Governor Newsom sued to enjoin President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the ongoing LA riots without Newsom’s consent. But first, we disclose our biases—about Trump, opportunistic political labeling of “rebellions” or “insurrections,” and how easily the thin veneer of civilization is pierced by masked cowards throwing rocks.

Also:

• Beach yoga is free speech, says the Ninth Circuit striking down San Diego’s ban.
• A study on televised oral arguments reveals that camera angles—and flags—can change the court’s perception with the public as “legitimate.”
• Lawyers must comply with the evidence code—but the court can also consider mere “information.” We discuss why appellate courts seem so cavalier about the rules of evidence.
• “Citation modified” enters the Bluebook—but Tim and Jeff agree: “cleaned up” still reigns.
• Appellate fees ≠ judgment enforcement fees.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Is “evidence” different from “information”?
• The “(cleaned up)” origin story, with Jack Metzler
• Study on televising oral arguments and judicial legitimacy
• CALP cited in a law review about (cleaned up)! Craighead, Burke, The Bluebook: An Insider's Perspective (May 12, 2025). Michigan Law Review, Volume 124 (forthcoming 2026), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5271305 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5271305.
• Judgment enforcement fees reminder: EDWARD H. BONIN, v. LINCOLN CHAYES et al., (D2d2, May 29, 2025, No. B340106) (non-pub. opn.)
• Not enough time for the CCP 128.5 21-day date harbor? Nothing prevents asking for a continuance of the underlying motion. JUNKERS2JEWELS, LLC, et al., v. LA-DORIS MCCLANEY, (Cal. Ct. App., May 28, 2025, No. B339900) (non-pub. opn.)

The Court of International Trade—whatever that is—enjoined Trump’s tariffs. But the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit imposed an administrative stay pending further briefing. We also cover:

• Defending a Zoom depo? If you refuse to go on camera and are accused of improper witness communication, you may be sanctioned. (Remote depos are a game-changer—woe betide the attorney who screws it up for the rest of us!)
• Case settled, but wire of settled funds intercepted by scammers. Who bears the burden depends on the circumstances—best practice is to put the wire info in the agreement itself.
• Fee awards, abuse of discretion, and dueling precedents: Cash v. County of LA vs. Snoeck v. Exactime.
• Supreme Court review granted in Maniago: Is a voluntary dismissal after a loss appealable?
• Appearing at sentencing, Tom Girardi’s pants fall down—but he still gets 87 months.
• Big Oral Argument News: Remote oral arguments are now available statewide without need to show good cause.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Beware using the Judicial Council form dismissal

The Supreme Court faulted the district judge in A.A.R.P. v. Trump for refusing to grant the Venezuelan alleged Tren de Aragua members’ injunction. But on remand, Judge Ho comes to the judge’s defense: after all, the judge only had 42 minutes’ notice. And to conclude that the judge had had some 14 hours, Judge Ho noted, the Supreme Court must have started counting at 12:30 a.m. Last time we checked, Congress has not provisioned courts a budget to operate 24 hours. “This is a district court,” Judge Ho reminds, “not a Denny’s.”

• The Supreme Court doesn’t have appellate jurisdiction without an actual order on the injunction motion. Tim agrees with Judge Ho that the Supreme Court played a little roughshod with the otherwise fussy jurisdictional rules.
• But the Court is losing patience with the Trump Administration’s legal tactics, Jeff suspects, which is why the Court is willing to stretch past the limits on its power.

What do you think? Is the Court’s move defensible exercising power arguably beyond its jurisdiction? Does it hold faith with Marbury, which famously established judicial power by not exercising it?

We also discuss the one-sentence letdown in the high-stakes religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. And we share CALP alum Chris Schandevel’s appellate lessons from a hard-fought loss: how to serve your client when the Court doesn’t serve you the decision you fought for.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.