Sunshine Fest shines in D.C. despite gloomy climate

Last week I attended Sunshine Fest in Washington, D.C., a conference celebrating the 20th anniversary of Sunshine Week, which recognizes the importance in a free society of the freedom of information (FOI), also known elsewhere in the world as access to information (ATI) or right to information (RTI).

The extraordinary event was a coalition effort with David Cuillier, director of The Freedom of Information Project, Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment, at the University of Florida, at the helm. The conference met at the recently renovated Johns Hopkins University property on Pennsylvania Avenue—fittingly, the former physical home of the Newseum, which closed in 2019. As the National Freedom of Information Coalition has had annual conferences online since the pandemic, the in-person Sunshine Fest was a welcome opportunity to renew old acquaintances and make new ones.

Yet Sunshine Fest came at an odd time, amid the sudden, deep, and arbitrary cuts to the federal workforce. The Chatham House Rule was in force at the transparency conference. In the run-up to the event, Cuillier in an email to participants acknowledged the irony.

Some persons with official capacities related to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) participated in the conference, but only in their personal capacities. Certainly there was a sense that FOIA is not something a federal worker can afford to add to the résumé in the present climate. It was a strange feeling to gather with people talking about open government, yet speaking in hushed tones and looking over their shoulders. That has been my experience in many places in the world, but never before in Washington, D.C.

Some recently terminated federal officials attended too, such as Bobby Talebian, who, until recently, was the head of the Office of Information Policy in the Department of Justice. In my experience, Talebian was known for cutting through the bureaucracy. So it's hard to see how his departure facilitates efficiency.

The same might be said of the termination of the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee in the General Services Administration. It's hard to see how shutting down an advisory committee on transparency, which enlists the labor of private volunteers in public work, strikes a blow for efficiency rather than a blow to accountability. (See more at my March 7 post on the FOIA Federal Advisory Committee.)

Sunshine Fest was a success substantively as well as logistically. Speakers from all sectors participated in breakout sessions on artificial intelligence, FOIA and politics, vexatious requests, Trump and populism, privacy and transparency, and FOIA enforcement. Participants included requesters and custodians, industry and journalists, and persons working with FOI at state and federal levels and in legal systems in other countries.

David Cuillier, at lectern, opens Sunshine Fest 2025. The opening

plenary included Alasdair Roberts and Toby Mendel, from left.

RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

In an opening session moderated by UMass Amherst Professor Alasdair S. Roberts, who had joined my international law class the day before, Toby Mendel, of the Canadian Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), formerly with Article 19, gave a concerning report on the state of RTI laws around the world.

In particular, systems in Mexico and India, formerly regarded as exemplary models, have come under attack by populist regimes. The highly regarded independent oversight board in Mexico was terminated the very day of Sunshine Fest, and the Indian system was under "serious attack," Mendel said—though the Narendra Modi administration had to back off somewhat since the last election.

Mendel said that of the 56 U.N. member states that do not have RTI laws, 30 are "extremely weak" democracies, 17 are countries with fewer than one million inhabitants, and nine are "outliers."

Yet Mendel insisted that the glass is half full, or, he said, that is how he chooses to see it. Sri Lanka, he said, now has one of the strongest RTI frameworks in the world. RTI officials there have prevailed in 24 of 25 challenges to their enforcement authority. CLD is working with UNESCO to promote RTI in small island developing states, and Fiji has a proposal on the table in its legislature. Anecdotal evidence indicates "we're on an even keel," Mendel said, despite alarming developments in the United States.

Sunshine Fest announced the creation of a "Sunshine United Network" to marshal information about transparency going forward. Expect Sunshine Week and the Brechner FOI Project to publish further findings and takeaways from Sunshine Fest soon.

Court's pass on Wynn bid to revisit 'actual malice' makes sense, but standard still fuels misinformation

Wynn operates the Encore Casino in Everett, Mass.,
since a dust-up with authorities over ownership.
Holiday Point via Flickr CC BY 2.0

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear casino mogul Steve Wynn's bid to overturn the New York Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard, despite the known appetite of some justices to revisit the 1964 precedent.

The outcome is not a surprise and probably for the best, because Wynn had lousy facts to support his argument. Unfortunately, Sullivan's complicity in our present misinformation crisis remains real and ever more problematic. Cases such as Wynn's undermine legitimate recognition of the dysfunction Sullivan has wrought.

I've written and spoken before, and will not here belabor, my ardent opposition to the Sullivan standard, which requires public figures to demonstrate, even prove—usually upon filing a complaint, with no access to evidence in the possession of the defense—that the defendant subjectively knew of the falsity of the publication, or at least that there's a smoking gun disproving the defendant's denial.

Sullivan came about with good intentions. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court was determined to enforce Brown v. Board (U.S. 1954) and bring about the civil rights order required by the Reconstruction Amendments, specifically in Sullivan by heading off southern officials' weaponization of tort law. But the wide berth that the Court cut for freedom of speech vis-à-vis the competing values of personal reputation and human dignity was cemented in constitutional law, and now we face the consequences of an irremediable imbalance.

Steve Wynn
Sarah Gerke via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In Wynn's case, defendant Associated Press surfaced two complaints of sexual assault filed with police against Wynn in the 1970s. The reporting occurred in the context of contemporary allegations of a pattern of misconduct, which Wynn roundly denies. The AP report probably falls within the common law "fair report" privilege, which shields from liability the re-publisher of allegations in official documents. The advanced age of the reports raises a thin question on the "fair" prong of the analysis, and the degree to which the privilege has been constitutionalized is debatable. But those issues are neither here nor there, for the courts in the Nevada lawsuit never got that far.

Wynn's suit was dismissed under the Nevada anti-SLAPP law because, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, Wynn failed to demonstrate sufficient proof of actual malice in his pleading. Wynn offered little more in the way of allegation than that the police complaints were "implausible," so should have been disbelieved—hardly that they were contradicted by evidence in the defendant's possession. There was an allegation that the AP reporter regarded a complainant against Wynn as "'crazy'"—but, again, that hardly equates to "lying." Anyway, were the fair report privilege eventually implicated, the salient fact would be the truthful rendition of the reports, not the truth of their underlying contents.

Besides bemoaning Sullivan, I have lamented at length on the ill wisdom of anti-SLAPP laws, such as they have been adopted throughout the United States, another song of woe I won't here reiterate. I also have acknowledged consistently that anti-SLAPP works well when it works well (and could work better). Wynn's case proves both points. He didn't get his day in court, nor hardly a hearing. But I suspect his ability to prosecute all the way to Washington has more to do with his wealth than with the merits of his claim.

Wynn's appeal strategy was principally to attack Sullivan head on. Wynn knows, or his lawyers know, that near immunity for false, even ludicrous, allegations against public figures has everything to do with the vigor of misinformation circulating in the American marketplace of ideas. But Wynn was ill able to illustrate an injustice against a meritorious cause, the kind of fertile soil one needs to nurture willingness to overturn a 60-year-old, civil rights-era precedent.

For some further context of judicial dissatisfaction with Sullivan, here's an excerpt from my 2 Tortz: A Study of American Tort Law (Lulu 2024 rev. ed.), on "Reconsidering Sullivan."

Doubts about sacrosanct Sullivan were once uttered at one’s own risk in legal academic circles. But U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas legitimized debate with a concurrence in denial of certiorari in McKee v. Cosby (U.S. 2019). An actress, McKee, in 2014, publicly accused actor-comedian Bill Cosby of rape 40 years earlier. A letter from Cosby’s attorney to mass media attacked McKee’s credibility, but did not specifically deny the asserted facts of the encounter. McKee alleged defamation, and the courts concluded that the letter stated only unverifiable opinion.

Media advocates certainly hoped that Thomas’s commentary was a one-off. It was not. Two years later, Justices Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson (U.S. 2021).... Earlier the same year, highly regarded U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman had joined Thomas’s call, dissenting in Tah v. Global Witness Publishing (D.C. Cir. 2021) (involving accusation of bribery against international human rights organization). A likeminded concurrence by Florida appellate Judge Bradford L. Thomas followed in Mastandrea v. Snow (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022) (involving accusation city official was “on the take” in development matter). And that same year, the Journal of Free Speech Law published Professor David McGowan’s A Bipartisan Case Against New York Times v. Sullivan (2022). Justice Thomas reiterated his “view that we should reconsider the actual-malice standard,” Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC (U.S. 2023) (Thomas, J., concurring in denial of certiorari), thrice more in 2022 and 2023.

Mass-media misinformation during the Donald J. Trump Presidency, contributing to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, shook the confidence in Sullivan even of some devoted liberal stalwarts in the academy. On the one hand, President Trump had used defamation, among other legal tools, to attack critics. He was accused of weaponizing transaction costs, but Sullivan remained an important substantive bulwark. On the other hand, Trump evaded “Me Too” accountability not only with denials, like Cosby, but with ruthless accusations of lying, which loyal political supporters embraced and amplified.

The busy federal court for the Southern District of New York has seen its share of politically charged defamation litigation. That’s where writer E. Jeanne Carroll, availing of a New York look-back statute, brought two suits against President Trump, alleging sexual battery in the 1990s and defamation for calling her claims “a complete con job,” “a hoax” and “a lie.” Juries awarded Carroll in excess of $80 million for sexual battery and defamation, despite the actual malice standard. Trump appealed. Do the verdicts show that Sullivan works? In 2022, Sarah Palin lost a defamation claim in S.D.N.Y. against The New York Times over a staff editorial that blamed her in part for the mass shooting that wounded U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords. Exceptionally against the usual no-actual-malice motion to dismiss, Palin had won discovery. And discovery revealed some ethically problematic sloppiness behind the scenes at the Times. Nevertheless, bad journalism is not actual malice, and the court and jury so concluded. Palin’s appeal from the Second Circuit was seen widely as a contender to draw Sullivan reconsideration, but the Court passed.

Whether a function of social media, declining civility, or partisan extremism, data show that defamation litigation is up. And courts are not as quick as they once were to dismiss for a plaintiff’s inability to prove actual malice. Still, the public-plaintiff win remains a rarity, especially for the public official or public figure who doesn’t have the resources to go to the mat.

The case is Wynn v. Associated Press, No. 24-829 (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025).

House cap of 435 is unconstitutional, prof argues

My colleague Professor Anoo Vyas has published Why Capping the House at 435 is Unconstitutional in the Penn State Law Review.

Here is the abstract.

Expanding the House of Representatives could offer several benefits, as noted by various public policy experts. It could make gerrymandering more difficult and mitigate the impact of money in our political system. Additionally, it could lessen political polarization, which some scholars argue has reached levels that threaten the long-term viability of our democracy. In fact, increasing the size of the House theoretically could impact all potential legislation at the federal level.

Congress fixed the House at 435 members nearly a century ago when it passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Though the population of the country subsequently has increased by more than 200 million, the number of House delegates remains at 435. This Article argues that the Permanent Apportionment Act is unconstitutional because it eliminates Congress’ responsibility to assess the size of the House every ten years. This review of House size in connection with the census was a significant tool used by proponents of the Constitution during the ratification period to convince skeptics who feared the House may one day transform into an oligarchical body.

Prof. Anoo Vyas
UMass Law

The Permanent Apportionment Act violates various modes of originalism and textualism, as favored by more conservative jurists. Moreover, it runs afoul of living constitutionalism, espoused by more liberal judges. Finally, a formula, such as one that automatically adjusts House size to the cube root of the population, could avoid contentious fights while simultaneously passing constitutional muster.

As I discussed with Professor Vyas in the development of his work, I believe his thesis is important regardless of whether it precipitates an accordant Supreme Court ruling anytime soon. The impact the article can and should have is to spark serious consideration of the dysfunction of our Congress and why it has failed as an institution to meet the needs of voters. Look no farther than U.S. Rep. Mike Flood's (R-Neb.) disastrous town hall.

In fact, when Professor Alasdair Roberts lectured at the law school last week about deficiencies in the design of American government—I wrote about Roberts's lecture yesterday—Roberts specifically listed the small size of Congress, relative to the legislatures of the world's comparably large and complex polities, as a cause of our defective democracy.

Roberts explains 'real crisis' of American government

Flyer by RJ Peltz-Steele (with AI art) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

At UMass Law last week, Alasdair S. Roberts, UMass Amherst professor of public policy, lectured on "The Real Crisis of American Government" and spoke to my international law class about his 2023 book, Superstates: Empires of the 21st Century.

In research for his next book, Professor Roberts is investigating deficiencies in the design of American government and how they might be remedied. The work follows naturally after Roberts's most recent book, The Adaptable Country: How Canada Can Survive the Twenty-First Century (2024), as the author turns his scrutiny to the United States. 

The subject could not have been more timely with the dramatic and controversial changes afoot in the federal government. Here was the teaser for the talk:

The United States isn’t facing a crisis of democracy. It’s facing a crisis of adaptability: the inability to adjust institutions to meet today’s challenges.

Prof. Alasdair S. Roberts
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

I don't want to steal Professor Roberts's thunder; his ideas will be more fully developed as the research unfolds. I will summarize two prongs of his presentation this way:

First, as Roberts put it, if one were to design a government for a polity as socially pluralistic, geographically vast, and ideologically diverse as America is today, it would not look like the system of the U.S. Constitution. The delta between what we have and the ideal is the root of our problems, which span the three branches of government.

Second, fixing things won't be easy or fast, even after, and if, we acknowledge our problems. The drifts of dysfunction have accumulated for more than a century at both federal and state levels, and it will take just as long to reverse adverse trends and to re-revolutionize—one hopes bloodlessly—American government.

Problems wrought by the unanticipated contemporary complexity of the American nation were precisely where Professor Roberts left off in Superstates, in which he pondered the expansiveness, population, diversity, and complexity, unprecedented in the history of human civilization, of the United States, European Union, China, and India. Roberts talked to my international law class about how these modern polities are and are not like extinct historical empires, and what that means for our species in an era of existential challenges such as climate change. 

Superstates has been one of my favorite nonfiction books since I read it two years ago, when Professor Roberts visited my freedom-of-information seminar. Re-reading its first chapter last week, I found it only more salient to rapidly evolving international relations.

Professor Roberts's school-wide lecture was well attended in large thanks to sponsorship by student organizations, the Federalist Society, the Law and Political Economy Society, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Veterans Law Association, for which I am faculty adviser; and by the public interest law program and the Office of the Dean, which provided pizza. I am grateful to Professor Roberts for visiting campus and to all the students, faculty, and deans who supported his visit.

Christian law students hear advice on grounding oneself in faith amid stresses of law practice

🍀 St. Patrick's Day Zoom.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

The newly constituted student Christian Legal Society at UMass Law School held its first event on St. Patrick's Day.

In a hybrid meeting, "Faith and the Legal Field," CLS students in Dartmouth, Mass., and I were joined via Zoom by Anton Sorkin, director of law student ministries at the Christian Legal Society in Springfield, Va.; attorney J.A.A. Purves, Penner & Purves, Santa Barbara, Cal.; and Kathy Cooper, InterVarsity regional director for faculty and graduate ministries, working out of Brown University in Providence, R.I.

The new student organization and this panel in particular were the work product of the tireless Tiffany Trott-McKenna and her executive board, Sophia Chiotis, JuliaBianca Josen, Dream Whitaker, and Paul Steinman. They're all wonderful students whom soon I will miss when they graduate and begin law practice.

A veteran of the U.S. Marines, Trott-McKenna is a phenom I have been especially privileged to know in her time in law school. She serves also as president of the Black Law Students Association and member of the Veterans Law Association, and she will practice law in California after graduation.

Trott-McKenna asked the panelists to share their experiences with faith and law practice, and also asked for takeaways that might be useful as Christian law students transition to practice.

Purves talked about family practice and explained, for example, the distinctly professional role of the lawyer in a divorce case. Both faith and one's professional responsibility call for compassionate and informed counseling of a client seeking divorce, he said—even though marital reconciliation will spell the early end of the representation.

Sorkin spoke to the challenges of practicing in Big Law while maintaining ethical and moral lines, dictated by faith, that one won't cross. Constant vigilance and self-interrogation are required to resist the "win at any cost" mentality that too often dictates legal maneuvering. I'm reminded of Daniel 6:3.

For my part, I spoke of the temptation to bifurcate one's life into faith and secular work, and how I came to understand that no one, lawyers included, truly lives a life of faith while indulging that duplicity.

In takeaways, Cooper spoke to the importance of prayer to keep an even keel. Likewise, I talked about the importance of staying in the Word—while admitting that my track record isn't perfect, as daily struggles inevitably pull us all toward materialism and the secular. The important thing is to try, try again.

Trott-McKenna succeeded magnificently in navigating the bureaucracy to obtain official recognition of the CLS student group at the law school and in the university. I have been blessed to serve as the inaugural faculty adviser for the CLS group.

The group is not yet an official chapter of the national CLS organization. That will be a job for an up and coming new board. I look forward to CLS contributing vitally to the formation of law students' professional identity in the coming years.

Book details knotty business of higher ed counsel

By attorney Louis H. Guard and academic Joyce P. Jacobsen, All the Campus Lawyers (2024) is a compelling recent read for anyone interested in the law of higher education—whether as a counselor, as a client, or as a victim of higher ed machinations. I've been all three.

Guard and Jacobsen both are affiliated with Hobart and William Smith Colleges—a beautiful double campus I visited just last summer, perched atop Seneca Lake in Geneva, New York, in the Finger Lakes region. Guard is a general counsel there, and Jacobsen a past president and economics professor.

All the Campus Lawyers thoroughly covers the many facets of higher ed practice nowadays, from civil rights and labor, to intellectual property, contracting, and cybersecurity. It is a lot to see it all in one place. At an overarching level of abstraction, the book—which is subtitled, "Litigation, Regulation, and the New Era of Higher Education"—ponders how and why law has become pervasive, and sometimes paralyzing, of higher ed. 

To my reading, Guard and Jacobsen are careful to avoid a normative agenda, and rather strive to be descriptive, instructive, and sometimes even inspiring. But I came away with an uneasy feeling in the belly that law, at least in practice, has a stranglehold on the free-wheeling nature of academic inquiry that classical-liberal society associates with the "quintessential marketplace of ideas." 

If higher ed is just a business—and maybe it always was—law, from the perspective of university counsel, seems to be part of the problem: supporting the business framing with defensive practice and risk aversion, and prizing the institution over the people who constitute it and whom it serves. No doubt my perception is colored by experience.

I stop by the Geneva, N.Y., Welcome Center in July 2024.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Another impression I had of the book was that it is siloed, tending to view the mission creep of law in the higher ed sector to the exclusion of the same phenomenon across American life. Indeed, what business, what person does not need a lawyer to navigate the world today, even if ordinary people have to manage without, usually to their detriment. I'm not sure the problem of law in higher ed can be examined exclusively of "the legalization of American society" (meaning ubiquity of law, not blessing of lawfulness).

Furthermore, there is, to my mind and at one level, a rather simple explanation for law's infiltration of higher ed. With a hat tip to Lincoln Steffens and Clark Mollenhoff: Follow the money. The relevant question might not be why law has become pervasive in higher ed, but why higher ed has become big business rather than collective good or philanthropy. Guard and Jacobsen are too ready to take that twist of mission for granted.

Despite my nitpicks, Campus Lawyers is a worthwhile read for a fuller understanding of the relationship between law and higher ed, and especially for insight into the modus operandi of university counsel.

Here is the publisher's description:

Not so long ago, colleges and universities had little interaction with the law. In the 1970s, only a few well-heeled universities even employed in-house legal counsel. But now we live in the age of tenure-denial lawsuits, free speech battles, and campus sexual assault investigations. Even athletics rules violations have become a serious legal matter. The pressures of regulation, litigation, and legislation, Louis Guard and Joyce Jacobsen write, have fostered a new era in higher education, and institutions must know how to respond.

For many higher education observers and participants, including most administrators and faculty, the maze of legal mandates and potential risks can seem bewildering. Guard, a general counsel with years of higher education law experience, and Jacobsen, a former college president, map this unfamiliar terrain. All the Campus Lawyers provides a vital, up-to-date assessment of the impact of legal concerns on higher education and helps readers make sense of the most pressing trends and issues, including civil rights; free speech and expression; student life and wellness; admissions, advancement, and community relations; governance and oversight; the higher education business model; and on-campus crises, from cyberattacks to pandemics.

As well as informing about the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting higher education, Guard and Jacobsen offer practical guidance to those in positions of campus authority. There has never been a more crucial time for college and university boards, presidents, inside and outside counsel, and other higher education leaders to know the law and prepare for legal challenges.

Of course, it remains to be seen what remains of higher ed after the Trump Administration. Guard and Jacobsen might have accomplished the equivalent of a book about the flu on the eve of the pandemic, in which case, we'll need a revised edition sooner rather than later.

Apple Music drops Lady Gaga, Leo Messi interviews; L.A. producer Steele was behind the scenes

Morgan Steele, my daughter, based in Los Angeles, has worked lately on some star-studded and classified projects, two now public.

This (below) is Lady Gaga's Mayhem interview with Zane Lowe for Apple Music in New York City, dropped March 5.

The interview took place at the lower-east-side "dive bar" that was a formative place in becoming "Gaga," as she described her early creative growth. She recalled writing lyrics at the bar and joked that that was "where all the cool kids hung out." Morgan confirmed that this place is the real deal, in no way a set, like entering a time warp into a corner bar that, in a comforting way, never changes as the decades elapse outside.

This (below) is Lionel Messi's interview with Zane Lowe in Miami, dropped February 28. That's right, a Messi interview with Apple Music!

Messi, probably the greatest of all time playing the beautiful game now, plays presently for Inter Miami in the MLS and is a star to watch in the upcoming 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. The Argentine player spoke Spanish in his responses; the interview is subtitled. (Incidentally, my mate Dylan is a Messi doppelganger, which, amusingly, has caused us more than once in Africa to be mobbed by children who refuse to accept his denial. If you're ever unsure, the tell is that Dylan speaks French and not Spanish.)

The Messi interview is a cross-platform promotion for Apple Music and the MLS. Messi is not (yet?) embarking on a music career. But Lowe is a football (soccer) fan, besides a music guru, and he aptly described Messi as a kind of artist. The two talked about Messi's relationship with music, a vital part of true-blue Argentine culture. Messi talked also about his decision to come with his family to Miami and the style of play in the MLS, relative to his longtime former club, FC Barcelona.

For those keeping track, I'm now two degrees of separation from Gaga and Messi. If you know me, you're at no more than three!

Don't forget to look for my friend Jose Benavides's football coverage on The Liberal Playmaker at Apple Podcasts.

'Toxic Town' features real-life, toxic-tort tragedy in UK

Premiering on February 27, Toxic Town (IMDb), a compelling new miniseries on Netflix, fictionalizes a true story of toxic tort in England.

The show couldn't have been timed better for my 1L Torts students' study of public nuisance, which we just completed. The real-life events of Toxic Town are sometimes called "the British 'Erin Brockovich.'" The facts are even more like the case of water contamination in Woburn, Mass., which was the subject of A Civil Action, though Toxic Town makes much of the cadmium in circulating dust as key to opening up the case. 

In the Toxic Town matter, the town of Corby had its water supply poisoned by a defunct steelworks in East Midlands, England, resulting in a cluster of birth defects in the 1980s and 1990s. The courts ultimately ruled in favor of complainants for public nuisance against the local government, which was willfully sloppy in trying to rehabilitate the old steelworks and was not forthcoming with information when challenged. The parties settled confidentially on appeal in 2010. There's more about the true story at Esquire, Time, and BBC.

I don't know enough about British tort law to assess the portrayal of the legal case in Toxic Town. There are some compelling points that suggest the series as a worthwhile study in comparative law. The plaintiff solicitors and barristers refer to a standard of "knowing negligence," which sounds to me closer to recklessness than to negligence in American tort law. The plaintiffs' expert says he must testify with 95% certainty, an extraordinary bar. That requirement causes the plaintiff lawyers to trim their client class. In the court proceedings, a bench trial in the British system, there is testimony that would be excluded for fear of prejudice in an American jury trial. The miniseries also makes much of political tensions within the defendant town council, including a cover-up, implicating the freedom of information. I would welcome an opportunity to study further the similarities and differences here between U.S. and UK law.

The all-star cast of four-episode Toxic Town includes former Doctor Who Jodie Whittaker as the lead "Erin Brockovich" character, based on real-life mother-plaintiff Susan McIntyre. My beloved Robert Carlyle, Trainspotting's "Begbie," plays a town councilor with a conscience. The immediately recognizable Rory Kinnear plays the Civil-Action-Travolta-like plaintiff lawyer, Des Collins. Another favorite actor of mine, Michael Socha—Being Human (UK), and a co-alum with Carlyle of Once Upon a Time—plays the Whittaker character's unreliable love interest.

FOIA committee meets after firing of National Archivist

Yesterday, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, held a public meeting, available on the YouTube channel of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 

The meeting comprised routine status updates from working subcommittees. But arising as it did amid the Trump/Musk shake-up in federal government, the stream might have drawn more than the usual public interest. The President fired National Archivist Colleen Shogan three weeks ago (see also CBS News), apparently in violation of federal law and with a political logic that's hard to discern, as University of Maryland Professor Jason Baron explained recently in Washington Monthly.

The committee lost one member to the Musk "fork in the road" program; capable attorney Kevin Bell departed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The President last month terminated the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee in the General Services Administration (GSA) (Government Executive).

I am all for eliminating government waste and inefficiency, but I'm worried that "fork in the road" only incentivized the departure from public service of the most talented people, who could get other jobs most readily. And I'm not sure I see the wisdom of terminating an advisory committee, which brings volunteer expertise from the private sector (or state academics, such as Baron, me, and others) to bear on federal government work at minimal cost to taxpayers.

The committee yesterday unanimously approved a motion of Frank LoMonte, CNN senior counsel, to ensure preservation of committee work, as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). He didn't say so explicitly, but the move seemed pretty well calculated as a hedge against possible termination of the committee's work.

Excellent public comment came from Alex Howard, Digital Democracy Project and former committee member. Logically he inquired, inter alia, about the impact of government "efficiency" cuts and website take-downs on FOIA. Certainly these questions are of great concern to everyone involved; Professor Margaret Kwoka said as much in response. The fact is, simply, I don't think anyone can yet apprehend that big picture.

Texas attorney launches football (soccer) podcast

A Texas attorney, co-author, and former student, Jose Benavides officially has launched his football (soccer)-and-politics podcast, The Liberal Playmaker. 

The podcast on the beautiful game is available at Apple, Spotify, and on video at YouTube.

Sixteen 2025 episodes are online already, for most recent example, "Copita del Rey," Feb. 27, below. Coverage includes but definitely is not limited to the Premier League.