existed when Mr. Parrott was employed. That is, the employer argued that even if the arbitration provision came after Mr. Parrott had departed, the provision would relate back to the time when Parrott was still employed.

But, the U.S. District Court did not agree. The harm to the plaintiff occurred before he left his job, not after. That means the harm occurred before the arbitration provision was added. The profit-sharing Plan specifically defines a Plan participant as one who is employed by IBC. As a former employee, Parrott had already received his distribution under the Plan. That means no consideration passed to Mr. Parrott for his supposedly agreeing to the new arbitration provision. No consideration means the arbitration provision did not constitute a binding agreement.

So, the Court denied the Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. See the decision here.

Pres. Trump’s assault on the Department of Justice has real-world consequences. Some 5,500 employees, including lawyers and support staff, have left or been fired from DOJ since January. That is out of a total staff of about 10,000. That means there are widespread vacancies across the country in DOJ. But, recruiting at law schools is down. Law schools report that persons at the top ranked law schools are avoiding DOJ.

The Department of Justice has long recruited the top ranked student at the top ranked law schools. But, after all the the unjustified terminations, the best and the brightest have little incentive to work there. On Fox News, the US Attorney for Washington, D.C., Jeanine Pirro, said her office lacked 90 lawyers and encouraged any lawyer listening to apply. In Chicago, the US Attorney, Andrew Boutros emailed former DOJ lawyers inviting them back.

William Treanor, former dean at Georgetown University Law Center, said traditionally, Georgetown students had great interest in working at DOJ. It was an ultra-competitive place of employment. But, now he says virtually no one is applying. See ABA Bar Journal report here for more information.

The precipitous drop is not surprising. DOJ lawyers are routinely being asked to risk their law license in advancing false statements of law and facts. It is an exceedingly difficult place for any attorney to work.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 amended the prior law, which was passed in 1883. The current law is found at 5 U.S.C. §1101, et seq. The first Civil Service Act of 1883 changed what had been a political spoils system to a much more professional, stable work force. Prior to 1883, the Federal workforce was routinely changed whenever a new President entered office.

The new Trump administration wants to change all that. In the Project 2025 book, the authors make fantastic claims that Federal workers are not held accountable. The authors claimed that the Federal workforce included “careerists” who “lean to the Left.” The book cited no evidence for this over-the-top claim. I previously talked about Project 2025 and its effects on the Federal workforce here. It is safe to say that the Project 2025 book included many unrealistic claims about the Federal workforce.

Terminations without Cause

The Trump administration has fired hundreds of Federal employees without cause. Yet, the entire scope the Civil Service Reform Act is to require a stated cause. The foundation of the statute is that workers will only be fired for a good reason connected to job performance. A common myth today is that it is impossible or very difficult to terminate Federal employees. That is not true. But, it is true that a manager must show evidence of poor performance if he wishes to terminate a Federal employee. That generally means there must be some written warnings before an Agency can fire an employee.

Federal law requires that all Federal employees be treated fairly and equitably. 5 U.S.C. §2301(b)(2). They should be protected from arbitrary, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes. 5 U.S.C. §2301(b)(8). 5 U.S.C. §2302 prohibits certain personnel practices. These prohibited practices generally include discrimination, including discrimination based on politics and including discrimination not based on job performance.

So, these hundreds of terminations for no stated reason will surely result in innumerable lawsuits and appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB has jurisdiction over Federal terminations. Any Agency that goes to the MSPB with no written warnings in the file will lose. Maurene Coney, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York, has taken a unique approach. She has filed in both the MSPB and in U.S. District Court. In her lawsuit, she argues that because the MSPB currently lacks a quorum, there can be no final decision. Therefore, she can file her claims in district court.

Too, when Ms. Comey was fired, the only stated reason offered by the Agency was the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution. That is, the administration was claiming the power to fire any Federal employee for any reason. It has been arguing in court this creative “unitary executive” theory since last January. According to Ms. Comey’s Complaint, the MSPB has already stated that it lacks authority to adjudicate whether the President truly has some sort of unfettered Article II power to fire Federal employees. See Comey v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 25-CV-07625 (S.D. N. Y.) lawsuit here.

Until these legal theories are adjudicated, hundreds of Federal employees will have some very solid lawsuits and appeals to the MSPB.

It is fair to say that before trial and during jury selection, a trial lawyer should use all the tools at his/her disposal. Many of us will check LinkedIn to take a look at a potential juror’s profile. But, do not do that in the Northern District of California. Judge William H. Orrick has a standing order in his court for lawyers to not access LinkedIn. Judge Orrick says whenever someone checks a profile, LinkedIn sends a notice to that person, letting them know who has looked at their profile. Judge Orrick considers that notification to amount to a prohibited contact of a potential juror.

One law firm, Alston & Bird hired a jury consultant. The firm did not tell the consultant about the standing order. The consultant checked LinkedIn. That research eventually came to the notice of Judge Orrick. The Judge sanctioned the firm $10,000 for this breach of his standing order.

The trial attorney, however, noticed the violation and notified the court. She did the right thing. That may be why the sanction was not higher than it was. The Judge said he has no problem with lawyers accessing publicly available information. But, the potential juror should receive no notice. See ABA Bar Journal report here for more information.

We can argue about whether a notification amounts to contacting the juror. But, we can all agree that such a notification could lead to impermissible sorts of contact.

In Oral arguments on Nov, 5, 2025, the issue was the power of the Trump administration to set tariffs on many products, from many countries for an unsopeofied amunt of time. Congress has delegated some tariff powers to the Executive branch over the decades. But, Pres. Trump claims a statute, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, provides the Executive branch with an unlimited sort of tariff authority. This is remarkable, since the IEEP Act does not actually mention the word “tariff.”

It is not a core issue to the case, but it is important. The United States Solicitor General John Sauer had to know this would come up: who ultimately pays the tariffs? Do American consumers ultimately pay the tariff or does some combination of foreign countries, businesses, etc. pay the tariff? It is not a core issue, but who pays the tariff is important to the case. If U.S. citizens pay the tariff, then the tariff is a tax. In Oral arguments on Nov. 5, a few of the Justices referred to the tariffs as a tax. That is important, because Congress can delegate such a power only if it does so very clearly.

Are the Tariffs a Tax?

Asking a lengthy question, Justice Roberts referred to the tariffs as a tax. Solicitor Sauer disagreed. It was just a passing comment, but Justice Roberts stopped mid-sentence. Justice Roberts then switched to the tax issue. He noted that the vehicle of these tariffs is an imposition of taxes on Americans – which is a core power of Congress (and therefore, not easily delegable to the Executive branch). Sauer replied that it has not been “empirically” shown that Americans are bearing these tariffs. Fine. Justice Roberts asks who does pay for the tariffs?

Solicitor Sauer then obfuscated, He said it would depend on the contract between the country and the importer. Sometimes the importer would pay the tariff, sometimes the foreign producer would pay. It could be a wholly owned American subsidiary of a foreign corporation. It would be allocated.

Justice Roberts then points out that it has been suggested that the tariffs are decreasing the budget deficit – which suggests it is a revenue source. Sauer then responds that yes, there are collateral effects of tariffs. Justice Roberts did not respond at that point. Most judges would not. They just want to hear how the litigant handles the question.

In that moment, Solicitor Sauer lost his credibility. Simply to appease his ultimate client, Pres. Trump, he refused to acknowledge on the record that tariffs act as a tax. They are tax in every way but name. The American consumer will pay a large portion of the tariffs. And, Solicitor Sauer, even though experienced, committed a grievous sin in appellate advocacy: do not BS the Judge. We learned in law school to never avoid a question and never, ever avoid an obvious fact.

It was an embarrassing moment for Solicitor Sauer. Before the highest court in the land, he implicitly acknowledged that his accepted a case with a known, insurmountable weakness. He might well have worn a sign on his chest: “My case is a loser.” He way yet win on other grounds. But, when a lawyer obfuscates in court, he implicitly admits he does not believe in his case. That its why lawyers reject cases. Even Solicitors of the U.S. have the right to reject a case.

See audio recording in Learning Resources v. Trump, No. 24-1287 here.

This really is the season of hunting free speech advocates. I just penned a post on Universities throttling a professor’s free speech rights, and here comes Gov. Abbott with more of the same. The Governor of the Great State of Texas shared a post about a University of Texas professor who had been fired from an administrative role due to his ideology. See my prior post here. The governor shared the post and announced the state would target professors who push “leftist ideologies.”

The governor, an experienced lawyer, did not define “push” or “leftist ideology.” But, it is safe to say that the First Amendment free speech clause applies to state and local governments – which includes the University of Texas. See The Hill report here for more information.

In a recent survey, only 12 out of 65 Federal Judges agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court makes appropriate use of the emergency docket. The emergency docket refers to the process by which a litigant can bypass the courts of appeals and go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. There have been far more emergency appeals since Pres. Trump assumed power. The emergency docket is sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket.” Prior to Trump, the Supreme Court rarely granted any orders requested on an emergency basis. But, now it has become very common to grant those emergency appeals.

In the survey, Federal Judges described the Supreme Court’s emergency orders as “mystical,” “overly blunt,” and “incredibly demoralizing.” The latter comment likely refers to the very extensive, detailed order issued at the trial court level, only to be overruled by a one page order from the Supreme Court. What is the point of conducting lengthy research if the Supreme Court will overrule you with one or two paragraphs?

The Judges responded to the survey anonymously. The survey found:

  • Twelve out of 65 judges agreed with this statement: “The Supreme Court has made appropriate use of the emergency docket since President Trump returned to office.” Forty-seven disagreed, and six were neutral.
  • Asked what effect the emergency docket had on the public’s perception of the judiciary since Trump returned took office, 42 judges “said caused harm,” ten judges “said no effect,” and two “said an improvement.”

The latter comment refers to the implicit understanding of every Judge: that civility in the courtroom often depends on a thin veneer of respect for the court. If you lose that respect, then every trial, every hearing may result in a shouting match or worse.

Over 400 Judges

The New York Times conducted the survey. It sent the survey questionnaires to over 400 U.S. Judges. Among the Judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents and 37 were nominated by a Democratic president.

The Times acknowledged that as a sample size, 65 is not a large number. But, the paper noted that for so many to be critical of the Supreme Court is unusual. I agree. Indeed, my opinion, it is surprising that as many replied as they did. Judges, regardless of the party, tend to be very conservative and cautious in discussing these sorts of issues – anonymously or not. See ABA Bar Journal report here for more information.

It’s amazing how many average persons believe they enjoy free speech protection in all sorts of private sector environments. No, we do not enjoy free speech protection in our private sector jobs. The First Amendment applies to state and local governments. That has been the law since forever. One professor at Texas State University, Tom Alter, expressed views akin to socialism on a private online connection. He called for the formation of a worker’s party to “overthrow” the U.S. government. Prof. Alter’s area of study is the working class and protest movements.

Prof. Alter issued his call as part of an online conference of Socialist Horizon. Unknown to Prof. Alter, his remarks were secretly recorded by Karlyn Borysenko. Ms. Borysenko describes herself as an “anti-communist cult leader” who exposes left-wing activists. She posted a video of Prof. Alter’s remarks on Twitter, now known as X. Within a couple days of posting the video, Alter was fired by Texas State. Prof. Alter then filed a lawsuit.

No Due Process

It was odd that the professor was tied with no notice or opportunity to challenge his firing. Tenured professors enjoy such protections. Yet, he was fired v=ia email from the school provost.

State district court in Hays County found in favor of the professor. I doubt it was a difficult decision. Judge Alicia Key issued a temporary restraining order reinstating the professor. Yes, the Fist Amendment applies to state and local governments. Texas State is a state governmental entity. This was surely an easy decision for Judge Key. See the San Antonio Express News report here for more information.

We may disagree with Prof. Alter’s views, but he has every right to express them. As some famous person said, free speech means nothing when the speech is popular. The First Amendment matters most when the speech is not popular. For more information about the free speech protections we all enjoy, visit the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression website here.

Epilogue

Prof. Alter was reinstated. Texas State brought him back to work, held a hearing and then promptly fired him on Oct. 13. The letter terminating him specifically mentioned Prof. Alter’s remarks at the Socialist conference. The letter claims Prof. Alter spoke as a representative of Texas State University, not in his personal capacity. See University Star report here. Violation of internal rules might avoid the free speech implications. But, the employer will have difficult burden in what could become additional litigation.

When you are a lawyer, you hear that phrase “selective prosecution” now and then. Someone’s brother-in-law or cousin is being picked on by the local County District Attorney. But, sometimes, we see actual selective prosecution in real life. One day, Pres. Trump publicly directs AG Pam Bondi to prosecute James Coney. Days later, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia does in fact indict James Comey. Mr. Comey, former head of the FBI, has been on Pres. Trump’s enemies list for years.

This is the same James Coney who was once managing attorney for that same Eastern District of Virginia office. Ty Cobb. a former Assistant U.S. Attorney himself and a long-time Washington D.C. criminal defense lawyer, said the “vindictiveness and selectivity of the indictment are palpable.”

James Comey was also a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, a prestigious post. And, he served as second-in-command of the Deptartnment of Justice during the George W. Bush presidency. If convicted on the perjury charges, he would face up to five years in prison. But, given the public nature of the President’s “selection” of Coney to be prosecuted, he has better than even chances of avoiding any punishment. See ABA Bar Journal report here. As often occurs, Pres. Trump’s own actions undermine his efforts. The best evidence for selective prosecution will be Trump’s very public, errant message to Pam Bondi.

Pres. Trump stated his intention to activate Oregon National Guardsmen to protect “war ravaged Portland.” The state then sued. Early Saturday, Oct. 4, U.S. District Judge Immergut issued an order finding that there is no ongoing violence or crisis that would justify a call-up in accordance with 10 U.S.C. §12406. Sec. 12406 specifically allows a President to call up National Guard soldiers in the event of invasion, rebellion or the President is unable to execute the laws of the United States. The court then found explicitly that no such conditions exist. Whatever violence was occurring at the ICE facility in Portland had peaked in June, 2025, months before Pres. Trump called for the Guard. The court’s opinion includes over 11 pages of deep detail regarding the protests in Portland.

The Judge described in great detail the protests that did occur – mostly involving minimal violence. Judge Immergut noted that the issue is not whether the condtions matched the President’s description, but whether his claims were “colorable.” She meant the issue was whether his claims were kind of, sort of close to reality. The Judge found they did not come close to reality. She explained that the President is entitled to a “great deal of deference.” “But ‘a great level of deference’ is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground.” In this sentence, the Judge is saying “do not blow smoke at me.”

DOJ did not help its case by pointing to violence occurring elsewhere. Too, the president’s own statements were simply far beyond what was actually then occurring. The Judge did not say it, but what she meant was the President’s own words suggest his duplicity.

Duplicitous Claims

When both the lawyer and the client are essentially found to be exagerrating, you know your case is lost. The order is clear. The Judge made a specific, detailed finding that there was simply no violence to meet the requirements of Sec. 12406. See Judge Immergut’s decision here. This is a stark example of the dangers of over-the-top claims in any legal brief.

So, later that same day, Secy. of Defense Hegseth’s stated his intention to send the California National Guard and the Texas Guard to Portland. Not surprisingly, that plan got under the Judge’s skin. One party to the lawsuit was ignoring some 11 pages in the order and instead focusing only on the part that said they cannot call up Oregon Guardsmen. Judge Immergut then did something This author has never seen or heard of: she ordered a hearing for 10:00 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 5. At that hearing, she hammered the DOJ attorney, Eric Hamilton, asking why the United States believed they could send Guardsmen from other states to Portland.

Any attorney would, should be embarrassed at having to admit in court a deliberate attempt to circumvent a judge’s order. Hamilton simply argued that he believed the order only applied to Oregon Guardsmen. Even making that argument, he shows himself to lack reading comprehension or is simply dishonest. This attorney is constantly amazed at Trump’s ability to find lawyers so willing to roll the dice with their law licenses. See Politico news report here for more information.

Mr. Hamilton asked the Judge to put her decision on hold, while the administration appeals. Perhaps, ten months ago, the Judge would have said yes, expecting the Dept. of Justice to act responsibly. But, the Judge said no. When you lose your credibility in court, you really do lose your credibility in court.