Lawyer A world of Lawyers and the LAW. Top Lawyers and Legal Resources Network

05/22/2026

This woman thought it was a good idea to lie to the judge in her case. She FAFO!

05/12/2026

On this day in 1898

Louisiana Officially Disenfranchises Black Voters and Jurors

On May 12, 1898, the State of Louisiana adopted a new constitution with numerous restrictive provisions intended to exclude African American men from civic participation. At this time in the U.S., women of all races remained barred from voting, while Black men had recently gained the right to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The new Louisiana Constitution, however, created a poll tax, literacy and property-ownership requirements, and a complex voter registration form all designed and enforced to disproportionately disenfranchise Black male voters.

The year 1865 included the Confederacy's defeat in the Civil War, widespread emancipation, and the abolition of slavery. All of these developments threatened to overturn Southern culture and social relations, which were based on white supremacy and racial hierarchy. After Reconstruction was forcibly dismantled in 1877 and white politicians and lawmakers regained control and power in the South, many efforts were made to restore that racial order through very strict laws that stripped Black people of many of their new civil rights—including the right to vote. In Louisiana, framers explicitly expressed their goal to “purify the electorate.”

When the restrictive voting provisions were first proposed for the 1898 Louisiana Constitution, some white officials expressed concern that the property and literacy requirements would also disenfranchise an estimated 25% of the white male population of voting age. In response, lawmakers drafted a “Grandfather Clause” which created an exception for those whose ancestors were registered to vote before 1867. This clause enabled many illiterate and poor white men to get around the literacy and property requirements. Black people remained blocked because Louisiana laws before 1867 disenfranchised nearly all Black men—especially those who were enslaved.

The 1898 Louisiana Constitution also eliminated the requirement of unanimous jury verdicts, allowing as much as a 9-3 split to still stand as a conviction. Because the U.S. Constitution now prevented states from wholly barring Black people from jury service, this provision was enacted to render small numbers of Black jurors inconsequential. Thomas Semmes, a former Confederate senator and head of the convention’s judiciary committee, praised the provision for success in its goal “to establish the supremacy of the white race in this State to the extent to which it could be legally and Constitutionally done.”

The 1898 Louisiana Constitution eliminated federally enforced voting rules that had enfranchised Black men in Louisiana during Reconstruction. As a result, in a state with 650,804 Black residents, the number of Black registered voters dropped from 130,000 before the new Constitution to just 5,000 by 1900. By 1904, the number dropped to just 1,000.

Throughout the Southern states, disenfranchisement laws targeted Black communities for generations. Louisiana’s 1898 Constitution was revised slightly in 1913, but most of its restrictive language remained until 1972. The non-unanimous jury rule remained in effect for more than a century, until Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment to abolish it in November 2018.


05/11/2026

Thurgood Marshall (1908–1993) was a towering figure in the American legal system, best known for his transformative work as a civil rights attorney and his historic tenure as the first African American Supreme Court Justice. His career was dedicated to dismantling the legal framework of Jim Crow and ensuring "equal justice under law" was a reality for all citizens.

Early Life and Education
Born in Baltimore, Maryland, Marshall experienced the realities of segregation firsthand. He attended Lincoln University alongside fellow luminaries like Langston Hughes. After being denied admission to the University of Maryland School of Law due to his race—an event that would later fuel his legal crusade—he attended Howard University School of Law.

At Howard, he was mentored by Charles Hamilton Houston, who instilled in him the idea of the lawyer as a "social engineer." Marshall graduated first in his class in 1933.

The Architect of Desegregation
As the chief counsel for the NAACP, Marshall became the nation’s preeminent civil rights strategist. He spent decades traveling across the South, often at great personal risk, to challenge discriminatory laws in the courtroom.

Murray v. Pearson (1936): In a poetic turn of justice, Marshall successfully sued the University of Maryland for its discriminatory admissions policy, winning the right for black students to attend the very school that had rejected him.

Smith v. Allwright (1944): He successfully challenged "white primaries" that prevented Black voters from participating in the democratic process in the South.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): His most famous victory. Marshall argued before the Supreme Court that "separate but equal" facilities were inherently unequal. The unanimous ruling struck down state-sponsored segregation in public schools.

Judicial Career
Marshall's transition from advocate to judge solidified his influence on American jurisprudence.

U.S. Court of Appeals1961
Appointed by JFK; wrote 98 opinions, none of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.

U.S. Solicitor General 1965
Appointed by LBJ; won 14 out of 19 cases he argued for the government.

Supreme Court Justice 1967
The first African American Justice; served for 24 years as a champion for individual rights and the underprivileged.

Legacy and Philosophy
On the Supreme Court, Marshall was a staunch liberal who believed the Constitution was a "living" document. He was a consistent voice against the death penalty and a fierce defender of the rights of the accused, the right to privacy, and affirmative action.

Quote:
"In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute." Unquote — Thurgood Marshall

Marshall didn't just interpret the law; he forced it to grow. By the time he retired in 1991, he had played a primary role in transforming the American legal landscape from one of codified exclusion to one of expanding inclusion.

Subscribe, follow, Like for more legal news and information

05/11/2026

GOOD LUCK EVERY ONE TAKING THE BAR EXAM!

05/11/2026

Dua Lipa has filed a lawsuit against Samsung seeking at least $15 million in damages, alleging the company used her image without permission on television packaging sold in the United States.

According to court filings in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Samsung allegedly placed a copyrighted photograph of Dua Lipa — reportedly taken backstage at the 2024 Austin City Limits Festival — on boxes for several TV models as part of a mass marketing campaign. Lipa claims she owns the rights to the image and never approved its commercial use.

The lawsuit accuses Samsung of:

Copyright infringement

Trademark infringement

False endorsement under the Lanham Act

Violating California publicity-rights laws by using her likeness commercially without consent.

Lipa’s legal team argues the packaging falsely suggested she endorsed Samsung televisions and claims the company ignored cease-and-desist demands after she became aware of the issue in 2025. The complaint reportedly describes Samsung’s response as “dismissive and callous.”

The case also highlights the commercial value of Dua Lipa’s public image. Her attorneys note that she is selective about endorsement deals and has official partnerships with brands such as Puma and Porsche.

Samsung has not publicly responded in detail to the allegations as of the latest reports.

05/11/2026

In United States v. James Comey - The Sea Shells Case

In late April 2026, the Department of Justice, led by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges of threatening the life of President Donald Trump. This case centers on a now-deleted social media post from May 2025 involving seashells.

The Core Allegation: "86 47"
The indictment stems from a photo Comey posted to Instagram showing seashells on a beach arranged to form the numbers "86 47."

The Interpretation:
The DOJ and President Trump contend that "86" is slang for "kill" or "assassinate," and "47" refers to Trump as the 47th U.S. President.

Trump’s Response: During a Fox News interview, Trump stated, "A child knows what that meant... that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear."

The Charges: Comey faces a two-count indictment for "knowingly and willfully" making a threat to take the life of the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.

Comey’s Defense
Comey has vigorously denied any criminal intent, maintaining that the post was a observation of a political message he saw on a walk.

Intent:
Comey deleted the post the same day he shared it, stating, "I assumed they represented a political message... I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence."

First Amendment: His legal team, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, argues the charges are "frivolous" and an "affront to the First Amendment," asserting that political symbolism—however sharp—does not meet the legal threshold for a "true threat."

Legal and Political Context
This is the second attempt by the Trump administration to prosecute Comey.
Previous Case: In September 2025, Comey was charged with lying to Congress. That case was dismissed in late 2025 because the prosecutor was found to be unlawfully appointed.

Vindictive Prosecution: Critics and legal analysts have characterized the new seashell indictment as "vindictive prosecution" and a "naked use of federal authority" to target a political rival.

Department Turmoil: The push to indict Comey has reportedly led to significant internal friction at the DOJ, including the demotion or resignation of several career prosecutors who believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
As of May 2026, the case is pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Comey has stated he is "not afraid" and intends to fight the charges in court.

Follow for more legal news & information ⚖️


05/10/2026

NAME A LAWYER OR LAW FIRM THAT YOU LIKE AND WHY ⚖️

05/10/2026

ELON MUSK v. OpenAI
The legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI (along with CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman) is a high-stakes conflict over the "soul" and mission of the company. As of May 2026, the case is currently in a landmark trial in a federal courthouse in Oakland, California.

Here is a summary of the key arguments and developments: The Core Allegations
Elon Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI who left the board in 2018, claims that the company has committed a"betrayal of its founding mission." His lawsuit centers on three main points:

Breach of Contract: Musk argues that OpenAI was established as a non-profit dedicated to developing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) for the "benefit of humanity" and that all technology was meant to be open-source.

The Microsoft Pivot: He alleges that OpenAI has effectively become a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft, prioritizing corporate profits over AI safety.

Restructuring: Musk claims the move to a "capped-profit" (and eventually a more traditional for-profit) structure was a deceptive maneuver to "steal the charity" he helped build with nearly $44 million of his own money.

OpenAI’s Defense

Sam Altman and OpenAI’s legal team, led by veteran litigator William Savitt, reject these claims, arguing:
No Formal Agreement: They maintain there was never a signed "Founding Agreement" that mandated OpenAI remain a non-profit forever.

Musk's Real Motive: They argue the lawsuit is a case of "envy" or a tactical move to slow down a competitor. They highlight that Musk attempted to take majority control of OpenAI himself in 2018 and, after failing, launched his own AI company, xAI.

Survival: They contend that the massive computing power required for AGI made the original non-profit model unsustainable, necessitating the partnership with Microsoft.

Major Trial Developments (April–May 2026)
The trial has produced several explosive moments and revelations:
Musk’s Testimony: Musk took the stand in late April 2026, testifying that he felt "deceived" by Altman. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had once considered making OpenAI a for-profit himself, though he claimed he only wanted control to ensure safety.

The "$134 Billion" Claim: Musk is seeking roughly $134 billion in damages—a figure intended to represent the value of his early contributions and the "unjust enrichment" of the defendants. He has stated he wants any awarded money to go to OpenAI’s charitable arm, not his own pocket.

"Shakespearean" Internal Docs: Filings have revealed private emails and diary entries from Greg Brockman, where he expressed concerns in 2017 that turning for-profit would be "morally bankrupt" and a "nasty fight."

Shivon Zilis’s Testimony: Zilis (a former OpenAI board member and mother to several of Musk's children) testified about her role as a "facilitator" between Musk and Altman, revealing that she was occasionally used as an "informant" for Musk after his departure.

What’s at Stake?
If Musk wins, the court could potentially:
1. Remove Sam Altman and Greg Brockman from their leadership positions.
2. Force a restructure of OpenAI, potentially unwinding the for-profit entity.
3. Hinder OpenAI's planned public offering, which is expected to be one of the largest in tech history.
Elon Musk's $134 Billion Lawsuit Breakdown
This video provides a detailed breakdown of the legal arguments and the potential financial ramifications of the $134 billion lawsuit.

05/10/2026

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office is suing two north Minneapolis charities and their founders for allegedly misusing millions of dollars in charitable assets, while the couple claims the allegations are "brutal lies" that are "not based in fact; all based in fiction."

Apostle Larry Cook and Dr. Sharon Cook are the founders of Real Believers Faith Center Church and Les Jolies School of Dance. From 2018 to 2024, the lawsuit claims the couple allegedly used more than $2 million in charitable assets to "fund lavish lifestyles, luxury travel, designer goods, and for-profit ventures masquerading under nearly identical names, while pretending to serve their communities.""The whole case is based on lies because we wouldn't talk to them," Larry Cook said Tuesday evening during an interview with KARE 11. "All they have is some numbers from bank accounts and they're trying to say they did this and they did that."

The attorney general's office alleges more than $1.3 million in charitable assets from Real Believers Faith Center were allegedly misused between February 2018 and October 2024, and about $800,000 in charitable assets from Les Jolies School of Dance were misused from April 2018 through June 2024.

"We absolutely travel, but we travel for ministry," Larry Cook said. "When we do travel to get rest, it's called a sabbatical, and we take two sabbaticals a year. We take other several breaks. We have a high-intensity job here. We pastor in a frontline ministry."

Ellison's office said its charities division took sworn testimony from Larry and Sharon Cook in early March 2025 about the finances of the two charities. The Cooks said they declined to answer questions in a deposition on legal advice, not to hide wrongdoing, and they plan on fighting this in court. "The breadth of wrongdoing is staggering: at least $2 million in nonprofit assets was siphoned through cash withdrawals, CashApp payments, and pledged as collateral for risky loans that served no charitable purpose," the 48-page lawsuit reads. "Defendants not only misused charitable funds, but they operated without basic governance safeguards, failed to maintain tax-exempt status, failed to maintain registration with the AGO, and dissolved a nonprofit mid-investigation without the legally required notice to the AGO in an attempt to evade oversight."Attorney General Keith Ellison's office claims Larry and Sharon Cook misused more than $2 million. via KARE 11

05/10/2026

The history of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is a journey from the "crown jewel" of the Civil Rights Movement to a series of modern judicial rollbacks, culminating in the landmark April 2026 Supreme Court ruling, Louisiana v. Callais.

1. History of the Voting Rights Act (1965–2021)
The VRA was designed to enforce the 15th Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

1965 – Passage: President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the VRA after the "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma. It banned literacy tests and established Section 5 (Preclearance), requiring states with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing election laws.

1982 – Section 2 Strengthening: Congress amended the Act to clarify that a law is illegal if it has a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether the intent was to discriminate. This led to the creation of many "majority-minority" districts.

2013 – Shelby County v. Holde: The Supreme Court effectively struck down Section 5, ending the preclearance requirement. This shifted the burden of proof to voters, who now had to sue after discriminatory laws were passed.

2021 – Brnovich v. DNC: The Court narrowed the scope of Section 2, making it harder to challenge state voting rules (like ballot harvesting bans) that disproportionately impact minority voters.

2. Louisiana v. Callais: (April 29, 2026)
This case originated from a fight over Louisiana’s congressional maps following the 2020 Census. After a lower court found the original map likely diluted Black voting power, Louisiana drew a new map with two majority-Black districts instead of one.

The Ruling
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s new map, declaring the second majority-Black district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The "Intent" Shift: The Court's conservative majority ruled that to prove a violation of Section 2, plaintiffs must now show a "strong inference" of intentional discrimination by the state. This effectively overturned decades of precedent that focused on the results (the "effects test") of a map.

Strict Scrutiny: The Court held that using race as the primary factor to draw a district is unconstitutional unless the state can prove it was "strictly necessary." In this case, they ruled that the VRA did not explicitly require Louisiana to create that second district.

Partisanship as a Shield: The ruling allows states to defend racially lopsided maps by claiming they were drawn for partisan gain rather than racial reasons—a distinction that critics argue is nearly impossible to separate in the South.

3. Current Impact & Significance
The Callais decision is widely regarded by legal scholars as the "final blow" to the original power of the VRA.

Bottom Line: While the Voting Rights Act still exists on paper, Louisiana v. Callais has fundamentally shifted the legal landscape, making it significantly harder for minority groups to win court-ordered redistricting changes.

The more things change, the more they stay the Same. The fight for racial justice and equal representation starts over, again!

Address

Baltimore, MD

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Lawyer posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share