Legal News for Mon 7/22 - Hunter Drops Fox News Suit, AK Attorney Challenges Kindred Cyberstalking Conviction, Endangered Species post-Chevron and Court Challenges to Dem Nominee

Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: First African-American Woman Appointed Judge

On July 22, 1939, history was made when New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia appointed Jane Matilda Bolin to the city's Domestic Relations Court, making her the first African-American woman to serve as a judge in the United States. Born in Poughkeepsie, New York, in 1908, Bolin faced significant racial and gender barriers throughout her career. Despite these challenges, she graduated from Wellesley College and later from Yale Law School, becoming the first black woman to earn a law degree from Yale.

Judge Bolin's appointment to the Domestic Relations Court marked a groundbreaking moment in American legal history, as she brought a unique perspective and dedication to issues of family law and juvenile justice. Her tenure on the bench lasted an impressive 40 years, during which she worked tirelessly to advocate for the rights of children and families, regardless of their race or economic status.

Bolin's contributions extended beyond the courtroom. She was instrumental in ending the practice of assigning probation officers based on race and pushed for the employment of probation officers regardless of their ethnic background. Her work helped to break down racial barriers and promote equality within the justice system. Jane Matilda Bolin's legacy continues to inspire future generations of lawyers and judges, reminding us of the importance of diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.

Hunter Biden has dropped a lawsuit against Fox News regarding the broadcast of a fictionalized "mock trial" show that included nude photos and videos of him. The series, which aired on Fox Nation in October 2022, depicted a fictional trial about Hunter Biden's alleged foreign dealings. The lawsuit was filed earlier this month but was voluntarily dismissed without a specified reason. ABC News reported that Hunter plans to refile the suit against different defendants. Fox News reiterated that the lawsuit was "politically motivated" and without merit. The show was removed from the Fox Nation platform in April after legal threats from Biden's attorneys. The dismissal of the lawsuit coincides with President Joe Biden's decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race amid pressure from Democrats. Both Hunter Biden's and Fox News's representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

Hunter Biden drops lawsuit against Fox News over 'mock trial' miniseries | Reuters

An Alaska attorney has requested the dismissal of a cyberstalking conviction for Rolando Hernandez-Zamora due to judicial misconduct by former Judge Joshua Kindred and a senior prosecutor. Hernandez-Zamora was convicted in June in Kindred's courtroom just days before Kindred resigned following findings of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. The attorney, Alexis Howell, argues that Kindred's behavior, which included extensive text message exchanges with his clerk, mirrors the cyberstalking charges against Hernandez-Zamora. Howell also criticized the involvement of a senior prosecutor, who was implicated in sending Kindred inappropriate photos and was present throughout the trial, influencing the case's outcome.

The request highlights a significant conflict of interest, noting that the U.S. attorney's office was aware of the misconduct but failed to disclose it. Howell contends that a new trial would be insufficient to address the due process violations, calling for more severe sanctions. This filing marks the first legal challenge since Kindred's resignation, and further reviews of Kindred’s past cases are underway. The federal defender in Alaska, Jamie McGrady, indicated that more challenges are expected, emphasizing the widespread impact of Kindred’s misconduct on the integrity of the judicial process.

Alaska Judge Scandal Prompts First Conviction Challenge

Lawyers and analysts anticipate extensive legal battles over the Endangered Species Act (ESA) following the Supreme Court's June 28 ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the Chevron doctrine. This decision is expected to lead to challenges against federal agency interpretations of ambiguous ESA terms. Environmental attorneys believe that efforts to weaken the ESA, especially under a possible second Trump administration, will face significant court challenges, making these regulations more vulnerable than before.

The Biden administration recently celebrated the ESA's 50th anniversary and implemented new rules to strengthen it, targeting critical habitat designation and consultation processes with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. These regulations, however, are now subject to potential legal challenges post-Loper Bright.

Experts are divided on the impact of the Loper Bright ruling. Some, like Brooke Marcus from Nossaman LLP, foresee increased litigation over ESA definitions, while others, such as J.B. Ruhl from Vanderbilt University, believe the legal landscape might not change drastically since litigation over ESA interpretations was already common.

Despite the uncertainties, the ESA's fundamental protections, such as species listing and delisting, remain strong due to explicit delegations in the law. However, new regulations not directly covered by the ESA could face more challenges.

Environmental advocates argue that the Supreme Court's ruling could protect endangered species from efforts to weaken the ESA by making it easier to challenge unfavorable regulations. They predict a period of legal uncertainty, especially if a second Trump administration attempts to roll back protections. This scenario underscores the significant and ongoing legal debates surrounding the ESA in a post-Chevron world.

Endangered Species Protections Draw New Legal Focus Post-Chevron

Legal experts believe that any court challenge to the Democrats' decision to nominate a new presidential candidate following President Joe Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 race is unlikely to succeed. Donald Trump’s allies have discussed the possibility of removing Biden from the ballot, but it is uncertain if such a challenge will materialize. Election law scholars argue that courts typically defer to a party's choice for its nominee, making legal challenges to the new Democratic candidate improbable.

The Democratic Party currently has no official nominee until delegates vote, which complicates any immediate legal challenges. Prominent Republicans have raised the threat of lawsuits, but experts dismiss these efforts as legally unfounded. The Biden-Harris campaign has rebranded to "Harris for President," with Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed by Biden, though it is not yet clear if she has the support of the majority of delegates.

The Democratic convention’s rules allow delegates to choose the nominee, providing time for other candidates to campaign. Legal actions might wait until after the official nomination, but experts suggest these attempts will face significant legal hurdles. The Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups are preparing for potential legal battles, focusing on state-specific rules for candidate substitution and withdrawal. However, most states’ rules favor the major party’s nominee, reducing the likelihood of successful challenges.

Legal experts are dubious of any court challenge to Democrats' move to put forward new nominee

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe