This Day in Legal History: John T. Scopes Arrested
On May 5, 1925, John T. Scopes, a 24-year-old high school science teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested for violating the state's Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools. His arrest set in motion one of the most famous trials in American history: the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. The case was a deliberate test of the new law, orchestrated by local businessmen and supported by the ACLU, who wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Scopes agreed to be the defendant, even though there was uncertainty about whether he had actually taught evolution during class.
The trial drew national attention, pitting two legal giants against each other: William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate and staunch creationist, for the prosecution, and Clarence Darrow, one of the most famous defense attorneys of the era, for the defense. The proceedings became a spectacle, with reporters from across the country descending on Dayton. The courtroom debate highlighted the deep cultural divide between modernist and fundamentalist values in 1920s America.
Scopes was ultimately found guilty and fined $100, though the verdict was later overturned on a technicality. However, the trial's significance went far beyond the outcome. It sparked national conversation about science, religion, education, and the role of government in regulating ideas taught in schools. The Butler Act remained in effect until 1967, and the trial inspired numerous retellings in literature and film, including Inherit the Wind. The Scopes Trial remains a key historical moment in the legal and cultural struggle over academic freedom and the separation of church and state.
The first quarter of 2025 offered law firms a paradox: weak demand to start the year, followed by a surge in legal work tied to renewed global trade tensions under President Trump. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index, litigation and transactional practices saw a marked uptick in March, largely driven by tariff-related disputes. This late-quarter boost helped mask deeper structural issues—namely declining lawyer productivity and elevated expenses.
Despite the spike in work, the index dropped 13 points from Q4 2024, reflecting sluggish growth in demand and a 2.4% year-over-year drop in productivity. Direct expenses, driven by aggressive lateral hiring and performance-based bonus payouts, rose 7.6%, while overhead climbed 6.3%. These figures underscore the cost pressures firms are navigating even as they attempt to capitalize on short-term geopolitical volatility.
Billing rates were a rare highlight. Firms raised rates by 7.3% over the prior year, marking the most aggressive pricing push since 2005. That pricing power helped offset some of the drag from low productivity and rising costs.
Still, the benefits of this trade-driven spike appear temporary. The report notes that economic instability—particularly trade disruptions—tends to generate front-loaded demand that quickly tapers. With several financial institutions upping their recession odds for late 2025, law firm leaders are being urged to treat Q1 gains as a buffer, not a trend.
The legal sector may have outperformed expectations in early 2025, but its exposure to macroeconomic uncertainty is increasing. Strategic planning—not reactive optimism—will determine how firms fare in the months ahead.
Trade war boosted law firm demand in early 2025 but challenges lie ahead, report says | Reuters
California’s experiment with a homegrown bar exam has officially unraveled. Following a disastrous February rollout plagued by scoring issues, technical failures, and the undisclosed use of AI-generated questions, the California Supreme Court has scrapped the state’s new exam for July and ordered a return to the traditional Multistate Bar Exam (MBE).
In a Friday order, the court cited ongoing concerns with the question development process and approved a series of score adjustments to mitigate the damage done to February test-takers. Results, initially due that same day, were delayed until Monday to accommodate recalculations. The court also mandated that July’s exam revert to the format and components used prior to the February overhaul, abandoning the cost-saving, AI-assisted approach California had pursued.
This reversal is not cheap. The State Bar now expects to spend $2.3 million more than originally budgeted to address the fallout, effectively wiping out the projected $3.8 million in annual savings the new system was meant to deliver. Executive Director Leah Wilson, who had championed the exam reform, announced she will step down in July.
The court also set the passing score for February’s test at 534—lower than what standardized testing experts had advised—and instructed the bar to estimate (“impute”) scores for candidates unable to complete major sections of the exam due to system failures.
California, home to the nation’s second-largest pool of bar applicants, has now reversed course entirely. What was meant to be a modern, streamlined alternative has turned into a cautionary tale about reform without readiness.
California scraps new bar exam for July, adjusts scores on botched February test | Reuters
Donald Trump’s second-term judicial nomination strategy is picking up right where his first left off: turning to state solicitors general and their deputies to stock the federal bench with young, deeply conservative legal talent. His first new appellate pick, Whitney Hermandorfer of Tennessee, reflects a clear pattern—Trump is drawing from red-state lawyers who’ve spent the last several years battling the Biden administration in federal courts on issues like abortion, transgender rights, and administrative authority.
Hermandorfer, who currently leads strategic litigation for Tennessee’s attorney general, has defended the state’s abortion ban in medical emergency cases and pushed back against federal Title IX expansions to protect transgender students. She also clerked for three sitting conservative justices, checking all the ideological boxes sought by Trump’s judicial selection machine. Her nomination is part of a larger pipeline strategy that prioritizes appellate experience in politically charged litigation and loyalty to the conservative legal movement.
This approach is anything but accidental. State solicitors general, particularly in Republican-controlled states, have become central figures in the legal battles over federal policy, turning what was once a technical appellate role into a political proving ground. The result: a crop of hardline conservative lawyers—like Mississippi’s Scott Stewart, who argued Dobbs, or Alabama’s Edmund LaCour, who defended gender-affirming care bans—ready to step into lifetime judicial roles.
With at least 45 current and 15 future federal vacancies, including six at the appellate level, Trump has the opportunity to accelerate his effort to reshape the judiciary. The model is clear: ideological fidelity, battlefield experience, and youth. What’s emerging is a deliberate, well-coordinated pipeline from red-state litigation offices straight onto the federal bench—a move likely to solidify conservative judicial influence for decades.
Trump Returns to Red State Appeals Lawyers to Fill Judgeships
Share this post