December 10, 2025                                                         Jerad Najvar (281) 684-1227

Lawsuit alleges both the City and VIA violate the Texas Constitution and Transportation Code in shoveling extra sales tax revenue to VIA

SAN ANTONIO, TEX. – In an amended petition filed this week, SAFA Action (sister organization to the San Antonio Family Association) added VIA Metropolitan Transit as a defendant in its lawsuit challenging the City of San Antonio’s illegal plan to fund the “Bus Rapid Transit” boondoggle.  SAFA Action will be seeking an injunction against the City and VIA to stop their illegal agreement to shovel extra sales tax revenue from the City to VIA. Plaintiffs hope to stop the entire project, preserving fiscal sanity—and San Pedro Avenue—in the process.

SAFA Action and several individual taxpayers originally filed suit in September against the City of San Antonio.  The lawsuit takes aim at the City’s agreement to send more than $13 Million in sales tax revenues a year—in perpetuity—for VIA’s unelected board to spend on the Bus Rapid Transit project.  The original lawsuit already explained that this plan—to shovel more San Antonio sales tax revenue to VIA than voters approved in 2020—violates the Texas Constitution, the Transportation Code, and the City’s own charter, by severing any political accountability for how these funds are spent. 

The amended petition now adds VIA as a defendant, alleging that VIA itself violates the Constitution and the Transportation Code by accepting the additional sales tax revenue. 

Importantly, Plaintiffs also specifically target VIA’s ill-conceived venture into housing policy, illustrated by VIA’s indefinitely-stalled plan to redevelop the Scobey complex. The lawsuit alleges that VIA has no statutory authority to purchase real estate, or make any other expenditures, for housing or business redevelopment. SAFA Action is asking the court to order VIA to disgorge the Scobey complex and enjoin any further expenditures on it or any other such projects outside of VIA’s actual authority.

The amended petition was filed December 8, 2025.  The suit is styled Catholic Family Apostolate, d/b/a SAFA Action, et al. v. City of San Antonio et al., No. 2025 CI 22315, pending in the 37th Judicial District Court of Bexar County.

Plaintiffs will be seeking an injunction to prevent the transfer of the additional sales tax revenue to VIA before the first such transfer is set to occur in March 2026.  

# # #

Jerad Najvar, based in Houston, litigates constitutional and election law matters in state and federal courts. He represented SAFA in its successful First Amendment challenge to a Texas statute that limited the speech of newly-registered political committees in 2014, and has prevailed in cases against Austin, Houston, the Federal Election Commission, and the Food & Drug Administration. He is a member of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman LLC.  

On April 4, 2025, Attorney General Paxton’s office announced it was suing San Antonio to stop its illegal abortion trafficking fund. This is welcome news, and it’s not the only lawsuit the AG should take up against the lawless San Antonio City Council.

In March, Chalmers Adams attorney Jerad Najvar wrote a letter on behalf of Friends of SAFA, requesting that Attorney General Paxton stop the City’s plan punt millions of tax dollars to VIA Metropolitan Transit, severing any political accountability for how sales tax dollars are spent by VIA bureaucrats. The letter explains that San Antonio City Council’s “interlocal agreement” with VIA violates not just the state Transportation Code, but also San Antonio’s own charter.

By way of introduction, the letter states that

“San Antonio is working with VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA), a metropolitan transit authority created under Chapter 451 of the Transportation Code, on a “bus rapid transit” system. Like other massively expensive attempts by agitated activists to re-order Texans’ transportation preferences, nobody wants this system and nobody will use it even if it is built. Houston’s barely-used light rail and bus rapid transit lines are prime examples.”

It goes on to explain the legal deficiencies. So far, no word on whether the AG will jump in to protect taxpayers from this transportation boondoggle.

##

Courageous Conservatives PAC Moves to Dismiss Silencing Lawsuit from Rep. Pat Curry

Legislator Brought Lawsuit to Avoid Hearing From Constituents, Facing Anti-SLAPP Sanctions

[Waco, TX] — The Courageous Conservatives Political Action Committee, an organization dedicated to electing leaders who uphold the values of sovereignty, strength, and principled conservative governance, has filed a motion to dismiss a baseless lawsuit brought by Texas State Representative Pat Curry. The lawsuit, stemming from texts and Meta (Facebook) posts encouraging voters to hold their elected officials accountable, is a direct attack on the First Amendment and citizen-led advocacy.

“This is a blatant attempt by Pat Curry to silence political dissent and chill the voices of his own constituents,” said Chris Ekstrom, Chairman of the Courageous Conservatives PAC. “If you’re an elected official, hearing from the people you represent isn’t a nuisance, it’s your job.”

In the legal filing, Courageous Conservatives made clear its messages were constitutionally protected speech, urging Republican voters to contact Curry and others ahead of a crucial vote for Texas House Speaker and keep the promises they made to voters.

“Our communications were not only legal, they worked,” said Ekstrom. “Curry originally pledged to support a conservative candidate for Speaker. But when he seemed to waver, we helped his constituents remind him of that promise. The fact is, only after public pressure organized by our PAC did Curry vote as he originally said he would. That’s grassroots democracy in action.”

The motion to dismiss, filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), states in part:

“Plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeks damages and a speech-prohibiting injunction…made in Defendant’s exercise of all three enumerated and fundamental rights which the TCPA was enacted to protect.”

The PAC’s messaging was directed solely at the public, without any coordination with speaker candidates, and falls squarely within the protections of both the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution’s free-speech guarantees.

Curry’s lawsuit alleges violations of the Texas Election Code, but as the filing explains, “Texas law has long treated expenditures regarding the competition for House Speaker as categorically distinct from the public elections governed under title 15 of the Election Code.”

In short, Curry’s claims lack legal merit — and standing.

“What Curry really wants is to use the courts to punish those who dared to organize against him. That’s not just unconstitutional, it’s un-American,” Ekstrom said.

Further, the motion rebukes Curry’s claims of illegality, stating:

“A lawsuit by a sitting officeholder to shut down critical speech by a political committee is anything but a typical civil action.”

Ekstrom added, “Curry’s strategy is clear: intimidate conservatives into silence. But we won’t be bullied, and neither will the millions of Americans who want to see elected leaders stick to their word. This has been going on in Texas for a long time, and I intend to bring it to an end. We will not be silenced.”

The PAC is also seeking attorney’s fees and sanctions, noting that “expedited dismissal is particularly appropriate where a lawsuit threatens, or chills protected activity without any sound basis.”

As 2026 elections approach, Courageous Conservatives PAC will continue its mission to amplify the voices of grassroots conservatives and ensure political accountability in every state house and district across the country.

About Courageous Conservatives PAC

Courageous Conservatives PAC is a grassroots-driven political action committee dedicated to electing principled conservative leaders who will fight for American values, national sovereignty, and an America First agenda. Led by Chairman Chris Ekstrom, the PAC works to ensure that the voices of patriotic Americans are heard — not silenced — locally and nationwide.

###

I haven’t used this blog much recently as I’ve been planning a relaunch after changing firms (having proudly joined Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufmann LLC in 2024), and lacking time to blog given recent litigation demands. But events have forced my hand; this space will be re-launched and populated with much more content very soon, but I had to get some information out that I hope will help students currently facing vaccine mandates. EXAMPLE TEXAS RFRA DEMAND CORRESPONDENCE (discussed in this post), HERE. (Note that my email address has changed given the move to Chalmers Adams since this letter was written. You can find my short bio and contact here.)

I’ve seen multiple social media posts over the last few days reporting that students at various Texas institutions are still being coerced into taking certain shots. This is likely illegal and they have rights to assert that should allow them to avoid the mandates. Really, it is disgusting that these institutions still cajole students into certain medical interventions at all, and even more so without respecting or advising them of their rights to object. There is much more to say about this–about the probable illegality of these mandates as a general matter; about additional bases for challenging the Covid shot in particular; and other things. I’ll expand in additional posts later. But given the urgency of the matter for students in this situation now, I wanted to begin by pointing out a powerful statute that is still far too unknown and under-utilized: the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA).

I represented a nursing student at Texas A&M (my alma mater) who successfully stood on her right to a religious exemption to the Covid shot in 2022. The University, sadly, had been slow-walking a resolution, apparently hoping to coerce her to take the shot by the simple passage of time, threatening that she would not graduate on time unless she got the shot, because while the University wasn’t mandating it, its clinical partners all required students to have the shot to perform their clinical requirement. TAMU shamefully tried to hide behind its “partners,” claiming that it couldn’t force outside institutions (where the students performed their clinical rotations required for class credit) to accommodate student objections.

We pointed out that under TRFRA, the university had an obligation to make a reasonable accommodation for any student with a sincere religious objection; this meant that it had to take steps to find “partners” for clinicals that did not mandate the vaccine or that would accommodate the unvaccinated students.

The University’s general counsel’s office was dismissive of my client’s attempts to negotiate an accommodation for months. Soon after I threatened litigation under TRFRA, however, they caved, found a place for the client to complete her rotation, and she graduated on time. The TAMU general counsel initially doubted that we had a solid legal claim, and even sent a snarky email suggesting they really had no intention of taking us seriously. This is in the email chain attached to the demand letter linked here, along with my response. Within days, the issue was resolved.

Sadly, most of the students who had objected earlier on had already caved themselves and taken the shots; those students would have been accommodated also if they had forced the issue. Institutions like this don’t listen until they’re threatened with litigation or actually sued. And TRFRA provides a powerful tool to force common sense where it otherwise has not prevailed.

I’m sharing the redacted communications here with the litigation demand. TRFRA claims, like any litigation, are fact-specific and therefore this post cannot serve as legal advice for any other particular claim. But I suspect TRFRA itself will be sufficient to compel accommodations for many students (and others) who (quite reasonably) object to unwanted vaccinations.

Najvar Law Firm press release:

MCALLEN, TEX.—Texas law currently vests local “ballot boards” with the authority to eyeball a voter’s signature on the “carrier” envelope (containing the completed mail-in ballot) to determine if the signature looks sufficiently similar to the voter’s signature on his or her application to vote by mail. If the ballot board—composed of laypersons with no expertise or training in handwriting analysis—perceives a discrepancy in the signatures, it must reject the ballot. The voter is disenfranchised in that election with no notice and no opportunity to verify the validity of his or her ballot. Four elderly South Texas voters, all of whose ballots were improperly rejected in the March 2018 Democratic primary election, have joined a constitutional lawsuit challenging this deficient process. Defendants are the Texas Secretary of State, represented by the Office of the Attorney General, and the members of the Starr County Early Voting Ballot Board.

All four plaintiff voters have verified that they personally signed their applications and carrier envelopes.  The four voters’ experiences illustrate the practical deficiencies in the operation of Texas’s signature-match requirement. 

Plaintiff Amelia Martinez, now deceased, was legally blind.  She was 73 years old when she completed her mail ballot at home, with the help of her daughter, in early 2018.  Ms. Martinez took pride in voting, and always insisted on signing her own name, in cursive, on her mail-ballot application and carrier envelope.  A quick review of the documents reflects that her signatures appear nearly identical on the application and carrier envelope from 2018, but they proceed at different angles, which appears to be the mere result of the angle at which she was sitting in relation to the paper as she signed.  Ms. Martinez passed away in December 2018, and her daughter Magaly Serna seeks to carry her claims forward.

Plaintiff Amelia Martinez, now deceased, was legally blind.  She was 73 years old when she completed her mail ballot at home, with the help of her daughter, in early 2018.  Ms. Martinez took pride in voting, and always insisted on signing her own name, in cursive, on her mail-ballot application and carrier envelope.  A quick review of the documents reflects that her signatures appear nearly identical on the application and carrier envelope from 2018, but they proceed at different angles, which appears to be the mere result of the angle at which she was sitting in relation to the paper as she signed.  Ms. Martinez passed away in December 2018, and her daughter Magaly Serna seeks to carry her claims forward.

Another Plaintiff voter, Maria Guerrero, 79 years old at the time she completed her mail ballot in 2018, was very careful and deliberate in signing her application. She consciously left two letters out of her last name because she was concerned that there was not enough room in the box provided, and she did not want to write over the word “Date” on the application. There is no such box on the carrier envelope, and therefore she was able to write all of the letters when she signed the envelope. Despite the identical appearance of the handwriting, her ballot was rejected, presumably as the ballot board noticed the discrepancy from the missing letters.

Maria’s husband Vicente Guerrero, 83 years old at the time he completed his ballot, also had his ballot rejected for a claimed signature discrepancy.

Under Texas’s current law, the ballot board is required to compare the voter’s signature on the carrier envelope with the signature on the application and reject any ballot for which a discrepancy is perceived. The law only requires that notice of the rejected ballot be provided to the voter ten days after election day, and provides no opportunity to correct or explain any perceived discrepancy or validate the ballot so that it can be counted in that election. While records from the 2018 primary election reflect that less than 1% of mail ballots are rejected for signature discrepancies in most counties, the Starr County ballot board rejected an incredible 13.5% of all submitted mail ballots for alleged signature mismatch.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jerad Najvar and Austin Whatley of Houston-based Najvar Law Firm, PLLC, a litigation boutique specializing in election and constitutional litigation. “Texas already has a system for provisional ballots, allowing voters to present any necessary documentation to local election officials within six days after an election so their ballot can be counted,” Najvar said. “There is no reason that the same opportunity should not be made available to those Texas voters whose ballots are slated for rejection for a perceived signature discrepancy. We are asking the court to require that such voters be contacted and provided the same opportunity as provisional voters to validate their ballot. That will not interfere with the timelines or procedures for elections, but it is immensely important for any voter who would otherwise be disenfranchised.”

This is the first lawsuit challenging Texas’s signature-match requirement as a violation of due process.  However, similar regimes have been declared unconstitutional in several other states recently, including in Florida in 2016 and New Hampshire and Georgia in 2018.  See Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 4:16-cvg-607 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016); Saucedo v. Gardner, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202 (D. N.H. 2018); and Martin v. Kemp, 341 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2018), respectively.

The case is Galvan v. Whitley, et al., No. 7:18-cv-00113, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas at McAllen.  All briefing is complete, and a full hearing on the merits is expected Tuesday, March 19, at 2:30 pm before Judge Hinojosa. Plaintiffs seek an order that the Texas law is unenforceable in any Texas election without timely notice and an opportunity for voters whose ballots are marked for rejection based on the signature to validate their ballot.

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is here; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is here.

Najvar Law Firm, PLLC, based in Houston, specializes in litigation and appeals in election and constitutional matters. NLF has successfully litigated several constitutional cases, including a case against the Texas Ethics Commission in which the Fifth Circuit struck down a waiting period on Texas PACs, and other successful constitutional cases against Houston, Dallas, and Austin.

HOUSTON, TEX.—This week, a panel of Texas’s First Court of Appeals held unanimously that a lawsuit against Texas Southern University can proceed to trial. The suit alleges due process violations arising from the compromise of a “uniform” first-year exam at Thurgood Marshall School of Law (TMSL), and subsequent cover-up by the law school administration. The decision reverses the judgment of the Harris County district court.

The Plaintiff, Ivan Villarreal, was a first-year student at TMSL in 2014. TMSL divides first-year law students into four sections, and has adopted a “First Year Uniform Exam Policy,” which TMSL’s student manual explains is supposed to “insure fairness to students because it prevents significant grading pattern differences by first year professors. Hence, students…have the same opportunity to excel, do average work, or fail no matter which section…the law school assigns them.” A student must finish with a GPA of 2.0 or higher after the first year to continue his law school education.

Villarreal finished with a 1.98 GPA and was dismissed in June 2015. However, Villarreal’s lawsuit alleges that an unknown number—at least thirteen—questions from the supposedly-uniform December 2014 Criminal Law exam were compromised by a professor from another section, whose unauthorized, off-campus review sessions became widely known when students returned for the second semester in 2015. Villarreal alleges that the TMSL administration refused to conduct even a cursory investigation to ascertain the scope of the compromise (how many questions were compromised, and which students had access), and then presented selective portions of an expert’s analysis to mislead the students into believing that the compromise had not materially affected grades. The lawsuit argues that the exam compromise, the subsequent failure to investigate, and then the selective release of the expert’s report to mislead students, violated his substantive and procedural rights to the “due course of law” guaranteed by article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals held that Villarreal had sufficiently alleged both procedural and substantive violations of the liberty interest in a continuing graduate education as recognized by Texas courts.

The panel held that “Villarreal adequately alleged a procedural due-course-of-law claim based on his allegation of the university’s bad-faith mismanagement of an exam-grading controversy, which allegedly caused him to miss the GPA cut-off by two one-hundredths of a grade point and thereby jeopardized his reputation and intended career path.”  The Court then turned to address whether—aside from procedural deficiencies—Villarreal had alleged a viable claim that the TMSL administration’s decisions related to the claimed investigation and remedy of the exam compromise were substantively defensible.  On that question, the panel held that, even assuming the situation could properly be considered an academic dismissal, the defendants “did not conclusively demonstrate that the decision to implement [a] ‘class-wide’ remedy was an exercise of professional judgment entitled to judicial deference in the context of a constitutional challenge.”  Accordingly, the Defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity, and the suit can proceed to further discovery and trial.

“I am pleased with the Court’s decision,” said Villarreal’s attorney, Jerad Najvar of Najvar Law Firm, PLLC, a Houston-based firm specializing in constitutional litigation. Najvar argued the case to the panel on October 24, 2018; the University and the individual defendants are all represented by the Texas Attorney General’s Office. Najvar continued: “This decision rightly means that a state-funded institution cannot actively ignore a cheating scandal that affects students’ grades and career prospects and expect to be immune from any review of administrators’ arbitrary or even bad-faith decisions.”

Villarreal seeks to have the administration finally acknowledge and competently address the impact of the exam compromise on his score-which was curved against all other students, including the unknown number who had prior access to at least 13 questions—so that he may continue his education.

If no petition for rehearing, or petition for review by the Texas Supreme Court, is filed, the case will be remanded soon to the Harris County district court for further proceedings.

The case is Villarreal v. Texas Southern University, et al., No. 01-17-00867-CV, in the First Court of Appeals. The opinion of the court is here, and Justice Massengale’s concurring opinion is here.

Jerad Najvar specializes in litigation and appeals in election and constitutional matters, and is founder of the Najvar Law Firm, PLLC in Houston. He has successfully litigated several constitutional cases, primarily First Amendment free speech and association claims.

He says he would have to review his files to jog his memory.

Excellent! That’s part of what my public information request seeks–the “basic information” from those complaints, which will reveal who filed them with his office, when, and what he did with them (when he forwarded to the state authorities, etc.). (Hint: the SOS’s records confirm that the DA’s aunt, Mary Alice Palacios, filed the complaints with the SOS; I’m trying to figure out when she filed them with the DA’s office.) The DA should release this information, as required by Texas law, rather than hiding behind a request to the Attorney General to keep it hidden.

From the article (which also includes a handy diagram illustrating the DA’s ties to those who lost in the Nov 2017 Edinburg elections):

“When you step back and look at this, there’s a disparity. There’s complaints against both sides, but one side is being investigated and one side is not,” [Najvar] said. “You start thinking about why is that, and one explanation is that [the] district attorney’s office has [a] vested interest with the side that is not being investigated.”

[Nov. 9, 2018.]  This week, the Texas Rangers have arrested more than ten additional people in their investigation of allegations of voter fraud in Edinburg, which began after the Nov 2017 Edinburg elections. (See linked article.) But the picture is more interesting than those arrests in isolation.

The initial arrests came after a criminal complaint that, although Hidalgo County DA Ricardo Rodriguez wouldn’t admit it at first, was filed by his own aunt, Mary Alice Palacios. Mary Alice Palacios lost a lucrative contract with Edinburg after Richard Molina and his slate took over in 2017. There was a flurry of arrests in May 2018, which we now know was in response to Palacios’s complaints. But at the time, Rodriguez would not say who complained, although he was apparently happy to tell The Monitor that his office received the complaint and began the investigation before state law enforcement became involved. The additional arrests this week seem to be targeting the same group of persons, who were supporting the challengers to the Palacios regime in Edinburg. (And that 2017 election was devastating to the Palacios clan, even aside from Mary Alice’s contract cancelation: Molina took out Richard Garcia as mayor, who was and is partners in Terry Palacios’s law firm; J.R. Betencourt declined to run for re-election early on, after vocal allegations of conflicts of interest by Molina; Molina’s slate won a solid majority, flipping control of the City; Ricky Palacios immediately resigned as City Attorney; and Molina also represented a direct threat to Terry Palacios’s role as long-time muni judge, because Molina promised to seek voter approval to change the position to an appointed position with term limits.)

Of course, investigators should do a full and fair investigation of any credible allegations. But if that is the principle, then it is puzzling why the criminal complaints filed by Molina’s supporters, in response to those filed by Palacios, appear to have disappeared into a black hole. At least for now.

I requested records from Rodriguez’s office in October, seeking documents that would reflect (1) when Rodriguez received any complaints from Mary Alice Palacios or anyone else that triggered the initial investigation; (2) whether he has recused himself from any such investigations sparked by his own aunt’s complaints, and (3) documents showing that his office did, in fact, receive the complaints filed later by Molina supporters against Palacios-team supporters, and how he processed/forwarded those to any state authorities. Rodriguez has claimed that he forwarded them, but it’s unclear if he did so, or if so, when. Also, if he did forward them on, I would be interested in knowing if he made the state law enforcement agencies aware of how those complaints implicated some of his own family members, and therefore that his office should be considered to have a conflict of interest.

This story may take a while to play out. But it promises to get much more interesting.

Rodriguez is fighting disclosure of the documents I’ve requested, so today I filed this letter with the Texas AG’s Open Records opinion committee:
http://lexpolitico.com/…/…/20181109-letter-to-AG-Op-Cmte.pdf

Job Description

Constitutional and political litigation; focusing on election and First Amendment issues including campaign finance, ethics (for public officials), and other speech and election-related litigation, both trial and appellate. We are committed to aggressively defending First Amendment rights of speech, political association and liberty in general.

NLF is a political litigation boutique providing a rare opportunity to practice constitutional and election litigation at the highest levels. In the last four years, NLF has scored four major victories striking down campaign finance laws in federal courts, another Fifth Circuit victory in a Fourth Amendment false arrest case, and won an election contest trial in South Texas resulting in landmark precedent from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals protecting voting rights. Specifically, NLF: served as co-counsel to Shaun McCutcheon, who prevailed in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal aggregate contribution limits; secured an opinion from the Fifth Circuit in Aug. 2014 facially invalidating Texas’s waiting period on new PACs (Catholic Leadership v. Reisman); won a district court judgment in 2015 invalidating Houston’s blackout period on fundraising for city office (Gordon v. City of Houston); secured a decision from the Fifth Circuit in February 2017 on behalf of a client who was arrested for holding a sign outside of an abortion clinic; and, in February 2018, secured a Fifth Circuit judgment affirming the invalidation of two Austin laws restricting campaign fundraising (Zimmerman v. Austin). We have filed a petition for cert with the Supreme Court in Zimmerman with respect to two other issues in the case (No. 18-93). NLF also has a petition for review pending in the Texas Supreme Court in a case involving important taxpayer rights regarding tax elections, and is prosecuting an election contest challenging the November 2017 Houston election for a billion-dollar bond issue, alleging that the City used misleading ballot language. That case is currently pending in the First Court of Appeals. The person hired for this position will play an integral role in litigating these and other cases. Additional NLF cases in the past have involved a challenge to a Dallas sign ban, and an economic liberty (commerce clause) challenge to a municipal transportation regulation.

NLF is looking to hire a full time associate. This position requires an individual with the highest demonstrated academic achievement and an aggressive, problem-solving attitude. Research and writing skills are essential. Given that we are a small firm, after demonstrating the requisite skill, you can expect to be trained and tasked with significant responsibility much sooner than at a larger firm.

This practice is the antithesis of the typical volume-based business. We prosecute (and defend) a relatively small number of cases and administrative matters, but they are each unique and demanding. The work is intellectually rigorous and demands serious research and creative thinking. You must be self-driven and motivated to shape the law on these issues.

This position is open immediately. Applications welcomed from recent JD graduates and attorneys with a few years’ experience. (Also interested in interviewing 2Ls/3Ls as part-time clerks.)

Desired Skills & Experience

JD required; excellent research and writing; self-driven; persistent; passionate about the issues

Starting salary 55-65K first year.

Email me with your resume, law school transcript, and at least one writing sample