Judicial Notice (01.25.26): Weathering The Storm

Welcome to the latest edition of Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world—aka “I read all the news, so you don’t have to.” By reading (or skimming) JN each week, you can catch up on all the news you missed because you were busy with your day job. Interested in sponsoring Judicial Notice? Right now, I have two open spots each month for 2026. To learn more, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, subject line “Sponsoring Judicial Notice.”

Last week wasn’t the greatest for me—although more annoying than seriously problematic. Almost a month after it started, I still have a lingering cough (but I’m improving and not contagious, according to my internist). I dislodged the crown on one of my dental implants (yes, implants, plural—I have the world’s worst teeth). And now, like many of you, we’re holed up at home—or actually the home of my parents, who have way more space (and canned goods) than we do—watching the snow fall. At least it’s peaceful and pretty, and I’m glad that we have no reason to be outdoors or traveling (and that we still have power). I hope you are similarly safe and warm.

Now, on to the news.

Lawyer of the Week: Jack Smith.

Last Thursday, Jack Smith, the former special counsel who prosecuted Donald Trump, testified for five hours before the House Judiciary Committee. It was, as noted by Alan Feuer and Glenn Thrush of The New York Times (gift link), “the first and perhaps only chance [Smith] will have to make his case in an official forum that he was justified in filing the two sets of charges against Mr. Trump in 2023.” Feel free to check out Smith’s opening statement (which I did watch), or even his complete testimony (which I did not). Or if you don’t have five free hours, read takeaways from The Times and The Washington Post (gift link).

Overall, the hearing was fairly predictable. Smith insisted that he brought the Trump cases without “fear or favor,” based on the facts and the law, and “no one should be above the law.” Republicans used the hearing to condemn Smith as a partisan zealot, while Democrats seized upon the chance to attack Trump for defying the rule of law. I’m not aware of