What do you call it when law schools withhold negative information about judges from students and try to prevent them from accessing candid clerkship information beyond the school’s approved resources? Lying. 

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court election is the most important 2025 election no one outside Pennsylvania is talking about. Yet its outcome will have far-reaching implications for future elections, and for democracy itself.

The Legal Accountability Project created accountability through transparency: there's nothing imperious judges hate more than negative feedback they cannot see, dispute, or silence clerks from sharing through threats of retaliation, Aliza Shatzman writes in GovTrack.

Refusing to implement meaningful workplace reforms is part of a concerted effort by the federal judiciary to maintain the broken status quo and shield abusive judges from accountability, Aliza Shatzman argues in Above the Law.

We cannot allow the federal judiciary to quietly reassign mistreated law clerks year after year while shielding judges from accountability and failing to solve systemic problems that necessitate clerk reassignments, Aliza Shatzman argues in Above the Law.