Avalon Zoppo is an Appellate Courts Reporter at The National Law Journal. She covers a wide range of topics within law and legal affairs, including litigation, civil and family law, and criminal law, while also delving into federal legislation, elections, and public policy. Avalon has been featured in various publications such as NJ Cannabis Insider, Above the Law, and The American Lawyer.
Preston is the artificial intelligence that powers the Intelligent Relations PR platform. Meet Preston
United States (National)
Not enough data
Avalon Zoppo's coverage largely focuses on legal policy, regulation, and government announcements within the United States. She extensively covers topics related to federal appeals courts, judicial rulings, and legal issues. Therefore, she is likely to be most responsive to pitches providing expert commentary or analysis on recent court decisions or legislative developments at the national level.
Given her focus on specific legal cases and governmental regulations, she would likely prefer sources with direct knowledge of the developments being covered. However, Avalon may also be interested in insights from experts who can provide broader context around these legal issues and their potential implications.
When reaching out to Avalon Zoppo for a pitch or as a source for an article idea it's important to keep in mind that her geographic focus is strictly within the United States.
This information evolves through artificial intelligence and human feedback. Improve this profile .
By: Avalon Zoppo
“The previous administration's gas stove measures were among its most controversial energy proposals," the appeals court stated. "The idea that all that controversy could be elided using the [direct final rule]—a mechanism designed for consensus rulemaking—is untenable.”
Lee Rudofsky's confirmation would make the 11-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit—which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota—the first federal appellate court with a majority of active judges appointed by President Donald Trump.
By: Avalon Zoppo
Law professors said the federal circuit court's divided holding—that Hoagland suffered an “aesthetic injury”—may well face scrutiny from the high court. Lawsuits brought by environmentalists against government-approved projects often allege aesthetic injuries, such as harm to a person's enjoyment of nature or scenery.
By: Avalon Zoppo
The case had returned to the Fifth Circuit after the U.S. Supreme Court enjoined the Trump administration from using the 1798 wartime removal statute to rapidly remove immigrants accused of belonging to the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.
By: Avalon Zoppo
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act—which details the procedures for temporarily filling executive branch vacancies without Senate approval—allows only for the first assistant U.S. attorney at the time that a vacancy arises to succeed as acting U.S. attorney, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said.
By: Avalon Zoppo
“The evidence showed that this increased threat of immigration enforcement at the plaintiffs' houses of worship has resulted in substantial pressure on the plaintiffs to violate numerous beliefs,” the appellate court stated.
By: Avalon Zoppo
The appellate attorney and SCOTUSblog founder says, through counsel, that erroneous jury instructions amounted to a violation of his due process rights and that imprisonment during appeal "would effectuate a grave injustice."
By: Avalon Zoppo
"A lot of [lawyers] have stopped reading enough good fiction and journalism, and need to unlearn the habits of using fancy Latinate legalisms. Why do we say ‘forthwith' rather than ‘at once'? Why do we talk about the perpetrator exiting the vehicle and being apprehended, like we are cops trying to sound important?"
By: Avalon Zoppo
American Express' "refusal to pay the filing fees set by the arbitrator resulted in the foreseeable (and forewarned) outcome of closure of those arbitrations,” the appellate court held.
By: Avalon Zoppo
American Express' "refusal to pay the filing fees set by the arbitrator resulted in the foreseeable (and forewarned) outcome of closure of those arbitrations,” the appellate court held.
