Nearly 800,000 immigrant kids who were once undocumented have been able to live in the US without constant fear of deportation because of DACA. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich explains what the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is.

iTrump, an app developer, appears to have prevailed in a long-running trademark war against the US president's business operation, without the use of a lawyer.

The app, iTrump, doesn’t actually have anything to do with the president, and features, as per the image below, a virtual trumpet for the purposes of learning to play.

(Photo by Tom Scharfeld)

The app is designed by Tom Scharfeld under his business name ‘Spoonjack LLC’, after the development of iBone, a similar app with the trombone in mind.

Sharon Daboul, Senior Associate, at Intellectual Property law firm, EIP, told Lawyer Monthly: “This decision is the latest in a six year battle between an individual app developer and Donald Trump, which appears to have started when Trump’s lawyers demanded that he withdraw an application to register “iTrump” as a trademark for “computer software for use in producing sound”, back in 2010.  After a favourable decision in 2013, the app developer applied to cancel some of Trump’s trademark registrations, leading to the most recent decision.

“In the US, the majority of disputes will settle before a decision is reached. If battle goes all the way to judgment, it’s not unusual for a US opposition or cancellation action to take around three years to reach a conclusion. The length of this particular dispute is due to the multiple proceedings between the parties.

“The decision is refreshing; the majority of individuals would have been intimidated by a letter from Trump’s lawyers, but in this case, the app developer rightfully stood his ground.

“Trademarks are powerful assets, irrespective of a company’s size.”

What do you think of Trump’s intimidating approach to the small developer?

According to recent reports, US President Donald Trump’s questionable travel ban in January this year, limiting travel from Muslim countries around the world, has been mostly reinstated until the Supreme Court hears the case against it in October.

On Monday the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration’s travel ban to continue from the lower tier court rulings that stacked up against the President in recent months. Justices said they will decide later in the year whether the ban should be ripped down or upheld.

The Supreme Court will hear the discussion in October, allowing for now a temporary ban from six Muslim-majority countries.

The ban however, will not apply to those with a ‘bona fide’ relationship with a person or entity in the US, such as those who have family in the US, or have been admitted to a school or hired by a firm in the US.

"Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.

The White House is on fire. Every day – almost every few hours – new scandals are breaking. From investigations about Russian collusion to alleged obstruction of justice, the blaze is white hot. But when it comes to the world of businesses and law, it's not the alleged criminal law bombshells that are causing the most panic. James Goodnow, talks to Finance Monthly.

On June 1^st, US President Donald Trump formally announced what everyone knew was coming: the US is out of the Paris Climate Accord. The announcement and its build up set off another explosion the likes of which Trump and his Twitter account aren't as accustomed to fighting: a neck-snapping backlash from the business community and the lawyers who represent them.

Trump Thumbs His Nose at Business

“Global warming is an expensive hoax!” Donald Trump famously — or infamously — tweeted in January 2014. With that shot across the bow at the global scientific community, Trump started his war against climate change. His claim served as a rallying cry for his base supporters — many of whom believed that rejecting limits on carbon emissions would lead to a resurgence of US jobs in the coal industry. And the strategy was largely successful, catapulting Trump into the White House.

Despite Trump's bluster, the business community largely took a wait-and-see approach following Trump's election. The reason: Trump engaged in plenty of campaign hyperbole that was ultimately dialed back once he assumed office. Obamacare "repeal and replace" is stalled, construction has not started on Trump's border wall with Mexico, and his travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Perhaps the withdrawal from the Paris Accord would end with the same fate: a promise that would be delayed or not fulfilled.

The business world miscalculated. What business leaders monitoring the situation failed to account for is the fact Trump was backed into a corner. He needed a win with his base. And withdrawal from the Paris Accord is one of the only "successes" he could accomplish unilaterally.

The Business World's Reaction

The response from the business and legal community has been swift. On June 1, 25 major US companies, including juggernauts Apple, Facebook, Google and PG&E signed an open letter to the president that appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The letter makes the business case for the Paris Accord: "Climate change presents both business risks and business opportunities."

The day before the announcement, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave Trump an informal ultimatum on Twitter, saying he will have "no choice but to depart" from Trump advisory councils if Trump pulled the plug on the Paris Accord. Musk's comments are not isolated. Since the election, over 1000 businesses signed the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement.

The chorus of voices coming from the business community is united by a common theme: US withdrawal from the Paris Accord is not only ethically questionable, but leads to dangerous instability for business. Every day, business leaders make difficult decisions about where to allocate resources. A stable and uniform framework allows businesses to confidently invest in technology that will last into the future. According to the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement: "Investment in the low carbon economy ... give[s] financial decision-makers clarity and boost[s] the confidence of investors worldwide."

Legal Community Reaction

Trump's decision has also put lawyers into hyper-drive. Within Washington, there is widespread disagreement about the legal implications of Trump's move. Last week, a group of 22 US lawmakers, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, warned Trump in a letter that his failure to withdraw from the Paris Accord could open the litigation floodgates: “Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk." But it's far from clear that US withdrawal from the Paris Accord will immunize the White House from the courts – with groups that favor the agreement already having vowed to sue.

In-house lawyers are no doubt sweating, as well. Lawyers at large corporations with operations in the United States are tasked with providing recommendations to business leadership on what they can and can't do from a regulatory perspective. With Trump pulling the US out the Paris Accord, lawyers now have to look to domestic regulations — a scheme that itself could be turned upside down — and try to reconcile those with international protocols. All of this uncertainty may translate into lawyers feeling like they are walking on quicksand.

Trump's Political Miscalculation? 

Trump prides himself on operating on instinct. Prior to making his decision to pull out from the Paris Accord, he no doubt felt the rumblings of this business backlash coming. Why, then, did he move forward? Part of the answer may lie in his examining his base. Recent polls show that, for the first time, Trump's support among his core supporters is starting to erode. And that may spell danger for Trump, who relied on a mobilized and rock-solid base to ride into the White House. Trump thus decided that his need for a political victory and appeasing his base was worth the kickback from the business community.

But Trump may be missing something here. According to many reports, moderate conservatives and centrists who voted for Trump did so in part because they believed his rhetoric was nothing more than puffing that wouldn't ultimately be acted on. They were willing to throw their support behind him believing that he would revert to more traditional GOP, pro-business values.

But Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord demonstrates that Trump isn't all talk. When his back is against the wall, he is willing to act – even if it means acting against the interests of non-base voters who helped elect him. That realization may alienate the critical segment of the business electorate he needs to win again in 2020. More immediately, it may spell trouble for Republican members of Congress in 2018.

The White House is on fire. But it may not be heat from the blaze that stops Trump politically – but rather a cooling to Trump and his policies from moderate Republicans and the business world.

James Goodnow is an attorney and legal and political commentator based in the United States. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Santa Clara University. You can follow him on Twitter at @JamesGoodnow or email him directly at james@jamesgoodnow.com.

While over half of allocators said the debate around Trump's policy agenda will have little impact on their investment decisions, European allocators feel the increasing pressures of the European regulatory environment, the implications of Brexit and the nationalist movement are impacting asset allocation decisions in 2017. According to a recent survey from Context Summits, nearly three quarters (71%) of European investors are optimistic about the future of the alternative asset management industry, with more than half (54%) planning to increase their net positions in alternative investments by the end of 2017.

The survey of institutional investors and family offices was conducted at the inaugural Context Summits Europe event hosted by Context Summits, the preeminent producer of investment summits for the alternative asset management industry. More than 300 institutional allocators, family offices and managers, representing more than $245 billion in cumulative assets under management, attended Context Summits Europe 2017, which was held in Barcelona, Spain on 7-9^th May 2017 at the Hotel W Barcelona.

The results from Barcelona closely mirror survey results from Context Summits Miami 2017, where more than half (51%) of investors surveyed were optimistic about the industry and 72% planned to increase their allocations to alternative fund managers in 2017. A majority of European allocators (75%) also said they prefer investing with emerging managers rather than established managers, significantly more than the 59% of allocators polled at Miami earlier in the year who said they felt the same way.

"Europe represents a major growth opportunity for the alternative asset management industry, and we are pleased to help facilitate conversations between European-focused allocators and managers via our one-on-one format," said Mark Salameh, co-founder and CEO of Context Summits. "As the data shows, European allocators—like their US focused counterparts—are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future of the industry. While challenges remain, particularly in the political and regulatory realms, the overall consensus is that there is strong demand for new strategies and ideas."

John Culbertson, chief investment officer of Context Capital Partners, added: "Europe has experienced several market shocks in recent years, such as the Greek bailout and more recently the Brexit vote, which has caused European investors to approach the market with caution. However, while there are legitimate questions about the future of the EU and the solvency of some member countries, the overall appetite for alternative investments continues to grow."

Key findings include:

• Allocators Prefer New Over Existing Managers: More than three quarters of investors (75%) said they prefer to allocate additional capital to new managers, with nearly half of investors (48%) looking for a fund with a 1-3 year track record.
• Investors Split on Impact of Brexit: Investors were divided on the impact of the Brexit vote on Europe, with 40% calling it an opportunity, 35% a threat and 25% taking a neutral stance.
• Despite Election of Macron, Widespread Concerns About Nationalist Movement: More than 63% of investors said the destabilization of the EU as a result of the nationalist movement was the biggest long-term challenge for Europe, beating out the migration crisis (12%), Brexit (11%) and other concerns. Investors were especially worried about the slowdown of globalization, the replacement of free market policies and a recession resulting from a weakened economy.
• Regulatory Challenges Top of Mind: Institutional allocators and family offices overwhelmingly view European financial regulations, such as MiFID II, as a burden, with 78% citing regulatory costs, restrictions and uncertainties as potentially damaging to the market. Likewise, only 8% thought regulations were good for the industry as a whole.
• Trump Not Influencing Investment Decisions: A majority (56%) of investors said that Trump's policies had no effect on their investment decisions. Of the investors who did cite some impact, 32% said his administration's policies made them more bullish on risk assets and 11% said the policies made them more bearish.
• Little Agreement on Best Investments for 2017: Investors were divided when picking the asset class with the most potential for outperformance in 2017, with developed market equities emerging as the winner with just 30% of the vote. Other top picks included emerging markets (27%), commodities (10%) and cash (10%).

(Source: Context Summits)

Crowell & Moring LLP has released its third annual regulatory outlook, "Regulatory Forecast 2017: What Trump Means for Business." The report provides in-depth analysis on how the new administration, Congress, and the federal courts are changing the regulatory landscape and what it means for business in the months ahead.

"The first year of a new administration always brings change, but this is no ordinary transition. This administration has extended an open invitation to industry to come to Washington and share its ideas. For businesses with longstanding regulatory concerns and objectives, the opportunity to engage with Washington is now," said Angela Styles, chair of Crowell & Moring and former administrator for federal procurement policy within the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. "Our insights will help businesses understand the shifting landscape and identify the opportunities and risks ahead."

Regulatory Forecast 2017
The Regulatory Forecast provides in-house counsel and business leaders with forward-looking insight on the issues most affecting US and international businesses, including government contracts, antitrust, health care, energy, environment, international trade, cybersecurity, consumer protection, tax, and labor and employment. An infographic highlights the complex path for achieving regulatory reform in Washington.

Feature articles in the Forecast include:

• Health care: As repeal-and-replace remains unsettled, where is health care today?
• Energy and environment: Regulatory reform and the future of energy infrastructure.
• Antitrust: Will federal enforcement activity ratchet down and, if so, will states and other countries step in to fill the gap?
• Labor and employment: The status of Obama-era regulations, including overtime pay and pay equity.

(Source: Crowell & Moring LLP)

The following is a statement of Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:

New disclosure documents filed this week show the big tobacco companies are spending huge sums and hiring an army of lobbyists to influence Congress and the Trump Administration, including giving $1.5 million to President Trump's inauguration.

It's no secret what the tobacco companies want: They're waging a multi-pronged assault on a new rule the Food and Drug Administration issued last year for electronic cigarettes and cigars – products that are sold in a huge assortment of sweet flavors and threaten to hook a new generation of kids. If draining the swamp of special interests is to mean anything, it should start with protecting America's kids and not the tobacco industry.

The new disclosure documents reveal the tobacco industry is going all out to get its way:

• The two largest US tobacco companies, Altria and Reynolds American, gave $500,000 and $1 million respectively to President Trump's inauguration, according to disclosure reports just filed with the Federal Election Commission. Reynolds is one of only a handful of companies that gave at the $1 million level.
• In the first quarter of 2017 alone, tobacco companies and trade associations spent more than $4.7 million on federal lobbying, including $2.3 million by Altria, $1.3 million by Philip Morris International and $589,848 by Reynolds American. Lobbying disclosure filings show Altria has hired at least 17 lobbying firms and Reynolds hired at least 13 such firms. Altria recently added a former chief of staff for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to its stable of lobbyists, while Reynolds added a former deputy chief of staff to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price when he was a member of Congress.

In Congress, tobacco companies are pushing two bills that would greatly weaken FDA oversight of e-cigarettes and cigars and protect tobacco companies' ability to market candy-flavored products that are so enticing to kids. Tobacco lobbyists and their congressional allies are working to insert these harmful provisions in the spending bill Congress must pass by April 28 to keep the government open:

• One bill (H.R. 1136) would "grandfather" e-cigarettes and cigars already on the market, including the many sweet-flavored products introduced in recent years, and exempt them from FDA review, including whether they appeal to kids. This bill would make it much harder for the FDA to limit the sale or marketing of these products and, by making current products the industry standard, much easier for tobacco companies to continue marketing products in kid-friendly flavors like cotton candy and cherry crush.
• The second bill (S. 294/H.R. 564) would completely exempt so-called "large and premium cigars" from FDA oversight, but defines such cigars so broadly that it could end up exempting cheap, machine-made, flavored cigars that are widely used by kids.

The big tobacco companies are behind these efforts. The New York Times has reported that Altria drafted the first of these bills and that it was endorsed by R.J. Reynolds. The Times reported that the bill as initially introduced "pulled verbatim from the industry's draft." Reynolds and Altria make two of the best-selling e-cigarette brands in the US (Vuse and MarkTen).

Fifty-one leading public health and medical groups recently wrote Congress to urge rejection of these harmful measures.

In addition to this legislative attack, e-cigarette and cigar interests have filed several lawsuits against the FDA's rule. While the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration vigorously defended the rule, the Justice Department under the Trump Administration recently filed a motion requesting an extension "to more fully consider the issues raised." The government's counsel on the motion included Chad Readler, the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, who previously represented R.J. Reynolds when he was a partner at the Jones Day law firm.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other public health groups recently urged the Justice Department to recuse any lawyers who represented tobacco companies from any tobacco-related litigation while serving in the government, specifically mentioning Mr. Readler and Noel Francisco, the nominee for Solicitor General, who long represented R.J. Reynolds in tobacco litigation while at Jones Day.

Congress must reject the tobacco industry's efforts to weaken FDA oversight of e-cigarettes and cigars, and the Trump Administration must continue to vigorously defend the FDA's authority. They should side with America's kids, not the tobacco industry.

Background on E-Cigarettes and Cigars

While the US has reduced youth cigarette smoking rates to record lows, efforts to reduce overall youth tobacco use have been undermined by the popularity of e-cigarettes and cigars, which are marketed in a wide array of sweet flavors that attract kids. Studies have found more than 7,700 e-cigarette flavors and 250 cigar flavors – including flavors like gummy bear, cotton candy and cherry crush for e-cigarettes and sticky sweets, tropical twist and banana smash for cigars (for details, see our recent report, The Flavor Trap).

Current e-cigarette use among high school students increased from 1.5% in 2011 to 16% in 2015, surpassing use of regular cigarettes, according to the government's National Youth Tobacco Survey. Another national survey, the 2016 Monitoring the Future survey, showed the first evidence of a decline in youth use of e-cigarettes, but e-cigarettes continue to be the most-used tobacco product among kids. In addition, more high school boys now smoke cigars than cigarettes (14% vs. 11.8% in the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey).

Both cigars and e-cigarettes pose significant health risks. According to the National Cancer Institute, cigar smoking causes cancer of the lung, oral cavity, larynx and esophagus.

A 2016 Surgeon General's report on e-cigarettes concluded that e-cigarette use among youth and young adults "is now a major public health concern." The report warned that youth use of nicotine in any form is unsafe, can cause addiction and can harm the developing brain. The report also found that e-cigarette use is "strongly associated" with the use of other tobacco products among youth and young adults, including conventional cigarettes.

(Source: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)

Focusing on the overall impact of US tax policy on Canadian businesses, here Rhonda Sisco, US Corporate Tax Consulting Leader at Grant Thornton LLP in Toronto, tells Lawyer Monthly readers all about the potential impacts, both direct and indirect, of the expected US  administration’s reviewed policies, in what Rhonda describes as a straightforward tax philosophy with complex repercussions.

Preparing for the storm

Canadian companies can expect a flurry of US tax policy changes.

Although many of the specific details remain unclear, significant changes to US tax legislation are definitely on the way under the new Trump administration. With his clearly stated mission to bring jobs and business back to the country, President Trump is planning to introduce a number of policies essentially designed to lower tax rates across the board.

As far as business and the economy are concerned, Canada can expect to be significantly impacted by the Trump administration’s anticipated changes to US corporate and personal tax rates, overall changes to the US tax system and a potential shift from an income tax to a VAT-like tax referred to as a destination-based cash-flow tax. In order to support “America First,” a border tax is also being discussed to ensure the intended effects of the VAT-like tax. In this shifting landscape, what measures will have the most significant impact and what should executives across the country be focusing on as they consider how to respond?

Tax changes directly impacting business and the economy

Canadian companies will be most concerned by tax changes that directly impact operations, earnings, trade and repatriation of financial assets, as well as the overall economic and competitive environment. For example, potential changes to how US companies’ foreign profits are taxed could lead many US headquartered corporations to repatriate cash from Canada, which may lead to reduced investment in Canadian operations and possible Canadian job losses. Should skilled Canadian workers follow the jobs across the border, we could see a “brain drain”—and resulting negative effects with which we’re already familiar.

Moreover, tax mismatches could result which, while creating some opportunities, could also create many pitfalls for those not closely following the changing environment.

Border tax implications

The US plan is to tax all goods and services entering the US while avoiding taxing goods or services exiting. This “destination tax,” designed to keep manufacturing jobs in the US, could negatively affect Canadian businesses that currently leverage trade agreements to sell and ship to the US “tax-free.”

Personal Income tax changes will affect business as well

In Canada, the combined effect of federal and provincial taxes puts the top marginal tax rate for high-income earners over 50% in six provinces. Under the new US plan, the top personal rate—already lower than Canada’s—could decrease still further from 39.6% to 33%. A newly-lowered top US federal tax rate, combined with a strong US dollar and recent Canadian tax increases on high-income earners, could make the US more attractive to highly-skilled Canadian workers—and ex-pat US citizens—potentially compounding the talent drain.

The federal government would face pressure to move in similar directions to the US, not only to retain investment and jobs, but simply to reap the gains of having a tax system aligned with that of our largest trading partner. One possible result could be our federal or provincial governments considering lowering our top tax rates to be more in line and more competitive with the US.

A straightforward tax philosophy with complex repercussions

Ultimately, the US plan comes down to reducing taxes, broadening the tax base and simplifying tax filing, with Trump’s promise to reduce the corporate tax rate having the biggest effect on Canada. If any or all of these “America first” measures are implemented, it could significantly impact Canadian businesses.  Though the measures could spur on US economic activity that Canadian companies could significantly benefit from, certain of the tax measures may be harmful for Canadian exporters and may lead to a loss of investment in Canada and a loss of top talent to the US

Canadian companies will be facing a new economic reality when it comes to doing business in the US, conducting trade with the US and staying generally competitive with a country planning to substantially trim down both personal and corporate tax obligations.

The February issue of Wolters Kluwer's Blue Chip Economic Indicators suggests that Congress is likely to pass – and President Trump is likely to sign - comprehensive legislation aimed at reforming the tax code this year.

This month's report suggests that, while the Trump Administration's pledges of tax cuts, infrastructure spending and regulatory relief have propelled consumer and business confidence to multi-year highs and lifted US equity indices to record levels, panelists remain reluctant to significantly alter their forecasts of US economic performance for 2017 and 2018. The report also notes that securing congressional passage of major tax reform and infrastructure-related legislation is expected to be fractious and time consuming, and that there is considerable opposition to inclusion of a border adjustment (effectively a 20% tax on all imports).

"The consensus anticipates comprehensive tax reform legislation, but fewer than one third of panelists believe that a border adjustment component will be included as part of any tax reform that is approved," said Randell E. Moore, executive editor of Wolters Kluwer's Blue Chip Economic Indicators.

The consensus indicates that US economic growth in 2017 and 2018 will be somewhat stronger than last year. Real GDP growth is predicted to grow 2.3% this year and 2.4% in 2018, compared to 1.6% in 2016.

Other consensus findings from this issue of Wolters Kluwer's Blue Chip Economic Indicators exclusive survey include:

• About three-quarters of the panelists expect Congress to approve some sort of infrastructure investment plan in 2017, but more than 80% of the panelists believe that any increase in infrastructure investment over the next few years will prove to be "moderate" or "modest".
• The Federal Reserve is expected to enact two or three 25-basis-point hikes in interest rates this year. 65% of the panelists believe the Fed will hold off until its June meeting to raise rates for the first time in 2017.
• About 21% of the panelists say they are "very worried" that increased protectionism is a threat to the US economy, while almost 40% say they are "moderately worried."

(Source: Wolters Kluwer)

The International Bar Association (IBA) calls for a halt to President Donald Trump’s undermining of the United States judiciary – and consequently the rule of law – through personal attacks on respected jurists. Following the unanimous decision of the judges of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, not to reinstate the President’s recently issued Executive Order entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior– which bans nationals travelling to the US from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – the IBA cautions against further diminishing public confidence in the vital institution of an impartial and independent judiciary.

IBA President Martin Šolc commented: “It is recognised that under the Constitution of the United States of America, it is the prerogative of the nation’s President to issue Executive Orders. Almost every US president has done so. However, where there is conflict between the desires of the President and upholding human rights, judges must be allowed to decide cases impartially, without fear, restriction or improper influence in accordance with their interpretation of the law and the facts. President Trump’s controversial travel ban is irrefutably such an instance.”

He added: “The rule of law, the centuries-old legal principle that law should govern a nation, is something that is being chipped away at each time President Trump publicly attacks and disrespects a judge. Not only is this demoralising for the individual who is the target of the contempt, but more widely it damages public confidence in the judicial system. For all the President’s statements opposing elitism, he needs to remember not to attempt to place himself above the law.”

A federal court judge in Seattle, Washington state, James Robart, imposed a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the ban which, among other things, suspended admission of refugees into the US for 120 days, prevented the entry of individuals from the seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and prioritised refugee applicants belonging to minority religious groups. The judge’s action earned him a stinging public rebuke from President Trump on the news and social networking service Twitter.

Lawyers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the attorney general for the state of Washington engaged in a court battle over whether the injunction should remain in place or be lifted immediately. On 7^th February the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments, via telephone, from both parties. It was the first time DOJ lawyers had the opportunity to be heard, as the TRO was granted ‘ex parte’, that is, the plaintiffs made their case to Judge Robart without DOJ lawyers present.

The plaintiffs prevailed and the TRO will remain in effect while a broader court case questioning the ultimate constitutionality or legality of the travel ban advances.

IBA Executive Director Mark Ellis said: “The Ninth Circuit’s unanimous ruling states that the government failed to show an “urgent need” for the Executive Order to be reinstated immediately. This should be welcome news to all who value democracy and understand that judicial independence is one of the core values of a functioning justice system.”

He added: “Regardless of political affiliation, upholding the principles that enable independent determinations must be paramount. Further, the US President, though not having received the decision of his choice, should be reassured that, despite unrelenting public attacks, a component of the US judiciary held true to the oath sworn to safeguard the rule of law; an example which legal professionals everywhere should seek to emulate.”

(Source: IBA)