Insights < BACK TO ALL INSIGHTS
Judging the Judges
FEATURED
October 2, 2026
Judging the Judges
By: Lauren Scribner
Judges are in the business of holding people accountable for crimes and misconduct—but how do we hold judges accountable for their own ethical lapses? Recently, in a moment of frustration, Florida Second Circuit Judge J. Layne Smith told three attorneys practicing in his courtroom that he “would like to tell the deputy to pull his gun and shoot all three of [them] as far as [his] level of frustration right now.”[1] Yes—you read that correctly. A presiding judge vocalized his thought to have attorneys practicing in his courtroom shot by courtroom security. What should the consequence be for using such threatening language? A mere public reprimand and recusal from that case?[2] Or, should there be some sort of tangible punishment?…
Dismissive of Dismissal
September 25, 2026
Dismissive of Dismissal
By: James Trusty
During the two Trump administrations, a trend has begun to emerge of federal judges challenging the once-unrestricted authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to dismiss indictments. The longstanding framework of separation of powers suggests this judicial pushback is unsupported activism, but the judges claim the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rules”) do not relegate their role to rubber stamping. Ultimately, this trajectory may lead…
In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.
August 18, 2026
In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally.
By: Robert Ward
In the age of AI, litigators must read between the lines—literally. Any attorney who has litigated a case against a party proceeding pro se is familiar with the common refrain that courts liberally construe pro se filings.[1] This leniency was not enough for one Connecticut litigant. In a scheme that gives new meaning to the phrase “reading between the lines,” pro se plaintiff Matthew Elliot…
Kentucky Supreme Court Considers Poker
November 2, 2009
Kentucky Supreme Court Considers Poker
By: Ifrah Law
On October 22, 2009, the Supreme Court of Kentucky heard oral arguments in the above referenced case. The case originated when the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed civil seizure and forfeiture proceedings against 141 domain names – virtually all of which offered or involved internet gaming. The Commonwealth contended that domain names constitute gambling devices under state law and as such were subject to seizure under…
