Photo 7

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvlba2025/1015/thumbnail.jp

Flagrant Fouls: The First Amendment, Legal Speech, and Attacks on Law Firms and the Rule of Law

This Essay explores the Trump Administration’s unprecedented campaign targeting major U.S. law firms for retribution and examines such actions in light of the First Amendment’s relationship to these actions. Drawing on historical and doctrinal analyses, the Essay introduces and defends the concept of “legal speech” as a critical cluster of First Amendment protections encompassing the rights of lawyers to speak, associate, petition, and advocate on behalf of clients in an unfettered way and without government retaliation. Executive actions against Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey purport to revoke security clearances, bar access to federal buildings, review hiring practices, and even penalize third-party clients doing business with the federal government—all in apparent response to these firms’ litigation stances, pro bono activities, and affiliations with political adversaries of the president. The Essay situates these actions within a larger historical, constitutional, and legal framework by tracing the doctrinal roots of legal speech through landmark Supreme Court decisions, including NAACP v. Alabama, NAACP v. Button, In re Primus, and Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which collectively establish that legal advocacy—especially litigation aimed at advancing civil rights and challenging government action—is constitutionally protected expression. The Essay further analyzes how the Administration’s actions mirror past attempts by government to suppress disfavored speech through indirect pressure on third parties, a tactic the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo as recently as May of 2024. The Essay also chronicles how some firms capitulated to administrative pressure without a formal Order issued against them, engaging in what historian Timothy Snyder describes as “anticipatory compliance,” further raising alarm about the erosion of rule-of-law principles. Ultimately, this Essay argues that these Executive Orders constitute clear content-based restrictions on legal speech and are therefore unconstitutional

Photo 2

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nvlba2025/1010/thumbnail.jp

In the Matter of the Parental Rights as to S.A.T., A Minor Child, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (Oct. 2, 2025)

THE COURT DETERMINED UNDER N.R.S. § 128.105 THAT TOKEN EFFORTS ALONE CANNOT SUPPORT PRIVATE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND THAT SILENCE DOES NOT ADMIT FAULT

Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Company of California, Inc., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (Mar. 6, 2025)

The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer in a breach of implied warranty claim. Modern Welding Company of California manufactured an underground storage tank, which was purchased for use by Golden Gate in 2008. Golden Gate discovered a crack in the tank in 2016, and brought suit for breach of implied warranty against Golden Gate in 2019. The district court granted summary judgment for Modern. Golden Gate appealed, arguing that for a claim for breach of implied warranty under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code is subject to discovery tolling. The Supreme Court of Nevada disagreed, and held that discovery tolling does not apply to a breach of implied warranty claim under the UCC. Additionally, the Court upheld an award of attorney fees to Modern

Cocking v. State of Nevada, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (Apr. 24, 2025)

NEVADA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CONCEALED CARRY AND SERIAL NUMBER REQUIREMENTS DO NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.A.S., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (Apr. 24, 2025)

TERMINATION PETITIONS INITIATED BY PRIVATE PARTIES REQUIRE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS THAT DIFFER FROM STATE-INITIATED PETITION