In this week's edition of "How Appealing Weekly Roundup," we delve into a series of thought-provoking articles and essays that shine a light on various facets of appellate litigation and legal norms. Whether you're a law professional or a keen follower of legal developments, this roundup, curated from Howard Bashman’s pioneering How Appealing blog, offers critical insights into recent legal controversies and discussions.

Trump Administration’s Legal Controversies Take Center Stage

First up, a piece by Jack Goldsmith at the "Executive Functions" Substack site discusses the Trump administration’s subpoenas of New York Times reporters, highlighting the ongoing tension between law enforcement and journalistic norms. The piece, titled “The Trump Administration’s Portentous Subpoenas of NYT Reporters; Law v. norms, once more,” explores the implications of these legal actions in the broader context of media freedom and government transparency.

Insights into Trump’s DOJ from Barbara McQuade

In an incisive essay on Bloomberg Opinion, law professor Barbara McQuade provides an insider's perspective on Trump's Department of Justice in her piece, “‘I’m His Lawyer’: Blanche Told the Truth About Trump’s DOJ.” McQuade’s analysis offers a critical examination of the statements made during recent hearings and what they reveal about the inner workings of the DOJ under Trump's administration.

Ongoing Legal Battles Over Trump’s Financial Audits

Arthur Delaney and Jennifer Bendery of HuffPost report on a significant judicial decision affecting former President Trump in “Despite Judge’s Smackdown, Trump Plans To Keep Deal Killing Tax Audits.” The article discusses how Trump could potentially save millions due to an order from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, which prevents the government from collecting taxes Trump might owe.

Supreme Court’s Influence on Lower Courts

Steve Vladeck’s contribution to the Harvard Law Review, featured in his "One First" Substack, discusses a critical shift in the judicial landscape in “Bonus 238: The Court Against the Courts.” Vladeck argues that the Supreme Court is increasingly undermining the authority of district courts, centralizing judicial power.

Controversy Surrounding Todd Blanche’s Decisions

Madiba K. Dennie’s essay at Balls and Strikes, “Todd Blanche: The January 6 Slush Fund I Approved Is Not My Fault,” addresses another controversy involving Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Dennie explores Blanche's backtracking on his approval of a controversial $1.8 billion fund, highlighting the complexities and political maneuvering within Trump’s circle.

Debate on Originalism in the Supreme Court

Lastly, Linda Greenhouse discusses the contentious judicial philosophy of originalism in her New York Times guest essay, “When Originalism Jumped the Shark.” Greenhouse critiques recent Supreme Court decisions, suggesting that originalism may have reached a turning point in its application.

For more in-depth discussions and updates on appellate litigation, visit How Appealing. This roundup merely scratches the surface of the myriad legal issues and developments covered in the blog, providing a gateway to the complex world of law and justice.