There’s nothin’ like a conflict of interest when two people are joined in matrimony by Judge E. Grady Jolly of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Here we have Ilya Shapiro, funded by “the One Percenters”, e.g. like his quango Cato, which is a ‘non-profit’ ruse of an organization that peddles the personal agenda(s) for billionaire Charles Koch interests. In other words it’s a for profit [il]legal non-profit, e.g. a fraudulent non-profit entity.
An entity which misrepresents it’s mission statement and should be shut down, but of course, that prospect is grim when you see the inner nepotism and corruption that glues these partisan organizations tightly with the United States Government.
He’s married to Kristin, who is currently employed as Attorney Advisor at The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which is an office in the United States Department of Justice that assists the Attorney General‘s position as legal adviser to the President and all executive branch agencies.
That said, we’re not finished as Kristen is also a “Fellow” at another quango called The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF, not to be confused with the International Women’s Forum) is an anti-feminist organization predominantly funded by right-wing foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch brothers’ Claude R. Lambe Foundation.
The IWF originally grew out of a group called “Women for Clarence Thomas,” formed to support Clarence Thomas, then a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, against allegations of sexual harassment.
It has vocally opposed the Violence Against Women Act.
In an editorial, The New York Times called the IWF “a right-wing public policy group that provides pseudofeminist support for extreme positions that are in fact dangerous to women.”
From 2003 to 2008, IWF was closely affiliated with the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity.
IWF has two sister organizations: a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy group, Independent Women’s Voice (IWF), formed in 2003; and a network of local chapters called Independent Women’s Network, formed in 2012.
As you will also note herein, Ilya has been advocating for the end of the moratorium, which will in turn allow landlords to evict tenants who are deliquent in rental payments. This is what Koch funded quango’s are employed to do.
Charles Koch is heavily investing in real estate investment trusts and similar and as we know, so do one percenters like Warren Buffett. Wall Street is being greedy and want Ilya and his heavily funded quangos to deliver boxes filled with Amicus briefs at the U.S. Supreme Court.
With a 6-3 conservative bench at the highest court, and obviously with Justice Clarence Thomas on the team before a ball is kicked, it’s most likely going to happen – if and when the majority decide to do so.
So is this marriage a conflict of interest? For the Shapiro’s it’s probably a marriage made in heaven after all, especially if you’re aiming to be a part of the ‘One Percenter’ club and the vast majority of citizens are oblivious to what is actually going on behind the scenes in the U.S. government.
Ilya Shapiro’s Quick Bio
English, Russian, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese
London School of Economics
University of Chicago Law School
Ilya Shapiri is a Senior Fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and Editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. (LIT Commentary; recently promoted, see further on in this article).
Falls Church, Virginia
Before joining Cato, Ilya worked as a Special Assistant/ Advisor to the Multi-National Force-Iraq on law issues and practiced international, political, commercial, and antitrust litigation at Patton Boggs and Cleary Gottlieb.
Ilya Shapiro has contributed to a variety of academic, popular, and professional publicatuins, including the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, L.A. Times, USA Today, National Law Journal, Weekly Standard, New York Time Online, and National Review Online, and from 2004 to 2007 wrote the “Dispatches from Purple America” column for TCS Daily.
Ilya also provides comments for various media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS , NBC , Univision , Telemundo , The Colbert Report , NPR , and American Public Media’s Marketplace.
He lectures regularly on behalf of the Federalist Society and other groups, is a member of the Legal Studies Institute’s Board of Visitors at the Fund for American Studies.
Previously, he was an inaugural Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute, and has been an Adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School, a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute.
In 2015 National Law Journal named him to its list of 40 “rising stars” in the legal community.
Before entering private practice, Shapiro clerked for Judge E. Grady Jolly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, while living in Mississippi and traveling around the Deep South.
Ilya Shapiro is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Besides, Ilya Shapiro is the Co-author of Religious Liberties for Corporations, Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the Constitution (2014).
Ilya Shapiro holds a B.A from Princeton University, a M.S from the London School of Economics, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow). Prior to that, he received a High school diploma at University of Toronto Schools.
Ilya is a native speaker of English and Russian, is fluent in Spanish and French, and is proficient in Italian and Portuguese. He is married to Kristin Shapiro since 2013.
LIT’s ALWAYS Watchin’🤠@JCNSeverino @JackMcCJr @judge_kab @JudgeDillard @judgejeffrose @stroh92 @JudgeGoodwin @emilymiskel @rks127th @DavidLat @BridgetMaryMc @TheJusticeDept @ABAPresident @JusticeGuzman @NathanLHecht @uscourts @FedSoc @PacificLegal @stevebermano @judicialnetwork pic.twitter.com/GeoCB1txbQ
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) May 23, 2021
On Wednesday, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a ruling in favor of the legality of the Centers for Disease Control nationwide eviction moratorium, enacted on the theory that it would help combat the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The decision breaks a streak of five straight victories for plaintiffs challenging the legality of the moratorium in court. It is also at odds with a Sixth Circuit appellate ruling against the moratorium, issued in March.
The moratorium was first issued by the Trump administration last September and then twice revived and extended under Biden (most recently until June 30). I summarized the important issues it raises here and here.
The DC Circuit ruling is a setback for opponents of the eviction moratorium. But it has glaring flaws that hopefully will prevent it from having much influence with other courts considering the issue.
The DC Circuit decision is not a final ruling on the merits. All it does is affirm the trial court’s decision to stay enforcement of its ruling against the moratorium while the case continues to be litigated. But the appellate judges make clear that they believe the moratorium is likely legal. One of the standards for upholding the stay is whether the government is likely to prevail on the merits. The DC Circuit ruling makes clear that the judges think the answer is “yes”:
First, the CDC’s eviction moratorium falls within the plain text of 42 U.S.C. § 264(a). Congress expressly determined that responding to events that by their very nature are unpredictable, exigent, and pose grave danger to human life and health requires prompt and calibrated actions grounded in expert public-health judgments.
Section 264(a) authorizes the Secretary of HHS “to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” 42 U.S.C. § 264(a).1
Congress thereby designated the HHS Secretary the expert best positioned to determine the need for such preventative measures, twice stating that it authorizes such measures as the Secretary determines “in his judgment [are] necessary.” 42 U.S.C. § 264(a).
That text also makes a determination of necessity a prerequisite to any exercise of Section 264 authority, and that necessity standard constrains the granted authority in a material and substantial way.
Here, to ensure that the moratorium was tailored to the necessity that prompted it, HHS carefully targeted it to the subset of evictions it determined to be necessary to curb the spread of the deadly and quickly spreading Covid-19 pandemic.
Notably, Appellees do not dispute HHS’s determination that the moratorium would “prevent the (interstate) introduction, transmission, or spread” of COVID….
The big problem with this argument—pointed out by the district court in this very same case, and by several other rulings against the moratorium—is that the same reasoning would give the CDC the authority to shut down virtually any activity of any kind, as doing so can always potentially reduce the spread of a contagious disease in some way.
It doesn’t even have to be an especially dangerous disease, since the statute isn’t limited to stopping the spread of diseases that pose unusually great risks. Reducing the spread of the common cold would be enough.
There is no “material and substantial” limit to the CDC’s authority here. There isn’t any real limit at all. For that reason, interpreting the statute the way the government and the DC Circuit read it violates constitutional constraints on delegation of legislative authority to executive agencies.
The DC Circuit also emphasizes the “scale and gravity” of the Covid-19 crisis, as a justification for the unprecedented nature of this moratorium. Even if that scale and gravity might have made the order a truly dire necessity when it was first issued in September and extended in January, the same cannot be said today, when widespread vaccination has massively reduced the spread of the disease.
In addition, the logic of the CDC’s order assumes that there would be a large-scale eviction crisis in its absence. This was highly questionable back in September, and is even less plausible today, as the economy continues to recover rapidly. If the CDC’s delegated authority is broad enough to continue the moratorium order unchanged, despite the massive changes in the conditions that supposedly make it “necessary,” that just underscores the fact that government’s interpretation of the “necessity” requirement imposes no real constraint on the scope of the agency’s power.
The DC Circuit also claims that Congress implicitly endorsed the CDC’s broad interpretation of the scope of its power when it imposed a similar moratorium in December (which expired at the end of January):
Congress has expressly recognized that the agency had the authority to issue its narrowly crafted moratorium under Section 264. Last December, rather than enact its own moratorium, Congress deliberately chose legislatively to extend the HHS moratorium and, in doing so, specifically to embrace HHS’s action “under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264)[.]” Consolidated Appropriations Act,2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, title V, § 502, 134 Stat. 1182, 2078–79 (Dec. 27,2020).
This makes little sense. Congress’ legislative extension of the original CDC moratorium in no way endorses the idea that the agency had the power to take that action on its own. It just means Congress wanted to (temporarily) adopt the CDC’s policy, not embrace its legal reasoning. If anything, the temporary nature of Congress’ extension of the moratorium implies that Congress assumed that it alone has the power to adopt such a measure, and that it would end as soon as the new legislative authorization expired. Significantly, Congress did not include any language giving the CDC the power to issue future extensions on its own, even though by this time there were already several court cases challenging the legality of the CDC order.
Of course, it’s also possible (and in fact likely) most members of Congress didn’t know or didn’t care about the constitutional issues involved when they enacted a brief extension of the moratorium in December. The extension was part of a massive appropriations bill, and the members had many other issues on their minds, many of them more politically significant than this one. This is the kind of case that highlights the difficulties of ascribing intent to a large collective body, like Congress. Some judges and legal scholars believe that any such ascription is impossible. But even if you think it is feasible in some situations, there is no evidence that Congress intended to endorse the legality of the CDC’s actions here.
The nondelegation issue and the rule that courts are required, where possible, to interpret federal law in ways that avoid constitutional problems, should have led the DC Circuit to adopt a narrower reading of 42 USC Section 264, similar to that embraced by the Sixth Circuit and the lower court in this case.
Some of the DC Circuit’s other points are more reasonable. For example, the judges are probably right to conclude that an eviction moratorium is within the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause, under current Supreme Court precedent. I discussed that issue here.
Despite its flaws, the DC Circuit ruling is a significant victory for the Biden administration. It also reinforces the emerging ideological split over the eviction moratorium litigation. As I have noted before, all of the judges who have issued rulings against the CDC order are conservative Republican appointees. With one exception, all the judges who voted to uphold it were appointed by Democratic presidents. The DC Circuit ruling continues that pattern: all three judges on the panel are liberal Democrats appointed by President Obama.
Such a left-right split is not inevitable. For reasons I summarize here and here, liberals have their own reasons to be wary of the kinds of sweeping claims of authority made by the Trump and Biden administrations in these cases. The power to shut down virtually any activity at any time is one no administration can be trusted with. Think of what Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump might do with it, if one of them comes to power in 2024 or 2028. At the same time, I was probably naive to hope that an ideological division could be avoided over an order that combines Covid emergency measures and property rights, two issues that have repeatedly given rise to ideological splits in many state and federal courts.
Regardless, we now have a circuit split over the legality of the CDC order. That, of course, increases the likelihood that the issue will eventually get to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the DC Circuit case have already asked the Court to step in and overturn the DC Circuit ruling, on an emergency basis.
The current extension of the eviction moratorium expires on June 30. I doubt the Supreme Court will move before then. But if the Biden administration extends the order again, there is a good chance the Supreme Court will take up the case. If that happens, and the current ideological division over this issue continues, the eviction moratorium is unlikely to survive, given the 6-3 conservative majority on the Court.
In the meantime, litigation over the eviction moratorium continues in several other federal courts. We may well have additional lower court rulings before June 30, even if the Supreme Court chooses not to act.
NOTE: The plaintiffs in some of the lawsuits against the eviction moratorium are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, where my wife works (though she is not part of the litigation team handling the issue). I myself have played a minor (unpaid) role in advising PLF on this litigation.
@nardotrealtor spends more money on federal lobbying than any other entity
“ @Redfin has consistently been in favor of moratoriums,”
said its chief executive, Glenn Kelman.
“History will judge us.”@zillow supports the C.D.C. edict, too
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) June 4, 2021
A CONSUMMATE GENTLEMAN AND A JUDGE’S JUDGE
2017 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 6, 2021
The last day of our clerkship, all three of us were waiting to get sworn into the Fifth Circuit bar. As the hour grew late and we grew antsy, Judge E. Grady Jolly was still ensconced in his office. I went in and asked when we were doing the swearing-in. He cocked his head and replied, “We ain’t doin’ no ceremony because all o’ y’all failed the character and fitness requirement. You and Jeff for obvious reasons and Jeremy [a Mormon] for drinking Diet Coke.”
That was an appropriate concluding moment to an unforgettable year, one in which a great and wise man performed the duties of his high judicial office with humility and jocularity— and imparted important life lessons on three cocky young lawyers. For me, it began with the most unusual job interview I’ve ever encountered. One day in the fall of my second year of law school, I got a call from Judge Jolly’s chambers, inquiring about my availability for a phone interview the next afternoon. The “interview” lasted about 10 minutes and comprised but two questions that would make a corporate human-relations officer blanche:
(1) “Are you married?” and (2) “Are you Jewish?”
Let me explain. Most of the phone call consisted of Judge Jolly’s explanation of how he runs chambers and what he expects of his clerks.
It became clear that he was making sure that I knew what I was getting myself into so it would be a good fit for both of us.
Accordingly, he was wondering whether a single, northern guy would have qualms about life in Jackson, Mississippi—not because of politics or even culture, but just socially—and wanted
This is CATO’s Massacre. https://t.co/kdp2nn0iJy @Wikipedia @TheScotsman @heraldscotland @thesnp @thesundaytimes @IrishTimes @EU_Commission @EdinburghUni @Pontifex @nytimes @WSJ @BBCScotlandNews @UofGlasgow @CivilRights @Public_Justice @HISTORY @netflix @IMDb @POTUS @BorisJohnson https://t.co/fvHwcrzT2h
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) June 4, 2021
to assuage them. He needn’t have been concerned.1 In any event, he gave me an offer, which I readily accepted.
Fast forward nearly two years. I went on a post-bar trip to Rome and the Amalfi Coast right before starting the clerkship, and sent Judge Jolly a postcard. On my first day of work, Judge walks into my cubby in the old chambers at the James O. Eastland Courthouse—built when clerks spent most of their time poring over voluminous legal texts in the capacious library— introduces himself (as if he needed any introduction), and asks, “So, did you hook up with any crazy Italian women?”
Now, I’m not frequently speechless, but I wasn’t sure what the right answer was—and still don’t know. Yet that interaction set the tone for the term: keep on your toes and don’t take yourself too seriously.
Judge Jolly made clear from day one that we were there to help him “get the law right,” to follow constitutional, statutory, and common law wherever it may lead and not worry about anything else. His was not on a “teaching court” and he had no truck with pontification or disquisitions on this or that pet theory. He was there to decide cases and resolve legal disputes, period.
I recall that before one of my first oral-argument sittings, we got a bench memo from another judge—like the Supreme Court’s cert. pool, many circuit judges share their clerks’ summaries of the cases they hear together—that Judge Jolly found too verbose. “Ilya, this is 40 pages for what seems to be a simple case. Come back to me with no more than eight.”
And then there were several times that we received a draft opinion from another judge that Judge Jolly found too sprawling. “Boys, this is 50 pages of purple prose and needless factual background,” he would announce to our all-male cohort upon walking into the common area. “I don’t want to see it till it’s 12 pages of law.”
At one point in a draft opinion or memo calling for en banc rehearing, I had gotten a little purple in my own prose. Judge Jolly returned the document with several pages crossed out and the notation, “I’m not Jesse Jackson.”
Some lessons were more wistful or metaphoric. For example, when one of us clerks was feeling particularly good about our efforts—or particularly bad—Judge Jolly would be quick to note that
“the sun don’t shine on every dog’s behind every day.”
And if one of us made a hash of some complicated case, Judge wouldn’t so much admonish us as give direction on how to rewrite a passage or redirect our research:
“You gotta follow the big coon and not get lost on any rabbit trails.”2
One of those complex cases my year was Mayo v. Hartford Life Insurance Co.3
In Mayo, Wal-Mart had taken out life insurance on its employees and designated itself as the beneficiary. The estate of one these employees sued, alleging that Wal-Mart illegally benefited from his death and seeking to recover the funds that an insurer had paid the company under the policy.
It seemed like a quixotic case, but millions of dollars were at stake because fewer than one percent of the 350,000 eligible employees opted out of a special death-benefit program that triggered the company-owned life insurance.
Ultimately, Judge Jolly wrote for a unanimous panel that: (1) the law of Texas (where the deceased employee lived) governed the dispute; (2) under Texas law, an employer lacked an “insurable interest” in an ordinary employee; and (3) Wal-Mart had failed to establish that the applicable statute of limitations had run.4
It was a pithy opinion—just 11 pages in the federal reporter—but contained 18 footnotes and methodically traced insurable-interest law back to 1894.
One non- party close to the case called the opinion “scholarly.”
The Mayo case shows that Judge Jolly is a judge’s judge instead of an ideologue. Although his reputation pegs him as a solid conservative, he readily admits that after he graduated Ole Miss law school in 1962, he had to leave the state for a couple of years because of what, for the Magnolia State, were certain liberal proclivities.
Years later, two of his most famous opinions ruled against a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism5
and enjoined the application of a Mississippi law that would’ve closed the state’s only abortion clinic.6
The latter case was covered by the New York Times, one of the very few occasions that the work of this no-nonsense jurist received national attention.7
Moreover, a Republican appointee of his generation could’ve been expected to be a “law and order” type, and yet, like his friend, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, he has authored and joined many opinions reversing convictions where the government went beyond its constitutionally enumerated powers or violated the defendant’s rights.
The long and the short of it is that Judge Jolly has always tried to just follow the law. He treats parties that come before him as they come, on the law’s terms. His approach parallels something you could hear from a talking Kinky Friedman doll produced during the iconoclastic musician’s quixotic 2006 Texas gubernatorial run: “I’m not pro-life, I’m not pro-choice. I’m pro- football.” Except Judge Jolly isn’t much into football either, though he does have plenty of other interests.
Indeed, the education that clerks received under Judge Jolly’s tutelage isn’t limited to legal practice.
It didn’t take long to find out that Judge liked Johnny Cash.
I hadn’t listened to too much of the Man in Black, to be honest, but thought I’d give it a try. He was pretty darn good—now one of my favorites—which is what I told Judge Jolly upon arriving in chambers one morning.
Without missing a beat, Judge looked at me and says,
“Well, you know, Ilya, I once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.”
Then I heard that Judge Jolly was part of some William Faulkner reading group or secret society or whatnot. I had wanted to read into Southern and especially Mississippi literature, so I picked up The Sound and the Fury. I found it incomprehensible and asked Judge for advice. “Oh, I never really understood it myself,” he explained, “but Faulkner’s a good writer to drink by.” Taking my boss both seriously and literally, I made sure to have a
“whiskey with William”—as well as a “beer with Bill”—at Faulkner’s grave in Oxford.
By a certain point in the year, my co-clerks and I had settled into a routine, though we did notice a big gap between argument sessions. This was a term when all of Judge Jolly’s sittings were in New Orleans, the seat of the Fifth Circuit, rather than at one of the law schools or other suitable locations in the court’s jurisdiction.
We asked him if he could finagle a designation to hear cases someplace interesting, knowing that he’d been president of the Federal Judges Association—the judicial advocacy group—and could write his own ticket.
A few weeks later, Judge Jolly came into the library and said, “Boys, I’ve found you another sitting as you’ve asked.” “Where?” we queried, with visions of San Francisco, Miami, Hawaii, maybe some other random place. Judge Jolly grinned and with a twinkle in his eye announced, “New Orleans.”
Judge Jolly’s mentorship continued far past the clerkship. Through emails and visits to Washington, he kept in touch with his “clerk family,” often signing his missives, “your personal judge.” It felt like a dispatch from home.
Four years ago, Judge Jolly officiated at my wedding.
It was actually quite the hassle getting him licensed to do so in the District of Columbia; the marriage bureau requested letters from him and from the chief circuit judge attesting to his judicial bona fides. Having taken care of the paperwork—he now has that authority for life, in case anyone needs his services in D.C.—Judge proceeded to conduct a ceremony replete with personality and kindness, wit and wisdom.
And so you see, it was one of the great good fortunes of my life to have clerked for Judge Jolly. Almost everything I am professionally, from the way I look at the law, to how I manage my own associates, to knowing when to incorporate humor as a way to gain perspective, can be traced to the lessons I learned in his chambers. Judge Jolly was also an incredible personal mentor, showing how a gentleman-lawyer conducts himself.
In sum,8 Judge Jolly deserves all the accolades he’s getting in this fateful year when he celebrates 80 years of life and 35 years on the bench, and finally relinquishes his long-held title as senior- most active judge on the Fifth Circuit.
Grady Jolly is an original— and a great American.
Kristin Shapiro (MrsShap)
Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Dates Employed: Nov 2019 – Present
Location: Washington D.C. Metro Area
Independent Women’s Forum
Dates Employed: 2018 – Present
Location: Washington, District Of Columbia
Assistant General Counsel
U.S. House of Representatives
Dates Employed2016 – Nov 2019
Location: Washington D.C. Metro Area
Williams & Connolly LLP
Dates Employed: 2010 – 2016
Location: Washington D.C. Metro Area
Law Clerk to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Dates Employed: 2009 – 2010
Location: Pasadena, California
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Degree Name Juris Doctor (J.D.)
Grade magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; second in class
Dates attended or expected graduation –
Activities and Societies: John Henry Wigmore Scholar; Senior Colloquy Editor, Northwestern University Law Review.
New York University
Degree Name Bachelor of Arts – BA
Grade magna cum laude
Dates attended or expected graduation –
Activities and Societies: Policy debate team; graduated in three years.
Blue Valley North High School
Degree Name High School
Dates attended or expected graduation –
Independent Women’s Foundation (Justice Clarence Thomas et al)
Kristin Shapiro is a Senior Fellow with Independent Women’s Forum.
Kristin received her bachelor of arts degree from New York University, magna cum laude, in 2004, and her juris doctorate from Northwestern University School of Law, magna cum laude, in 2009, where she graduated second in her class and served on the editorial board of the Northwestern University Law Review.
After law school, Kristin clerked for Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Following her clerkship, Kristin practiced law as an associate at Williams & Connolly LLP, a D.C. law firm, for six years, where she litigated numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeal and district courts.
Kristin then served as Assistant General Counsel in the Office of General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives for three years, and is now an attorney for the federal government.
Kristin has been selected both by the National Law Journal and SuperLawyers as a D.C. Rising Star.
Kristin’s commentary has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Examiner, The Hill, The Federalist, Corporate Counsel, and Law360.
Kristin lives in Falls Church, Virginia, with her husband and two children.
The Author here is Doug Bandow, a fmr syndicated columnist with Copley News Service and a senior fellow of the Cato Institute. Following revelations that he had accepted payments from lobbyist Jack Abramoff he resigned from Cato and suspended from Copley News Service. He’s back. pic.twitter.com/TUqivvY2Nm
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) June 13, 2021