Hubbry Logo
Katherine B. ForrestKatherine B. ForrestMain
Open search
Katherine B. Forrest
Community hub
Katherine B. Forrest
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Katherine B. Forrest
Katherine B. Forrest
Katherine B. Forrest
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Katherine Bolan Forrest (born February 13, 1964) is a partner at New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Key Information

Early life, education and personal life

[edit]

Katherine Bolan Forrest was born in New York in 1964 and grew up in Connecticut, one of six children. Her father, Richard S. Forrest, wrote mystery novels. Her mother, Mary Bolan Brumby, was a nurse. The family received food stamps for four years, beginning when Katherine was 12. They were homeless for six months. "I came from nothing," Forrest said. "I came from a father who made no money. He was a playwright and then a writer, and even though he published many books, I was a complete scholarship student all the way through."[1][2]

Forrest attended Choate Rosemary Hall, a private school in Wallingford, Connecticut, on a scholarship, graduating in 1982.[1] She earned a Bachelor of Arts with honors in 1986 from Wesleyan University. She received her Juris Doctor in 1990 from the New York University School of Law.[3] She pursued a joint program at New York University that would have led to a J.D. and a Ph.D. in history, with an eye toward an academic career. Her focus shifted when she took a summer job at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP after her second year of law school. "I realized that commercial litigation was far more interesting than I thought it would be," Forrest said.[1] She is the mother of two children.[1][2]

Career

[edit]

Forrest joined the New York law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore right out of law school in 1990, becoming a partner in 1998 and handling an array of commercial litigation with a particular focus on antitrust, copyright and digital media. She was cited as one of the country's leading practitioners in the antitrust and intellectual property arenas in Chambers USA 2007: America's Leading Lawyers for Business.[4] The American Lawyer also cited Forrest as one of the top 50 young litigators in the U.S. and by Lawdragon as one of the leading litigators in the nation. In 2005, she was named in the Global Competition Review (GCR) in the "40 Under 40" issue "as one of the top competition practitioners or economists worldwide."[4][5] Forrest was also profiled in the GCR "as one of the top women antitrust practitioners worldwide."[4] In 2010, Forrest represented United Airlines in winning approval for its merger with Continental Airlines.[6] In October 2010, Forrest left Cravath when Assistant Attorney General Christine A. Varney recruited her to join the United States Department of Justice as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division.[3][7][2]

Federal judicial service

[edit]

On May 4, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Forrest to fill a judicial seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that had been vacated by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who took senior status at the end of 2010.[8] Obama nominated Forrest to the bench in May 2011 on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York.[1] The U.S. Senate confirmed Forrest in a voice vote on October 13, 2011.[9][10] She received her judicial commission on October 17, 2011.[2] Forrest presided over several thousand cases, including more than 100 trials, and, in 2016, became chair of the Grievance Committee for the Southern District. On July 18, 2018, Forrest announced her resignation from the bench, effective September 11, 2018.[11] After resigning from the federal bench, she returned to work as a firm’s litigation department partner at Cravath.[12]

Significant cases

[edit]

In 2012, in Hedges v. Obama, Forrest issued a permanent injunction that blocked enforcement of Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the president to order the military to indefinitely detain any person deemed to be a member of, or to have provided substantially support to, "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces."[13][14] The plaintiffs in the suit challenged the 2012 NDAA provision as a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech and free association and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.[15] In 2013, a Second Circuit panel unanimously reversed Forrest's ruling, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.[14]

In July 2013, Forrest ordered the release of $1.75 billion in Iranian frozen assets held by Bank Markazi (Iran's central bank) in a New York Citibank account to create a fund for families of the victims of the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marines compound in Beirut, Lebanon. Forrest rejected the Iranian government's invocation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, holding that Iran's conduct fell under an exception to FSIA. Forrest's ruling in Peterson v. Iran was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016), in which the Court held, in a 6-2 ruling, that the families should be allowed to collect the Iranian funds.[16][17]

In In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation (2014), Forrest dismissed an antitrust (price-fixing) suit against Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Glencore. She held that, although the defendants' actions did affect the aluminum marketplace, the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants had intended to manipulate prices.[18]

In 2015, Forrest presided over a jury trial in United States v. Ulbricht, where Ross William Ulbricht was accused of running the Silk Road online drug marketplace.[19] During the trial, Forrest was doxed on 8chan, where her full mailing address, phone number, and Social Security number were posted on the baphomet subboard.[20] In regard to the defense team's argument that Silk Road enhanced safety by moving illegal drug activity away from real life drug dealing scenarios, Forrest stated, "No drug dealer from the Bronx has ever made this argument to the court. It's a privileged argument, and it's an argument made by one of the privileged."[21] Forrest sentenced Ulbricht to two life terms, plus an additional 40 years, without the possibility of parole.[22] The Department of Justice then subpoenaed Reason Magazine regarding reactions in the comments section of its article on the sentencing.[23]

From April 2016 to August 2017, Forrest presided over the civil lawsuit Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, in a case where notable YouTubers Ethan and Hila Klein, known on YouTube as h3h3Productions, were accused of copyright infringement by fellow YouTuber Matt Hosseinzadeh. In her decision, Forrest ruled in favor of Ethan and Hila Klein, stating that the video in question, accused of copyright infringement,[24] was "quintessential criticism and comment" of Hosseinzadeh's video and falls under the protection of "fair use." Hosseinzadeh's additional claims of DMCA misrepresentation and defamation were also dismissed.[25][26] In her ruling, Forrest also noted that while the Klein video may be classified as a "reaction video," not all reaction videos would fall under the fair use doctrine.[27]

In Ragbir v. Sessions (2018), Forrest ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to halt the deportation of Ravidath (Ravi) Ragbir, an immigrant from Trinidad who had become an activist in the United States.[28][29] Ragbir became a legal permanent resident in 1994 but had been convicted of wire fraud in 2001; it was uncontested that, since being released, Ragbir had been rehabilitated and had "lived a life of a redeemed man."[29] Ragbir spent nine years in the U.S. under a "stay of removal," regularly reporting to immigration authorities as required, until he was abruptly arrested in January 2018, upending his career and separating him from his wife and daughter, both U.S. citizens.[29] In her opinion ordering Ragbir's release, Forrest wrote, "Constitutional principles of due process and the avoidance of unnecessary cruelty here allow and provide for an orderly departure. Petitioner is entitled to the freedom to say goodbye."[29][28] Forrest wrote that this was "the freedom to hug one's spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time," she criticized practices associated "with regimes we revile as unjust, regimes where those who have long lived in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home, and work and sent away. We are not that country, and woe be the day we become that country under a fiction that laws allow it."[29][28] The Second Circuit later continued to stay Ragbir's deportation pending further hearings.[30]

In February 2018, Forrest ruled that Breitbart News, Heavy, Inc., TIME, Yahoo, Vox.com, Gannett Company, Herald Media, The Boston Globe, and New England Sports Network had violated the rights of Justin Goldman by embedding a link to a tweet of an image taken by Goldman of Tom Brady on their respective websites.[31][32] Goldman claimed he had the exclusive right to display the image and had not been contacted for a license or publicly released the photo. The photo was first posted to Goldman's Snapchat account.[33]

In April 2018, Forrest sentenced former Mobile Messenger CEO Darcy Wedd to 10 years in prison for his involvement in a fraudulent mobile phone “auto-subscribing” scheme, after a jury convicted him in December 2017. The scheme charged mobile phone users millions of dollars in monthly fees for unsolicited and recurring text messages, without their knowledge or consent.[34][35]

Return to private practice

[edit]

Following her resignation from the federal bench, Forrest returned to practice in the litigation department at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.[36] In 2019, she was named a “Notable Woman in Law” by Crain’s New York Business and profiled as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation”.[37] Forrest is also an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law, where she co-teaches a course on Quantitative Methods and the Law.[38]

Forrest represented the Boston Red Sox in a proposed class action alleging that the Major League Baseball team had undermined fantasy sports contests by covering up sign stealing schemes in a case dismissed with prejudice in April 2020.[39]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Katherine B. Forrest

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Katherine B. Forrest (born 1964) is an American attorney who served as a District Judge for the Southern District of New York from 2011 to 2018. Nominated by President and confirmed by the that year, she handled several thousand criminal and civil cases during her tenure, including over 100 trials, and issued more than 1,000 written opinions. Prior to her appointment, Forrest worked as a trial attorney and deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, contributing to complex enforcement actions. After resigning from the bench in 2018 to return to private practice, she rejoined the law firm before becoming a partner in the litigation department at in 2023, where she chairs the firm's Group and advises on high-stakes matters involving antitrust, technology, , and regulatory investigations.

Early life and education

Upbringing and family influences

Katherine B. Forrest was born on February 13, 1964, in and spent her formative years in . Her family encountered significant financial challenges, including reliance on food stamps during her teenage years, which marked a period of economic strain. Forrest attended , a in , immersing herself in an environment that emphasized rigorous preparation amid her family's circumstances. An early enthusiast of , she cultivated interests in strategic analysis and historical causation, reflecting personal inclinations that predated formal education.

Academic and early professional preparation

Forrest earned a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors from in 1986. She subsequently pursued legal studies at School of Law, receiving her in 1990. Upon graduation, Forrest entered private practice directly, joining the New York City office of LLP as an associate, marking her initial professional engagement in the legal field without prior judicial clerkships. This entry-level position provided foundational experience in complex litigation, aligning with her subsequent specialization in antitrust and technology-related matters.

Personal life

Family dynamics and relationships

Katherine B. Forrest is the mother of two children from her first marriage. She later married Sean Baldwin, a New Zealand-born partner at the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Forrest's divorce, which occurred prior to her 2011 judicial appointment, profoundly impacted her family structure by making her the primary financial provider for her two children. She has publicly described the event as unplanned, noting in a September 2025 interview that it compelled her to prioritize income-generating roles to support her family adequately: “I got divorced, and it was not something I had planned for, and I ended up having two children [to support] financially, where I needed to...” This shift underscored the causal link between personal relational disruptions and the need for economic self-reliance in maintaining family stability.

Financial and personal transitions

Forrest experienced a during her federal judgeship, which substantially altered her family's financial circumstances by positioning her as the primary earner while her ex-husband's income from a remained limited as he built his practice. This personal transition coincided with her children nearing college age, amplifying expenses for higher education in the context of New York City's elevated living costs, including housing and daily necessities that strained judicial salary constraints. Forrest has described these shifts as profoundly human challenges, emphasizing the emotional and practical adaptations required to sustain stability amid such changes. Forrest graduated from School of Law with a J.D. in 1990 and entered private practice directly as an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, a prominent New York-based firm known for its litigation and corporate work. In this initial role, she focused on building foundational skills in complex commercial litigation, including early exposure to disputes involving technology and sectors, such as those in the music industry, which later informed her broader practice. During her associate years at Cravath from 1990 to 1998, Forrest contributed to high-stakes matters that honed her expertise in antitrust basics and trial preparation, emphasizing rigorous factual analysis and procedural discipline typical of the firm's approach to federal court proceedings. This period established her reputation for meticulous document review and strategic motion practice, without prior judicial clerkships, reflecting a direct path from to elite firm litigation. By 1998, she had advanced to partner, marking the culmination of her early firm-based development.

Department of Justice roles

In October 2010, Katherine B. Forrest was appointed Deputy Assistant for Criminal and Civil Operations in the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, where she oversaw enforcement activities including investigations into price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation schemes. Her role involved coordinating the Division's response to international cartels, emphasizing criminal prosecutions to deter anticompetitive conduct that distorts pricing and harms consumers through higher costs estimated in billions annually across affected industries. Under her oversight, initiated and advanced major probes, notably the investigation into among suppliers of automotive parts such as seatbelts, airbags, and wheels, which uncovered a spanning over a decade and involving companies from , , and elsewhere. This effort yielded initial guilty pleas in 2012 from executives and firms, culminating in 47 corporate guilty pleas and criminal fines exceeding $2.9 billion by 2016, alongside civil settlements that facilitated restitution to auto manufacturers and indirect consumer benefits via reduced overcharges. Such corrected market failures by dismantling networks that artificially inflated prices—potentially adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of vehicles—while signaling to global markets the risks of participation, though empirical assessments of net welfare gains remain debated due to challenges in quantifying avoided future harms. The Division's broader 2011 criminal caseload, which included 60 indictments and over $550 million in fines, reflected an aggressive stance that proponents credited with restoring competitive dynamics in sectors like municipal bonds and LCD panels, where had suppressed and . However, business advocates criticized this approach as overreach, arguing that expansive probes and leniency programs incentivized self-reporting but imposed disproportionate compliance burdens on compliant firms, potentially chilling legitimate collaborations essential for and technological advancement without clear evidence of proportional reductions in consumer prices post-enforcement. Forrest's contributions thus advanced deterrence through high-profile successes, yet highlighted tensions in balancing prosecutorial vigor against risks of regulatory uncertainty in dynamic markets.

Private sector litigation experience

Forrest began her private sector career at LLP in the early 1990s, rising to partner in 1998 after focusing on complex commercial litigation. Her practice encompassed high-stakes disputes in antitrust, , pharmaceuticals, , and toxic torts, representing clients before trial and appellate courts nationwide, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Federal Circuits. She developed expertise in trial advocacy through handling matters in federal and state courts, arbitrations, and mediations, emphasizing rigorous preparation and strategic positioning in multifaceted cases. A key aspect of her antitrust work included leading the competitive analysis for the proposed 2010 merger between and , navigating regulatory scrutiny under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. This engagement underscored her role in advising on merger policy amid financial distress considerations, as detailed in her co-authored analysis published in the National Law Journal on July 5, 2010. Her contributions in such disputes earned recognition as a Benchmark Local Litigation Star and inclusion in Best Lawyers in America for antitrust law by 2007, reflecting peer acknowledgment of her proficiency in defending against government challenges and private claims. Forrest's tenure at Cravath built a foundation in managing class actions and multidistrict litigations, often involving voluminous evidence and coordinated defenses across jurisdictions, though specific pre-2010 outcomes in these areas remain less publicly detailed beyond her firm's general representations in commercial and IP-related suits. This experience equipped her with skills in distilling complex causal chains and empirical data to counter allegations of anticompetitive conduct or contractual breaches, prioritizing first-principles evaluation of market dynamics over unsubstantiated narratives.

Judicial nomination and service

Nomination by President Obama and Senate confirmation

On May 4, 2011, President nominated Katherine B. Forrest to serve as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, filling the vacancy created by Judge Jed S. Rakoff's reassignment to . Forrest, then a partner at LLP with extensive experience in complex litigation including antitrust matters, underwent standard FBI background investigations as part of the vetting process, revealing no disqualifying issues. The Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings on June 8, 2011, where Forrest testified on her qualifications, emphasizing her 20-plus years of experience and commitment to impartial . Supporters, including New York Senator Charles Schumer, highlighted her professional excellence and suitability for the demanding Southern District docket, while no significant opposition emerged from committee members regarding her antitrust litigation background or other aspects of her record. The committee advanced her on July 14, 2011, reflecting bipartisan consensus on her credentials amid broader discussions on judicial vacancies. The full confirmed Forrest by unanimous on October 13, 2011, avoiding a recorded due to lack of objections. She received her judicial commission on October 17, 2011, enabling her to assume the bench. The process underscored the nominee's strong bipartisan support, with Republican senators such as acknowledging the quality of Obama's district court selections in contemporaneous statements, despite partisan tensions over overall confirmation pace.

Tenure on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Katherine B. Forrest was appointed to the for the Southern District of New York following her confirmation by the on August 2, 2011, and served until her resignation in September 2018, comprising a seven-year tenure. The Southern District of New York maintains one of the nation's busiest federal dockets, encompassing a broad spectrum of civil, criminal, and commercial cases arising from New York City's economic and legal prominence. Forrest managed this demanding caseload with a focus on procedural rigor and evidentiary scrutiny, issuing guidelines in 2018 that restricted the use of FBI Form 302 summaries as substitutes for direct in criminal trials to ensure reliability and fairness in proceedings. Her judicial style prioritized detailed factual analysis and adherence to statutory and constitutional boundaries, reflecting a commitment to first-principles interpretation over expansive policy considerations. Empirical data on reversal rates for SDNY judges during this era indicate variability, but specific metrics for Forrest's decisions remain limited in public judicial databases, with no comprehensive reversal rate publicly aggregated beyond individual appellate outcomes. Overall, Forrest's service contributed to the district's reputation for handling complex litigation efficiently, though quantitative efficiency measures such as median time-to-disposition for her cases are not distinctly isolated in federal judiciary reports.

Resignation and motivations

Katherine Forrest announced her resignation from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 18, 2018, effective September 11, 2018, concluding a tenure of less than seven years. In an initial to colleagues, she cited personal reasons for the departure without elaborating further at the time. Subsequent statements by Forrest clarified that the primary driver was financial necessity stemming from her divorce, which altered her family's economic circumstances and imposed sole responsibility for supporting two children. This unplanned change, combined with the elevated cost of living in New York City, made the judicial salary insufficient to maintain prior financial stability, prompting a return to higher-earning private practice. Forrest emphasized the decision's pragmatic nature, noting she had not anticipated such pressures when assuming the bench. No public indications linked the resignation to dissatisfaction with judicial ideology, case burdens, or institutional disillusionment; instead, Forrest described leaving "with great sadness," underscoring the role of personal exigencies over professional discontent. Such departures reflect a recurring pattern among federal judges, where salary disparities—judicial pay averaging far below Biglaw partners' compensation—prompt exits for financial reasons, especially amid life events like divorce or family obligations, rather than systemic judicial failures.

Notable judicial decisions

National security and surveillance cases

In Hedges v. Obama (2012), Forrest issued a preliminary on May 16, 2012, blocking enforcement of Section 1021 of the for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), which authorized indefinite military detention without trial for persons substantially supporting , the , or associated forces, including potentially U.S. citizens and residents. She found the provision violated the First Amendment by chilling plaintiffs' (journalists, activists, and scholars) associational and speech rights due to in terms like "substantially support," which lacked clear standards and risked arbitrary application. On September 12, 2012, following a , Forrest converted the injunction to permanent, emphasizing the statute's to provide fair and its overbreadth, rejecting government arguments that it merely codified existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) powers from 2001. The ruling drew praise from civil libertarians across the for constraining executive overreach; organizations like the ACLU and figures such as journalist highlighted its protection of against post-9/11 expansions of detention authority, arguing from Guantanamo and prior AUMF detentions showed risks of without judicial oversight. Critics, including Obama administration officials, contended it misinterpreted the NDAA as novel rather than reaffirming established wartime powers, potentially hindering by injecting uncertainty into detention practices amid ongoing threats from non-state actors. The decision underscored causal tensions between privacy protections and security, with supporters citing low recidivism rates (under 18% for released detainees per data as of 2012) as evidence that yielded marginal gains relative to costs, while opponents pointed to thwarted plots as justifying broad authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the on September 17, 2013, ruling plaintiffs lacked standing after the filed a declaration disavowing intent to detain them under Section 1021, rendering the challenge non-justiciable without addressing merits. This outcome preserved the provision's enforceability, though it prompted congressional clarifications in subsequent NDAAs (e.g., 2013 affirmations of no domestic detention mandates) and influenced bipartisan critiques, including from Sen. (R-KY), who decried it as enabling "military detention of civilians" without empirical justification for expanded scope beyond contexts. In related surveillance matters, Forrest handled The New York Times Co. v. National Security Agency (2015-2016), a Freedom of Information Act challenge to NSA disclosures on upstream collection under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. On August 25, 2016, she granted for the NSA, upholding exemptions for classified operational details, reasoning that in transparency did not outweigh harms from revealing collection methods amid active threats. This contrasted her NDAA skepticism, reflecting deference to executive assertions of harm in intelligence contexts where empirical efficacy data (e.g., NSA reports of disrupted plots) supported secrecy, though advocates criticized it for perpetuating unverified trade-offs.

Criminal prosecutions and trials

Forrest presided over a range of criminal trials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, handling complex matters involving , narcotics trafficking, and hacking with attention to evidentiary rigor and procedural safeguards. Her approach balanced prosecutorial objectives with defendants' rights, including rulings on privilege exceptions and guidelines for investigative materials to mitigate risks of misuse in trials. A landmark case was United States v. Ulbricht (1:13-cr-00831), the 2013-2015 prosecution of , founder of the , which facilitated over $1.2 billion in illicit transactions primarily for controlled substances. After a four-week marked by debates over admissibility and suppression motions alleging government overreach in server seizures, Ulbricht was convicted on February 4, 2015, on seven counts including continuing criminal enterprise, narcotics distribution, , and unauthorized computer access. On May 29, 2015, Forrest imposed a life sentence without , emphasizing the operation's scale—facilitating 9.5 million sales—and evidence of Ulbricht's of murders-for-hire against perceived threats, declaring him "no better a person than any other drug dealer" despite his lack of prior convictions. The proceedings faced disruptions from sympathizers, including denial-of-service attacks and leaks of Forrest's personal information, prompting enhanced security measures. In v. Levin (1:15-cr-00101), Forrest addressed a multimillion-dollar wire scheme involving rigged reporting systems. On October 5, 2015, she granted the government's motion to invoke the crime- exception to attorney-client privilege, ruling that communications between defendants and Taylor Levin and their counsel furthered the ongoing , thus rendering them discoverable for prosecutorial use. Following a three-week , the Levins were convicted on February 4, 2016, of , wire , and false tax returns for inflating revenues to secure loans exceeding $10 million. This decision highlighted her scrutiny of privilege claims in active criminal contexts, prioritizing causal links between advice sought and illegal acts over rote .

Intellectual property and commercial disputes

During her tenure on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Katherine B. Forrest adjudicated numerous disputes, often drawing on her prior experience in complex commercial litigation to evaluate claims under standards like eligibility and copyright display rights. Her rulings frequently emphasized concrete technological improvements over abstract ideas in cases, while applying traditional infringement doctrines to digital contexts, sometimes expanding liability for content embedding. In Patterson v. TiVo Direct, LLC (No. 11-cv-4039, S.D.N.Y.), Forrest vacated a prior invalidation of 's patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on November 29, 2016. She held that the claims, particularly Claim 71 of U.S. No. 7,948,039 (the '940 ), were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l step one, as they addressed a specific problem in measuring advertising effectiveness via digital time-shifting technology, rather than generic data organization. At step two, the claims incorporated an inventive concept through tailored, computer-implemented filtering and correlation steps that improved technological functionality, reinstating 's '940, '993, and '301 patents for further infringement proceedings. This decision protected established rights against post-Alice challenges, enabling innovators to enforce protections for DVR-related advancements and potentially deterring overbroad eligibility dismissals that could undermine incentives for R&D investment. Similarly, in Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. (No. 15-cv-88814, S.D.N.Y.), Forrest denied Lowe's motion to dismiss on August 3, 2016, rejecting arguments that U.S. Patent No. 7,203,693 (the '693 patent) for a security monitoring system was patent-ineligible under § 101. She clarified that Alice analysis requires assessing whether claims improve computer functionality, such as through event-driven data processing in networked security devices, rather than merely organizing human-readable data; the '693 patent's integration of sensors, rules, and alerts constituted such an improvement, allowing the case to proceed. These patent rulings underscored a pragmatic approach favoring eligibility for inventions with demonstrable technical specificity, which supporters viewed as balancing innovation incentives against patent trolls, though critics contended it risked perpetuating low-quality software patents that stifle competition by blocking incremental follow-on work. Forrest's copyright decisions extended traditional "display" rights to internet embedding. In Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC (No. 17-cv-3144, S.D.N.Y.), on February 15, 2018, she denied media defendants' motion and granted partial judgment to photographer Justin Goldman, ruling that embedding tweets containing his copyrighted photo of constituted direct infringement of the display right under the Copyright Act. Rejecting the Ninth Circuit's "server test" from Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Forrest reasoned that in-line linking effectively communicates the image to the , irrespective of server location, as Twitter's from Goldman did not authorize third-party public displays. The case settled in without appellate review, but the holding raised concerns among publishers about routine online practices, potentially increasing clearance costs and reducing dissemination, while bolstering creators' control over unauthorized reproductions. In commercial antitrust matters, Forrest leveraged her Department of Justice antitrust background to scrutinize claims for evidentiary rigor. In In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation (No. 13-md-2481, S.D.N.Y.), she dismissed consolidated claims on August 29, 2014, finding alleged warehouse queuing and trading practices reflected parallel, lawful conduct rather than a per se illegal , with premium price increases as unintended market responses rather than direct anticompetitive harms. She further dismissed direct purchaser claims on October 5, 2016, for lack of antitrust injury, as plaintiffs failed to show cognizable harm from indirect effects on prices, and granted dismissal to the London Metal Exchange as a UK governmental organ on August 28, 2014. These outcomes, affirmed in part by the Second Circuit, highlighted requirements for proximate causation and domestic effects in Sherman Act suits, curbing speculative litigation that could impose undue compliance burdens on global commodities firms and preserving market efficiencies from meritless allegations.

Controversies and external pressures

Criticisms of rulings on government authority

Critics, including conservative commentators, have characterized Judge Forrest's September 12, 2012, preliminary injunction in Hedges v. Obama against Section 1021 of the (NDAA) for 2012 as an instance of judicial overreach that unduly restricted executive branch authority in detention matters. The ruling permanently enjoined of provisions authorizing indefinite military detention of certain suspects, including U.S. citizens affiliated with groups like , which the Wall Street Journal editorial board described as evidencing "activist intent" by an Obama appointee diverging from the administration's position. U.S. government attorneys argued that the decision threatened "irreparable harm to and the " by imposing "added burdens and dangerous uncertainty" on detention operations, potentially complicating responses to post-9/11 threats where executive flexibility had been essential for detaining over 500 individuals at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Force. Such critiques emphasized that, despite the administration's assurances of non-application to domestic actors, Forrest's broad interpretation risked chilling journalistic and advocacy activities while weakening tools honed in efforts that prevented subsequent large-scale attacks on U.S. soil between 2001 and 2012. Although mainstream media coverage often highlighted the ruling's protections, empirical reviews of detention outcomes under analogous authorities revealed no systemic violations justifying blanket invalidation, with appellate courts later vacating the injunction on standing grounds in 2013, underscoring debates over judicial second-guessing of policy trade-offs in . Right-leaning analysts contended this exemplified how district-level interventions could delay codification of bipartisan security measures, fostering operational hesitancy absent evidence of equivalent privacy harms from targeted, intelligence-driven detentions.

Threats and security issues during high-profile cases

During the 2014 trial of , the alleged founder of the online marketplace, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest received multiple anonymous online death threats from supporters of the defendant. These threats, posted on hidden web forums such as HiddenWiki, included explicit wishes for her harm by s or other actors disadvantaged by the site's shutdown, with one stating, "I hope some that lost a lot of money with the bust of finds out where she lives and takes care of her." Ulbricht's defense attorney, Joshua Dratel, publicly condemned the threats on October 24, 2014, emphasizing they did not reflect the defense team's views. The threats prompted an investigation by the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for federal judges facing risks, and federal prosecutors later sought to unmask the anonymous posters through subpoenas to web hosts, arguing the statements constituted potential "true threats" unprotected by the First Amendment. , including home address and family details, was also allegedly doxxed online, heightening concerns over her safety amid the case's visibility in cryptocurrency and dark web communities. No arrests directly tied to these specific threats were publicly reported, but the incident underscored the challenges of prosecuting anonymous online intimidation under standards requiring proof of intent to harm. Such episodes illustrate the escalating risks to judicial officers in high-profile digital-era cases, where pseudonymous actors can amplify pressures on the judiciary without accountability, potentially eroding public confidence in impartial proceedings. Federal judges handling cases involving organized or ideological fringes have increasingly relied on enhanced protective protocols, including restricted public access to and coordinated threat assessments, to maintain operational continuity. This case contributed to broader discussions on balancing with judicial , as anonymous threats can deter thorough enforcement of laws against underground economies.

Appellate reversals and their implications

One prominent appellate reversal occurred in Hedges v. Obama (2012), where Forrest permanently enjoined Section 1021 of the (NDAA) for 2012, deeming it unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in authorizing indefinite military detention. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the injunction on July 17, 2013, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because Section 1021 neither expanded the President's detention authority beyond the existing Authorization for Use of Military Force nor created a new risk of harm, as it merely codified prior interpretations without altering . Additional reversals included United States v. Singh (2017), where the Second Circuit vacated Forrest's 60-month sentence for illegal reentry—nearly triple the top of the advisory Guidelines range—as both procedurally flawed for inadequate explanation of the upward variance and substantively unreasonable, emphasizing that sentences must reflect individualized 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors rather than generalized deterrence absent specific justification. In a civil forfeiture case involving Iran-linked properties (2016), the Second Circuit reversed Forrest's upholding of a and $43.8 million forfeiture order, finding insufficient to establish Iranian control over the assets under 18 U.S.C. § 981. The Second Circuit also reversed her dismissal of a putative in 2018, holding that a Rule 68 offer of judgment did not moot the claims, reviving the suit for further proceedings. These reversals, concentrated in national security, sentencing, forfeiture, and procedural contexts, frequently hinged on standing, evidentiary sufficiency, and rigorous application of statutory limits rather than wholesale disagreement with merits analysis. In Hedges, the appellate emphasis on standing doctrines served as a restraint against facial challenges to statutes codifying executive practices, preventing courts from opining on hypothetical applications without concrete injury. Sentencing and forfeiture reversals underscored the need for explicit linkage to statutory criteria, avoiding inferences that could veer into policy judgments. Absent comprehensive data on Forrest's overall affirmance rate, such outcomes align with heightened scrutiny in the Second Circuit for Southern District of New York rulings in politically charged or complex disputes, where procedural precision guards against overreach while ensuring appellate courts enforce congressional intent over expansive judicial interpretations. This pattern illustrates broader lessons in judicial decision-making: prioritizing textual fidelity and justiciability thresholds mitigates reversal risk, particularly where statutes intersect with executive authority, fostering outcomes grounded in verifiable legal bounds rather than anticipatory policy concerns.

Post-judicial career

Return to Cravath, Swaine & Moore

Following her resignation from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in August 2018, Katherine B. Forrest rejoined LLP as a partner in the litigation department on , 2018. She had originally joined the firm in 1990 upon graduating from School of Law and advanced to partner in 1998, accumulating 20 years of experience in complex commercial litigation before departing for government service in 2011. This return marked a resumption of her pre-judgeship trajectory at the elite New York firm, where partners operate under a modified compensation model emphasizing seniority and performance. At Cravath, Forrest focused on high-stakes federal litigation, drawing on her seven years as a trial judge to inform strategy and client counseling. Notable representations included serving as lead counsel for Epic Games Inc. in its antitrust challenge against Apple Inc. over App Store policies, encompassing trial proceedings in 2021 and appellate arguments before the Ninth Circuit in 2022. She also handled defense work in patent and commercial disputes, such as representing Biosense Webster Inc. in Innovative Health, LLC v. Biosense Webster, Inc. before the Ninth Circuit in 2022. These matters underscored continuity in her antitrust and intellectual property expertise, enhanced by firsthand knowledge of judicial decision-making processes. The transition from bench to bar presented adjustments in perspective, with Forrest describing her departure from the judiciary as a "difficult decision" undertaken with "great sadness," yet one enabling renewed in private . Her immediate status facilitated rapid integration, leveraging Cravath's resources for complex disputes while providing financial recovery from the federal judicial , as firm partners typically command multimillion-dollar annual compensation tied to billable contributions and firm profitability. Forrest remained in this role until departing for another firm in 2023.

Transition to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

In January 2023, Katherine B. Forrest transitioned from to LLP as a litigation partner in the New York office, where she assumed the role of co-chair of the firm's Digital Technology Group. This move positioned her to lead efforts in high-stakes antitrust litigation and advisory work, particularly involving complex commercial disputes in technology sectors. Forrest's expertise enhanced Paul Weiss's antitrust practice, which has consistently ranked among the top tiers in independent evaluations, such as Chambers USA's Band 1 for Antitrust nationally. At the firm, she advises clients on sensitive investigations, merger control, and civil litigation defense in antitrust matters, drawing on her prior judicial and DOJ experience to navigate regulatory challenges. Her contributions have bolstered the firm's capabilities in defending against government enforcement actions and private suits, contributing to Paul Weiss's recognition as a "Top 100" firm by for litigation prowess.

Expertise in antitrust and emerging technologies

Forrest, as a partner in the litigation department at since January 2023, chairs the firm's Group and contributes to its antitrust practice, focusing on the regulatory and litigious challenges at the nexus of and advanced technologies. Her work leverages experience from her time at the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division in the , where she handled merger reviews and civil , to address modern antitrust issues involving tech platforms, such as market dominance enabled by data-driven algorithms. In private practice, this translates to counseling clients on compliance with antitrust doctrines like those under the Sherman Act, particularly in scenarios where amplify or facilitate tacit coordination among competitors. A key aspect of her expertise involves algorithmic collusion, where AI systems—such as tools—could enable anticompetitive outcomes without direct human intervention, raising questions under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Forrest has analyzed recent developments, including California's AB 3641 enacted in September 2025, which prohibits the sale or lease of pricing algorithms that facilitate collusion by sharing competitively sensitive data, emphasizing the need for transparency in AI-driven market behaviors to avoid liability. She advises on AI compliance frameworks, including risk assessments for and recommendation systems in tech sectors, drawing parallels to traditional horizontal agreements while accounting for the opacity of models. Her shift from the federal bench to Big Law highlights trade-offs between public and private roles: the judicial position offered impartial authority in interpreting antitrust precedents amid tech disruptions, such as in cases involving digital markets, but constrained proactive client advocacy; in contrast, private practice enables direct representation in high-stakes suits against tech giants and guidance on emerging tech risks, though it invites over potential influences from prior government service on firm clients' strategies. No specific conflicts have been publicly alleged against Forrest, but her trajectory underscores ongoing debates about the revolving door's impact on perceived neutrality in antitrust enforcement against dominant platforms.

Publications and intellectual contributions

Books and articles on artificial intelligence

Forrest published When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner: Justice in the Age of in 2021 through World Scientific Publishing Company. The book analyzes AI deployment in high-stakes decisions affecting , asserting that models, which generate probabilistic outputs from historical data, cannot reliably substitute for human judgment in contexts requiring absolute certainty, such as criminal sentencing or detention. It highlights empirical risks, including error propagation from incomplete datasets—evidenced by documented failures in algorithms where false positives disproportionately affected certain demographics—and warns against over-reliance on opaque "" systems lacking causal transparency. In 2024, Forrest contributed scholarly articles to leading legal journals on AI integration in justice systems and ethical constraints. Her piece "Of Another Mind: AI and the Attachment of Human Ethical Obligations," appearing in the Fordham Law Review (Volume 92, Issue 5), posits that as AI achieves advanced cognitive simulation, humans bear preemptive ethical duties to impose constraints, drawing on analogies to historical extensions of consideration (e.g., to animals or corporations) while emphasizing AI's lack of intrinsic agency or capacity. "The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI," published in the Yale Law Journal Forum on April 22, critiques potential attribution of legal personhood to AI entities, arguing it would erode accountability chains without corresponding benefits, supported by review of precedents and AI's non-biological cognition. Separately, in "We Have No Idea What We Are Walking Into: AI and Ethical Considerations" (Annals of the , April 2024), she dissects beyond surface-level data flaws, noting that exacerbates systemic inequities through iterative feedback loops, as observed in real-world credit scoring models where initial disparities compound over cycles. Forrest's forthcoming book, Of Another Mind: The Ethics of Cognitively Advanced AI, announced in early 2024, extends these themes to regulatory imperatives for AI surpassing human-level reasoning, focusing on verifiable safeguards against unintended escalations in decision authority. Her writings consistently prioritize empirical validation—citing failure rates in deployed AI systems exceeding 20% in liberty-impacting applications—over speculative optimism, underscoring the causal disconnect between correlative pattern-matching and normative justice requirements.

Views on algorithmic bias, ethics, and regulatory frameworks

Forrest maintains that allegations of are frequently overstated when lacking rigorous demonstration of causation, attributing disparities in AI outputs primarily to flawed human-provided and choices rather than intrinsic discriminatory tendencies in the technology itself. In her analysis, bias emerges from inputs reflecting real-world structural inequalities or errors, necessitating empirical validation of causal mechanisms—such as traceable links between training and outcomes—before imputing fault to algorithms, as seen in judicial scrutiny of tools like hiring software where disparate impacts alone do not suffice without of or direct effect. This perspective counters narratives portraying AI as inherently biased by insisting on first-principles examination of human agency in system creation, avoiding regulatory responses predicated on unproven assumptions of . On AI ethics, Forrest underscores that ethical accountability resides with humans, who bear responsibility for anticipating and mitigating risks in AI deployment, including potential drifts in or unintended amplifications of input flaws. She advocates frameworks that integrate ethical oversight into development processes, such as mandatory transparency in sourcing and decision logging, to foster trust without stifling , while rejecting anthropomorphic projections onto AI that could dilute human . This approach prioritizes causal realism, evaluating ethical claims through verifiable outcomes rather than abstract fears, and extends to calls for tort-based remedies where proven harms from AI necessitate compensation tied to demonstrable in design or oversight. Regarding regulatory frameworks, Forrest proposes the SHIELD model for organizations navigating AI governance: systematically assessing the Scope of AI applications, Highlighting high-risk use cases, Identifying relevant federal, state, and international laws, Establishing internal oversight structures, Logging all key decisions and data provenance, and Detecting evolving compliance requirements through ongoing monitoring. This pragmatic structure balances unchecked against by embedding empirical and , enabling firms to adapt to patchwork regulations—like the EU AI Act or U.S. —without presuming universal bias threats. She further endorses causation-centric liability schemes, including registration and insurance mandates for advanced systems, to address harms realistically while preserving technological progress over precautionary overreach.

Broader commentary on judicial independence and technology

Forrest has emphasized the financial pressures inherent in federal judicial service, where salaries—$247,400 for district judges in 2025—pale in comparison to compensation, often leading to shorter tenures and a to practice that can undermine long-term institutional stability. In her case, years on the bench, she cited financial reasons for departing, attributing this in part to her modest background and the unique economic realities each judge faces, which may deter diverse talent from sustained . These constraints, she argues, compound other stressors like security threats amplified by digital anonymity, where online platforms enable rapid dissemination of doxxing and intimidation, eroding the personal security essential to impartial . In addressing technology's intersection with the judiciary, Forrest cautions against unbridled AI adoption, weighing its efficiency gains against profound risks to fairness. Generative AI holds promise for streamlining processes, such as enabling pro se litigants to draft pleadings in or translating legalese for broader comprehension, thereby enhancing access to justice and judicial throughput. Yet, she highlights inherent flaws, including data-driven biases that perpetuate historical inequities—like those from outdated enforcement practices—and opaque algorithms that obscure reasoning, fostering errors in predictive tools with documented 30% inaccuracy rates and a utilitarian tilt that neglects constitutional . Forrest advocates reforms grounded in judicial experience, urging allocation of dedicated funding and licensing for courts to rigorously test AI applications, ensuring human oversight prevails over autonomous drift that could compromise accountability. She posits that evolving legal doctrines—extended historically to non-sentient entities like corporations—must adapt to potentially sentient AI, but only with stringent limits on rights to avert harms like , thereby safeguarding judicial authority amid rapid technological evolution that outpaces doctrinal safeguards. This framework prioritizes empirical scrutiny of AI's causal impacts over hype-driven optimism, insisting on transparency and ethical human-centric controls to preserve adjudicative integrity.

References

  1. https://www.paulweiss.com/professionals/partners-and-counsel/katherine-b-forrest
  2. https://www.plainsite.org/judges/new-york-southern-district-court/katherine-b-forrest/
  3. https://www.lawdragon.com/press-releases/2018-09-12-former-district-judge-katherine-forrester-rejoins-cravath
  4. https://www.naag.org/person/katherine-b-forrest/
  5. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/ex-sdny-judge-katherine-forrest-leaves-cravath-paul-weiss-2023-01-17/
  6. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-06/obama-appointed-judge-faces-test-over-ruling-against-terror-law
  7. https://www.paulweiss.com/insights/firm-news/katherine-forrest-nationally-preeminent-litigator-and-former-federal-district-judge-joins-paul-weiss
  8. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/forrest-katherine-bolan
  9. https://www.law.nyu.edu/news/FORREST_NATHAN_CONFIRMED
  10. https://wesleyanargus.com/2025/09/30/katherine-forrest-86-on-her-time-as-a-federal-judge-the-future-of-ai-and-wesleyan-memories/
  11. https://alchetron.com/Katherine-B-Forrest
  12. https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2023/02/03/a-double-edged-sword-why-young-judges-might-not-stick-around/
  13. https://abovethelaw.com/2023/02/former-federal-judge-reveals-why-she-left-the-bench-for-biglaw/
  14. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/2011/05/04/president-obama-nominates-six-judges-united-states-district-courts
  15. https://www.law360.com/articles/1082030/former-sdny-judge-katherine-forrest-rejoins-cravath
  16. https://nysba.org/a-conversation-with-technology-expert-katherine-b-forrest/
  17. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/seeking-quality-not-quantity
  18. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2014/02/25/286303.pdf
  19. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/antitrust-division-issues-2011-edition-its-annual-newsletter
  20. https://www.iflr.com/article/2a63733ixysbvckrrbwgf/q-a-with-katherine-b-forrest-former-new-york-southern-district-judge
  21. https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/2010Year-EndCriminalAntitrustUpdate.pdf
  22. https://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2011/01/20/forrest-86-joins-u-s-department-of-justice/
  23. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/cravath-to-hire-d-o-j-s-top-antitrust-lawyer/
  24. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KatherineForrest-PublicQuestionnaire.pdf
  25. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-most-powerful-partners-at-cravath-2010-2
  26. https://www.law.com/article/almID/1202458094192/
  27. https://ballotpedia.org/Katherine_Forrest
  28. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/nominations-2011-06-08
  29. https://www.concurrences.com/en/authors/katherine-forrest
  30. https://blog.federaldefendersny.org/sdny-judge-issues-guidelines-regarding-use-of-302-forms-in-criminal-trials/
  31. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-katherine-forrest-retiring-164126652.html
  32. https://www.law360.com/articles/1064626/sdny-judge-forrest-known-for-tough-sentences-to-retire
  33. https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/breaking-s-d-n-y-judge-katherine-forrest-is-leaving-the-bench/
  34. https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/JLPP-27-2-Marcum.pdf
  35. https://clearinghouse.net/case/12310/
  36. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/federal-judge-enjoins-section-1021-fy2012-ndaa
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/judge-blocks-controversial-indefinite-detention-law.html
  38. https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/anti-terrorism-law-struck-down-by-federal-judge-081169
  39. https://privacysos.org/blog/judge-forrest-sticks-up-for-the-us-constitution-strikes-down-indefinite-detention/
  40. https://www.courthousenews.com/u-s-itching-to-overturn-detention-ban/
  41. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4897&context=flr
  42. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2436&context=lawreview
  43. https://clearinghouse.net/case/14513/
  44. https://www.justsecurity.org/category/intelligence-surveillance/page/114/
  45. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pirate-roberts-sentenced-manhattan-federal-court-life-prison
  46. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/newyork/news/press-releases/ross-ulbricht-the-creator-and-owner-of-the-silk-road-website-found-guilty-in-manhattan-federal-court-on-all-counts
  47. https://nypost.com/2014/10/24/hackers-threaten-federal-judge-in-silk-road-founder-case/
  48. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/father-and-son-found-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-connection-multimillion-dollar
  49. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e581add7b049349065d9
  50. https://www.pbwt.com/ny-patent-decisions-blog/judge-forrest-provides-litigants-guidance-applying-alice
  51. https://pbwt2.gjassets.com/content/uploads/2016/12/Patterson_TNS-v-TIVO.pdf
  52. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2017cv03144/473371/169/
  53. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/judge-rules-news-publishers-violated-copyright-by-embedding-tweets-tom-brady-photo-1085342/
  54. https://www.sdnyblog.com/judge-forrest-dismisses-aluminum-antitrust-case-rules-price-increase-unintended-consequence-of-parallel-conduct/
  55. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/u-s-judge-dismisses-aluminum-price-fixing-litigation-idUSKCN1252KR/
  56. https://www.sdnyblog.com/judge-forrest-dismisses-remaining-claims-in-aluminum-antitrust-litigation/
  57. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444023704577651721875161142
  58. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/politics/us-warns-judges-ruling-impedes-its-detention-powers.html
  59. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nyc-judge-presiding-over-silk-road-case-receiving-online-death-threats/
  60. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/death-threats-against-judge-in-silk-road-trial-emerge-from-darknet/
  61. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2014/10/24/ross-ulbrichts-lawyer-condemns-dark-web-threats-against-silk-road-trial-judge/
  62. https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/10/23/threats-made-against-silk-road-judge-elicit-attention-from-u-s-marshals/
  63. https://www.wired.com/2015/06/feds-want-id-web-trolls-threatened-silk-road-judge/
  64. https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2014/10/data-dump-personal-data-silk-road-judge-allegedly/143493/
  65. https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-government-wants-names-of-online-commenters-who-trashed-the-silk-road-judge/
  66. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_in_1.2b_silk_road_drug_case_is_threatened_online_by_serving
  67. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-3176/12-3176-2013-07-17.html
  68. https://www.pbwt.com/second-circuit-blog/in-rare-ruling-vacating-sentence-as-both-procedurally-and-substantively-unreasonable-second-circuit-expounds-on-the-role-of-mercy-in-sentencing
  69. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/business/iran-assets-terrorism-appeals-court-ruling.html
  70. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/04/09/rule-68-decisions-bolster-second-circuits-latest-reversal/
  71. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/cravaths-katherine-forrest-joins-small-but-distinguished-group
  72. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/epic-accuses-apple-delaying-key-us-appeals-court-hearing-2022-06-30/
  73. https://davidlat.substack.com/p/judicial-notice-050821-are-you-serious
  74. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/22-55413
  75. https://danielstone.substack.com/p/cravath-walk-funeral-procession-chant
  76. https://chambers.com/lawyer/katherine-b-forrest-usa-5:219405
  77. https://www.linkedin.com/in/katherine-forrest-539855255
  78. https://www.leadersmag.com/issues/2023.2_Apr/Women_Leaders/LEADERS-Katherine-Forrest-Paul-Weiss.html
  79. https://www.paulweiss.com/insights/podcasts/paul-weiss-waking-up-with-ai/ep-85-algorithmic-collusion-california-s-ai-and-antitrust-update
  80. https://www.paulweiss.com/insights/podcasts/ep-85-algorithmic-collusion-california-s-ai-and-antitrust-update
  81. https://www.paulweiss.com/insights/publications/technology-today-guidelines-for-navigating-the-ai-regulatory-landscape
  82. https://www.law.com/2024/04/29/ai-sat-down-at-the-table-and-began-to-negotiate-the-deal-the-emerging-world-of-ai-agents/
  83. https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/when-machines-can-be-judge-jury-and-executioner-justice-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence/
  84. https://www.nacdl.org/Article/June2022-BookReviewWhenMachinesCanBeJudgeForrest
  85. https://www.abebooks.com/9789811232725/WHEN-MACHINES-JUDGE-JURY-EXECUTIONER-9811232725/plp
  86. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol92/iss5/3/
  87. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ethics-and-challenges-of-legal-personhood-for-ai
  88. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.15133
  89. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/accesstojusticecommission/tc/2023/3A-AI-and-Algorithmic-Bias-ts.pdf
  90. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/ForrestYLJForumEssay_at8hdu63.pdf
  91. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2025/10/03/5-questions-for-katherine-b-forrest-00592544
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.