Dan Epps

Yeah. I mean, I think it's – that's my impression as well. I'm not sure exactly what I'd compare it to. I do think the number of really terrible advocates has gone down.

Right. And I assume that's a combination of – Fewer merits cases mean the number of excellent advocates who are your case for free goes up. There's always true in some cases, but it used to be there were more positions or whatever where that was less true.

Right. And I assume that's a combination of – Fewer merits cases mean the number of excellent advocates who are your case for free goes up. There's always true in some cases, but it used to be there were more positions or whatever where that was less true.

I think 20 years ago, not in every case, not if you had, like if it was the, it was the wrong side of some, it was the plaintiff side of some issue where a lot of the usual suspects who are at big firms would have a, you know, a business conflict, even if not a real conflict. I think people weren't, weren't necessarily beating your door down and there weren't as many exporter clinics. Yeah.

I think 20 years ago, not in every case, not if you had, like if it was the, it was the wrong side of some, it was the plaintiff side of some issue where a lot of the usual suspects who are at big firms would have a, you know, a business conflict, even if not a real conflict. I think people weren't, weren't necessarily beating your door down and there weren't as many exporter clinics. Yeah.

But I also think that there must have just been a learning among the clients that this is the thing that you should expect. And thus, even when inexperienced lawyers want to keep the case, I think they're pressured to moot the case a bunch, to consult with people who know some of their practice has probably gone up. So I just think there's been – it's good.

But I also think that there must have just been a learning among the clients that this is the thing that you should expect. And thus, even when inexperienced lawyers want to keep the case, I think they're pressured to moot the case a bunch, to consult with people who know some of their practice has probably gone up. So I just think there's been – it's good.

Yeah, I think so. I think this is the first of the Supreme Court kind of Trump shadow docket cases, right? First.

Yeah, I think so. I think this is the first of the Supreme Court kind of Trump shadow docket cases, right? First.

I think there'll be probably some more, maybe even before this episode, actually, to our listeners. You know, as people surely know, there are tons of district court cases where district courts are issuing TROs about various things the Trump administration has done in the month or so since they've been in office.

I think there'll be probably some more, maybe even before this episode, actually, to our listeners. You know, as people surely know, there are tons of district court cases where district courts are issuing TROs about various things the Trump administration has done in the month or so since they've been in office.

And it's going to raise a lot of things, and a lot of those are bubbling up to the court. But the first one that the court has gotten and ruled on is Besant versus Hampton Dellinger, special counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. Son of famed Supreme Court advocate, former acting Solicitor General Walter Dodger. Okay. I was wondering about that. Yep. That checks out. That's interesting.

And it's going to raise a lot of things, and a lot of those are bubbling up to the court. But the first one that the court has gotten and ruled on is Besant versus Hampton Dellinger, special counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. Son of famed Supreme Court advocate, former acting Solicitor General Walter Dodger. Okay. I was wondering about that. Yep. That checks out. That's interesting.

And this is a case about the, I mean, the substance of the case is the unitary executive question, right? About the president's power to remove officers in the United States without having to show cause. And then it also has several procedural wrinkles.

And this is a case about the, I mean, the substance of the case is the unitary executive question, right? About the president's power to remove officers in the United States without having to show cause. And then it also has several procedural wrinkles.

Well, you do wonder, right, when Trump removed him, did Trump know what the office was or did he just see special counsel? And maybe Dellinger. Maybe he even remembered Dellinger's name. He's like, wow, a famous Democrat in the Office of Special Counsel. They're fired. I do kind of wonder. Yeah, that's eminently plausible.

Well, you do wonder, right, when Trump removed him, did Trump know what the office was or did he just see special counsel? And maybe Dellinger. Maybe he even remembered Dellinger's name. He's like, wow, a famous Democrat in the Office of Special Counsel. They're fired. I do kind of wonder. Yeah, that's eminently plausible.

But I don't actually know what the office does beyond being somehow involved in the Merit System Protection Support.

But I don't actually know what the office does beyond being somehow involved in the Merit System Protection Support.

Right. And so preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable. And as you alluded to, in practice, the preliminary injunction has often become