In a week that seemed ripped from the pages of a surreal legal drama, the U.S. legal landscape was dotted with eyebrow-raising stories ranging from constitutional oversights to technological blunders, capped off with a touch of Halloween spirit.

At the forefront was a startling moment during a DOJ oral argument, where attorneys casually assumed a potential third term for former President Donald Trump, blatantly disregarding the 22nd Amendment which limits presidents to two terms. This constitutional faux pas not only raised legal eyebrows but also sparked a fierce online debate about the implications and understanding of constitutional law among government attorneys.

Meanwhile, the legal community was left both amused and concerned as a prestigious Biglaw firm faced profound embarrassment. In an unexpected twist of legal documentation, their court filing was riddled with what are being referred to as "AI hallucinations," errors caused by over-reliance on artificial intelligence in drafting documents. This incident has ignited a conversation about the growing dependence on technology in legal practices and the potential pitfalls of substituting human oversight with AI.

Adding a lighter note to the week, a Southern District of New York judge declared costumes optional for a Friday hearing, injecting a Halloween flavor into the courtroom. This unusual judicial decree provided some comic relief against the backdrop of more serious legal discussions.

On a more somber note, a federal judge felt compelled to explicitly remind Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents not to use tear gas on children in costumes. This directive came amid concerns around the enforcement agency's tactics during community events, highlighting ongoing tensions and the delicate balance between law enforcement and civil liberties.

The entertainment world also had its share of legal drama, with the latest episode of 'Dateline' delving deep into the conspiracy case involving Donna Adelson in the murder of Dan Markel. The program provided a gripping look at the intricate web of deceit and plotting that led to the tragic demise of the respected legal academic, captivating viewers with its thorough investigative journalism.

As these stories unfold, they underscore the complex, sometimes chaotic nature of law and order, blending serious constitutional debates with the quirks of cultural festivities. Each narrative thread, whether it concerns the integrity of legal procedures or the integration of technology in law practices, weaves a broader story of a week that was anything but ordinary in the legal world.