What In The World Is James Ho Thinking?

Hello, and welcome to the Thinking Like a Lawyer podcast. My name is Catherine Vinoe. I'm a senior editor above the law, and my co-host is Chris Williams, also above the law fame. Hi, Chris. Hello, hello. How are you this fine day? This is actually on a good note, but let me get there. I'm in pain. So on Saturday, there was this thing called a GoFest New York. So I went up to New York, and I walked like 15 miles with my head and my phone. That's sad. Is that a golden man thing? Yeah. But it was like, it was a, it was a, it was Pokemon GoFest in New York 2023, of course, but you got to say a year because there are other ones previously. And this was my first one. And it was cool because I was one of like 70,000 other people who were flooding, like Randall Park, like Bryant Park, like two different parks in New York. And it was really nice. It was cool. It's like the Aristotle, but mobile. You have to walk. Yeah, definitely. So what was the most rare Pokemon that you caught during your weekend? And by the way, I appreciate that you pushed us right into small talk without me having to fake the sound effect with Joe Patrice being not with us today. He's covering the El Takan conference, legal tech, he's immersed in the world of legal tech at the moment. But yeah, so what was the most rare Pokemon that you caught this weekend? Oh, well, I hope all the listeners are holding on to their butts. I caught a couple rare ones. I caught a couple of requasers. Oh, by the way, this is the part where if you don't think Pokemon Go, it'll just sound like the parents talking and peanuts. Wow. It's awesome. Charlie Brown. There we are there. Yeah. So I caught a requaser. I caught two really good carbings. One was like 14, 15, 15, and the other one was 15, 14, 15. So if you see me in Great League, terrorizing, just know it's me, a couple of carios. You know, those got a lot of those steel fighting types and a bunch of showdowns. So I got some candy for my Excel candy for my Bastia Don. So if you see me harassing your Pokemon, you know, rock throw on SmackDown, SmackDown. You know, that's from me walking 14 miles in a pair of shoes that I was not should not have been walking in. I thought they were fine. I thought they had support. Turns out they just looked really nice. Well, listen, I am, I'm a big fan of just looking really nice as my mother would say it's the price of beauty. So, you know, beauty ain't cheap. So if you saw, just if you were at Pokemon Go Fest in New York, you saw some guy and a purple linen top and shorts with dreads and Crayaditas walking around in pain. Not only was he in pain, it was, it was me. So it was nice to meet you. Yeah. Well, it sounds like you had a great time, regardless of the pain that you're currently, I see, I appreciate how you got to the pain eventually. Yeah. I had a fairly low key weekend, but found, I found a new reality TV show that I'm now going to be binging on, which makes me very, very happy. It's an old show, but it's new to me below deck. Bravo. I'm not. I'm not really out of TV, but I don't tend to gravitate towards the bravo offerings in their reality TV world, but before you describe it, is it a reality TV show about pirates? No, it's about yachting. Okay. Okay. Okay. It's not related. It's definitely about related, 100% related, but I kind of stumbled across it this a couple days ago and I'm already on like season four, and there's like spin offs too. So I have so much, so much good TV in front of me. It is a freaking delight, and I am quite excited about it. Is one of the spin offs above the deck? No, it's like above a below deck Mediterranean below deck down under it's like an Australian like some diversions. It's like, yeah, well, except those are different seasons, like meant to be different seasons of the same show. These are different shows. Do you know what I mean? Okay. Okay. Like there are like seven seasons of the below the down under version, but there's ten seasons of the original. You know what I'm saying? Whereas like survivor, they were always still the original show, it wasn't like a different show. That's it. I don't know if that makes sense. But yes, I've been watching a lot of reality TV. It's a good thing to do while I'm pumping, so you know, it is what I'm doing. All right. Well, I think that pretty much ends our, our we're real people, not just legal, amalgamations we're not just some AI, you know, point in the direction of legal topics, we're real people. Quick interim between small talk ending and the start of the story while I was walking Pokemon Bryant Park, I saw somebody sing on a bench talking about like Scalia's jurisprudence and I almost threw up which park was it? Did you see this? I think it was Bryant Park. I was going to say this Washington Square Park, it's definitely an NYU law student. Yeah. I was like, bro, it's the weekend. So Bryant Park was probably, it's potentially some Fordham Law kid is my guess, just location lines. But it's pretty hilarious. And it looked like it might have been a date. Okay. Okay. Speaking of terrible jurisprudence, though, this is a really smart transition. I really enjoy it, Chris. Totally delivered. Totally delivered. Totally delivered. Totally delivered. You wrote about James Ho last week, Fifth Circuit, Judge James Ho wrote a dissent that you want to tell us about? Well, one is a strong word, but I will tell you about it. So it was a case, so the underlying case dealt with the cost of a school in Texas. And the underlying facts of the case are interesting. So for students that are in state, they're paying about $50 per print out. It's only about college credit. Yes. State schools. Okay. Yes. So they're paying about $50 per credit hour and out of state students are paying like $40, $50 per credit hour. Fast difference. Sure. I was an out of towner. I don't want to pay $50. I wouldn't want to pay nine times as much either. I get that. The meat of the case was about what in-state means. So it turns out that residents who didn't have, you know, papers, so like legal immigrants who lived in the state of Texas were able to pay the $50 per credit hour rate because they were in the state, right? Sure. I mean, that seems accurate for nothing else seems accurate. Right. Right. So I guess the just of the suit was like sure, they're in the state, but they're not of the state. Right. And whenever, and when that, that this lawsuit reminds me of the, I think it's like a Bill Clinton bit where he's getting asked about his infidelity and he's like, I guess it depends on what the definition of is is, right? It's a very famous line. Yes. I do remember it. Yeah. So this is like a, what does in mean case, right? And my thing is, interesting case, sure, but it seems like something I should be dealt with by legislature, you know, shouldn't be somebody with a gavel deciding what the price of attending college should be, right? Mm-hmm. It seems like, oh, on a 16 per judge panel, 15 judges agreed or felt like, man, wasn't a really good thing, but Judge Ho on the other hand is the loan dissenter took it. Well, it's a, it's a, it was a motion to be heard on bank, right? So it had already gone through the regular circuit court process and now they were appealing it to see if the entire 16 judge panel was willing to hear it. And only Judge Ho had an opinion on that one. Right. Right. And his opinion was basically a round of applause about how great citizenship is, which is phenomenal, great, cool, but it felt more like a grab for attention than a judge doing their job. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's kind of ironic that Texas, the state best known for putting up these deadly flotillas in the middle of the Rio Grande when it comes to immigration is being accused by Judge Ho being soft on immigration. Right. You'd think the killing would be a, you know, a good defensive attack. Good to turn it. I don't think the people are willing to face, you know, a deadly obstacle to get there just for the sake of cheap college credit. Right. Right. I mean, they got to also be there for like the Chuck Norris printouts. Is that still a thing? Remember? No. No. No. In my head, in my head, the don't mess with Texas and Chuck Norris, they're like wet together. Well, he, he was the star of Texas walker ranger. Yeah. Yeah. So like, you know, there's a reason why he's associated with Texas, I think that's the reason. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that was not the only noteworthy case that Judge Ho got to the news with last week. The abortion pill case came up through the fifth circuit. You'll remember Judge Heismaric, who was the district court judge who ruled terrible things that for the access to the abortion pill. And the majority, it's a three-judge panel. This is not an unbanked situation. This is just, you know, Judge Ho is just placed on it. All three judges were actually Republican appointees. The two in the majority said that the whether or not the FDA's approval of the drug was not under a question, but did institute a bunch of restrictions on access to it that the FDA more recently had loosened sort of restriction your ability to get prescriptions online over the mail, that kind of stuff. They got rid of all those sort of loosening of restrictions on the drug, but did not touch the judge, the drugs approval. And side note is none of these, none of this is actually put in action until the supreme, until it is potentially going to be appealed to the Supreme Court because of a lower court decision, because it had already been appealed and it stayed at its current state until it is fully briefed to the Supreme Court. Now, assuming if it went and if it is going to be going to the Supreme Court, but the point is that Judge Ho's dissent was attention grabbing, I think is mild way to put it. He would do away with the approval of the drug entirety, despite the fact that it has been on the market safely for decades, decades, saying that some doctors have a aesthetic injury, have standing to sue over the approval of the abortion drug because of the aesthetic injury to some doctors because some doctors like seeing the pictures of the unborn babies and like that their patients have them. So he would recognize that as an injury. He bars the concept of aesthetic injury from environmental law, kind of as a nanny, nanny boo boo to the liberals, we're like, well, you care about the environment. So now I'm going to apply this environmental law concept to women's bodies because those are the exact same thing, saying that doctors should be able to sue because they would be sad. They'd be sad if their patients got an abortion. That is not really what people mean when they're talking about standing, though, is it? Nah, no. And the unfortunate thing is right now we're at a point where this is like, painly, patently ridiculous. But my worry is that if judges keep making dumb arguments like this, at what point will they catch on? Yeah. I'm going to be honest. It pushes the over 10 window, right? Yeah. Because every far, far right thing pushes the window of what we consider the middle further to the right. And there's not really a counter left wing force putting out further and further left wing ideas. If anything, I think the left has been pushing itself towards the middle, which again pushes the over 10 window only in one direction towards the right, which I think is incredibly problematic. Yeah. It's a really, it's a terrible kind of decision. And then shortly after that came out, the lever did some reporting about Judge Ho's wife, Alison Ho, she's a partner at Gibson Dunn, well-respected appellate attorney, who's received a bunch of money and honor rares and works with occasionally the Alliance Defending Freedom, which coincidentally enough were lead counsel. They were lead counsel on the exact same case that James had made a bunch of headlines on for ruling in the plane to having an aggressively right wing ruling. James Ho said that he's not violated any ethics rules and it's not clear that the amount of money that she received and it being honor rares, et cetera, would have tripped ethics rules. But it is pretty clear that the mere appearance of impropriety is not really a standard anyone's. Anyone thinks we should be held to judge us to be held to anywhere. Yeah. At this point, we need to call it pulling a clearance. Like when you roll on something, you know your wife's involved with it. Yeah. It's very, very clear that this is, this is from the, the Thomas playbook, both Ginny and Clarence Thomas. And I think that, you know, this goes to your point kind of about the overtune window, once these ideas, once they're out there and there's no punishment for them, there's no, there's no sense of, oh, you can't continue to do this or there will be consequences. More people feel like, hey, it's not a big deal. I will also note that Judge Hose said that his wife's practice is to donate the honor rares. And because she's a partner at a big law firm, she doesn't need the thousands of dollars. I'm sure that she's getting on for these speaking engagements. But she then donates it to charity, not did not specify which charities. And I will note that the Alliance Defending Freedom is a, is a 503C nonprofit. So question mark where that money actually winds up. WorkersComp Matters is a podcast dedicated to exploring the laws, the landmark cases, and the true stories that define our workers compensation system. I'm Jud Pierce, and together with Alan Pierce, we host a different guest each month as we bring to life this diverse area of the law. Join us on WorkersComp Matters on the Legal Talk Network. Are you looking for a podcast that was created for new solos? Then join me, Adriana Lineris, each month on the new solo podcast. We talk to lawyers who have built their own successful practices and share their insights to help you grow yours. You can find new solo on the Legal Talk Network or anywhere you get your podcasts. Well, we started the last segment talking about Texas. And we have another story about the Republic of Texas, shall we say? And on our saws, question mark. Well, you know, and are they water saws? Are they defense against Mexico declaring war? You know, right? I think the way that the Texas lawmakers are framing it was like, this is a war effort. Like they were like, this is an invasion that they were trying to put it into. So what the Texas lawyers, what the lawmakers did was they put these bullies up to try to fight the people illegally immigrating into Texas or whatever, but they had rotating buzz saws on them. That sounds bad. It sounds bad, but also the cartoon villain. Yeah. Like I'm expecting it to be like a wily coyote colab, but no, this is apparently a real thing. And as to be expected, the federal government was like, you can't do that. And that's where Texas got into the, you know, the legal arguments of justifying why they're, you know, killing people. Killing people without due process. Let's be clear, this is not a death penalty argument here. This is, this is just murder. Yeah, and so the federal government does their part and they try to, you know, say that they have the authority to regulate what Texas is doing with the waters. Because they do, according to federal law, and Texas comes up with a bunk argument that, oh, these waters aren't navigable because there are times when they're not able to have boats across them. And if you really think about it, the whole world wasn't navigable at one point because of Noah's Ark, who in God flooded the land. And it's like, wait, that is that is an interpretation. Yeah, this is something you see in Betty Tails, not in a courtroom, right? And my take on it is, yes, this is a horrible human tragedy. Like people are being killed over this. But looking at it legally, I think that this is the shows like how far we've slid and we've, we've, we've slid and it's slid in the word slid. I think just slid. Yeah, well, I might as well don't have a fast thing full acid. It shows how much we've slidified when it comes to establishment calls during this prudence. Why is the government citing genesis, you know? Even if it was Leviticus, this shouldn't be something that lawmakers are citing to justify why they're taking the policy action that they're taking. Yeah, it does seem like the government's not supposed to be quoting the Bible to justify murdering people. And like over to Wendell, like if this conversation was happening like 2000, it'd be like, duh, but now with, what is it? Bremerton was the, was the case I started off the, that was the case with the coach praying at the 50 art line, right? Oh, yeah. So from last term. Right. And then there were speaking of term, there were a bunch of states that were passing abortion laws and they were like part of talking about how God is given even fetuses, enable right to life and their opposition to abortion being legal. So like we're starting to see with increasing frequency religious texts being used, justification for laws that apply to everybody, regardless of their religious behavior, religious leanings or none thereof. And that's worrisome. Yeah. Hey, Guy, what's up? Just having some lunch, Conrad. Hey, Guy, do you see that billboard out there? Oh, even that guy out there in the gray suit? Yeah, the gray suit guy. There's all those beautiful rich leather bound books in the background. That is exactly the one. That's JD McGuffin at law. He'll fight for you. I bet you he has got so many years of experience like decades and decades. And I bet Guy, I bet he even went to a law school. Are you a lawyer? Do you suffer from dull marketing and a lack of positioning in a crowded legal marketplace? Sit down with Guy and Conrad for lunch hour legal marketing on the Legal Talk Network, available wherever podcasts are found. If you're a lawyer running a solo or small firm and you're looking for other lawyers to talk through issues you're currently facing in your practice, join the Unbillable Hours Community Roundtable, a free virtual event on the third Thursday of every month. Lawyers from all over the country come together and meet with me, lawyer and law firm management consultant, Christopher T. Anderson, to discuss best practices on topics such as marketing, client acquisition, hiring and firing and time management. The conversation is free to join but requires a simple reservation. The link to RSVP can be found on the Unbillable Hour page at legaltalknetwork.com. We'll see you there. Okay, we're back and we mentioned our colleague, Joe Patrice, is at a legal tech conference, Ilta Khan, which actually is in Disney World this year. He's, I think, staying at the, I don't know, one of the hotels on property and everything is being run out of the dolphin and the yacht club hotel, which is ironic, well, not ironic. This fitting, let's say it's fitting, since we're about to talk about a couple of stories about Disney. Ron DeSantis is a fatwa against Disney. He's been in the news yet again. He will remember, he's, he got his panties in a bunch because Disney put out some lukewarm response to the governor's, don't say gay bill. And in response, the governor's tried to basically take over the Reedy Creek, which is the district, the kind of district surrounding Disney World that they had bored around that kind of, that controlled the long-term planning for the area in Orlando, where Disney is, and had tried to take it over. But, you know, didn't do a great job. I mean, listen, Ron DeSantis is a Harvard Law educated guy, but I'm not sure the details are really his forte. Disney had done a bunch of kind of negotiating behind the scenes and was able to strip power of the board that DeSantis was about to take over and had to publish public notice of said move, which DeSantis and his allies just ignored or didn't know about or whatever, puts another fighting in court. And DeSantis's legal case against Disney appears very much to be going in one direction. And, you know, if you want to bet on a mouse, this is your time to do it. It doesn't look, his legal arguments don't look great. And they look, they look so not great. In fact, that he has come out in the media and said that he's moved on. Not like he's dismissing a case or trying to negotiate a settlement or something like that. He's just, you know, emotionally, he's moved on. He's over it. It's apparently not a winning issue on the campaign trail. So he's over it. So he's asked Disney in statements, not in legal filings, don't worry, but just in public statements to get over it too. Also, for all the lawyers listening, do not ever use that for one of your clients, like over over the, we're over the organization, you know, it's whatever. That was like last week over it. But that wasn't sort of the end of the Redie Creek disaster for the governor of Florida. It also came out that one of the members, one of his kind of cronies that he had installed on the new board of the Redie Creek development district can't actually serve on said Redie Creek development district. He's a publicly elected or a public official. He has another job. And you can't hold to public offices at the same time. Oopsie. Oopsie. So, you know, he's not supposed to, he's not supposed to be on the board, but there he is on the board. If you're going to attack Disney, do your homework. It's just shame. I'm feeling like third party regretting. I know I'm not involved with it, but I feel like if my name was involved with this, I'd at least want to do a quick Google search to see who's involved and if they can be involved. Yeah. And to be more specific, the actual guy, he's actually charged with running the ethics commission for the state and the tax. And there's actually state law that prohibits public employees, which he would be when he is on Redie Creek from serving on the ethics commission. So he can't to do both of those jobs at the same time. So there's a real problem there. And of course, it's ethics related because, you know, hello. And it's just, it's remarkable. I think more to the point that you are making that, you know, do your homework before you go, if you go for, if you come for the king, you best not miss, right? Right. And Disney has a lot of money, you know, I don't know why this is not obvious that, you know, you can't just, Disney's not some sort of, you know, kicking post that you can just throw up headlines about and try to mess with and not expect them sort of legal retaliation. And not even retaliation, just response. It's just a response. They're just trying to protect the rights that they believe that they are owed under existing contracts and existing, you know, law. I think that they're entitled to defend themselves. And, you know, I think that in terms of court or public opinion, I think Disney pretty much has the right of it. And, you know, who doesn't love, who doesn't love them a Disney princess at the end of the day? Right. And not only are they very good at what they do, one thing we cannot forget, Disney is petty. Like, like abnormally petty. Like if some three-year-old somehow figures out how to upload a video to YouTube and it's a small world after all is playing, there will be a team of lawyers when that kid's ass, like no hesitation, like they don't stop. Vigorously defend their legal rights. I think that is a fair way to say it. Yeah. There was a point where they were protested. And I think the police officers, because they didn't want to be recorded, started playing copyrighted Disney music. Like they don't stop just because you think you're done for the thing. Yeah, they're not stopping until what Disney comes back. Yeah. Until he's defrosted from deep praise. Yeah. And the other thing of it is just what a freaking terrible PR move, right? It's not from a position of strength that anyone says, I'm over it when they're talking about a legal fight that they started. This is not portray a position of strength, but you know, I guess DeSantis's used to not operating from a position of strength, seeing as he's been running a quite distant second in polls to the quadrupley indicted former president Donald Trump. I feel like once you get past being indicted a second time, it actually just becomes impressive. It's like watching a reality TV show. It's like, will he hit Quinn Tuple? You know, I think we might have hit the end of the number of indictments, but it is fantastic to watch. I will note there was some other quick little story we did or did speak as well about DeSantis and Trump saying there's one other way that Ron DeSantis is beating. There's one way, at least, that Ron DeSantis is beating Donald Trump. It's not just the number of indictments currently against him. Ron DeSantis has more lawyers donating to his political campaign than Donald Trump. I guess a shout out to Cervat. Cervat, first of all. Listen, if you're donating to that guy, if you're donating to that guy, I'm saying your name wrong. I know how to say. It's actually Sullivan and Cromwell is the number one firm. This is not the firm itself. This is not like the firm writing a check. This is lawyers who work, happen to work for various big law firms or law firms or lawyers in general, but Sullivan Cromwell is actually the number one individual contributor amongst lawyers to two DeSantis's campaigns. That is noteworthy as well. It's mostly SNC lawyers who are big fans of Ron DeSantis. Shows out the cram well then. All right. Well, I think that that kind of wraps up our stories for the week. Do you have anything, Chris, before I start telling people where to find us? It sounds like a threat. No, I'm okay. Dude, that was a more position of strength. I respect it. I respect it. You know, take notes for Harvard graduates. Yeah. Time is ticking. And you can find these stories and so much more at abovethelaw.com. You can reach out to us on social media, on most things at ATL blog is that Twitter slash X, et cetera, et cetera, all the new platforms that are coming up at ATLs on it at atlblog.com. I'm a generally available at Catherine one. You're at writes for rent. You should check out the other podcasts on the legal talk network. You should check out my other podcast, the Jebeau about issues of diversity in the law. And Joe does a legal tech writers roundup, weekly roundup that he's very, very proud of. So, you know, there's that. And I think that's all things you have to say this week. Peace. If you're a lawyer running a solo or small firm and you're looking for other lawyers to talk through issues you're currently facing in your practice, join the Unbillable Hours Community Roundtable, a free virtual event on the third Thursday of every month. Lawyers from all over the country come together and meet with me, lawyer and law firm management consultant, Christopher T. Anderson, to discuss best practices on topics such as marketing, client acquisition, hiring and firing and time management. The conversation is free to join, but requires a simple reservation. The link to RSVP can be found on the Unbillable Hour page at legaltalknetwork.com. We'll see you there.