Like a bad biopsy, I think we knew what was coming even if we hoped for another result: The Supreme Court would uphold the travel ban . The high court tipped its hand in December, when it let the law go into effect, and again during oral arguments in April, when the justices seemed sympathetic to the government's position. Tuesday's decision may have been a disappointment, but it was not a shocker. But the same day that the fight over the travel ban died, a new one coalesced: 17 states and the District of Columbia sued to challenge the Trump administration's family separation and asylum policy. Once again, lawyers are leading the resistance. Compounding the sense of déjà vu, the 128-page complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington—the first court to hear a travel ban challenge. But there's a notable difference this time around. While many of the states filing suit—deep blue enclaves like California, New York and Illinois—are the same, there are also three new plaintiffs: Minnesota, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. They're all swing states, and their participation in the case points to just how unpopular this policy is. “Defendants have made clear that the purpose of separating families is not to protect children, but rather to create a public spectacle designed to deter potential immigrants from coming to the United States,” the complaint states. “Defendants' policy is causing severe, intentional, and permanent trauma to the children and parents who are separated in furtherance of an illegitimate deterrence objective.” The travel ban ruling may actually give the suit a small boost. The majority held that “a person's interest in being united with his relatives is sufficiently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article III injury in fact.” Hello, standing! Invoking their sovereign, proprietary and parens patriae interests, the states assert that the family separation policy “has caused severe and immediate harm to the states and their residents, including parents who are detained, released, or otherwise reside in the states after being forcibly separated from their children, children who are placed in facilities, shelters, sponsor homes, foster care, or who otherwise reside in the states after being separated from their parents.” They want the court to order the government to reunite parents and children. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard Jones, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2007 (and fun fact—is the younger half-brother of legendary music producer Quincy Jones.) The suit also attacks the administration's policy of refusing to accept asylum seekers who present at Southwestern border—though standing may be trickier to establish on that front. “Border officials are unlawfully turning away these families on the pretext that the United States is 'full' or no longer accepting asylum seekers,” the complaint says. “This unlawful practice exacerbates the trauma already suffered by refugee families while simultaneously artificially increasing illegal entry violations.” Lawyers in the private bar are stepping up to fight as well. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison chairman Brad Karp and Gary Wingens, the managing partner of Lowenstein Sandler, wrote a powerful opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times on Tuesday headlined “ The Law Did Not Create This Crisis, but Lawyers Will Help End It .” This is the paragraph that gives me shivers: “We speak for a group of lawyers who lead 34 major American law firms . As a group, we cannot stand by as our government, under the pretext of enforcing the law, violates it and traumatizes children and their parents in the process. We are professionally obligated to safeguard the rule of law and to protect the poor and the vulnerable against targeted governmental abuses.” The firms, which collectively employ about 30,000 lawyers, “have pledged to help reunify families and ensure representation for legitimate asylum seekers … and to ensure that the rule of law is protected as well.” Paul Weiss, working with the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services , has “sent a team of lawyers to represent parents detained near the border in Texas.” Other firms have teamed up with the Lawyers for Good Government Foundation and non-profit immigration services providers to launch Project Corazon , which is designed to reunite children with their families. Their goal is to make services available to affected families by July 4—which seems like a fitting way to celebrate our country's birthday during what feels like a uniquely dark period in our history. |

Lateral Watch

White collar expert Sean Hecker has left Debevoise & Plimpton to become a name partner at the litigation boutique founded last year by Roberta Kaplan. New York's Kaplan & Company is now Kaplan Hecker & Fink in a name change that also adds co-founding partner Julie Fink to the masthead. Kaplan, a former Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison litigator, successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (back in the days when the Supreme Court issued rulings that made us feel proud rather than depressed). For more, see DOMA Slayer Kaplan Brings On Debevoise Partner, Renames Firm |

In Case You Missed It

Check out my interview with Winston & Strawn's Abbe Lowell on ALM's podcast, Legal Speak. Lowell, who is currently representing Jared Kushner in the Mueller investigation, talks about his legal career, his views on impeachment and litigating in the spotlight. Listen to the podcast by clicking here or find us on Apple Podcasts , Google Play , or Libsyn . |

What I'm Reading

A New Litigation Funding Firm Launches With an Industry Veteran Validity Capital is backed by $250 million in funding, and is headed by Ralph Sutton, the former leader of IMF Bentham Ltd.'s U.S. operations. Can the President Dismantle Immigration Hearings? Short answer: No. It's called due process, and it's in the Constitution. Legal Malpractice Payouts and Defense Costs Increase: Study The number of high-dollar payouts against firms and the cost of defending against malpractice allegations have increased, according to a new insurer report. Clarence Thomas, Alone, Asserts National Injunctions Are 'Historically Dubious' “If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality.” Former Texas Lawyer Gets Prison for Suing on Behalf of Clients He'd Never Met He filed multiple hail damage lawsuits against insurers on behalf of homeowners who never hired him. In Cities' Climate Case, Alsup Points Plaintiffs to the Political Branches I'm sure Congress will get right on that.