Big Law Supreme Court Veterans Land 5 New Cases for Next Term
The grants are a snapshot of the preeminence of veteran practitioners in shaping the Supreme Court's docket.
June 10, 2019 at 02:57 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted certiorari in five cases on varied topics ranging from the death penalty to ERISA. But they all had one common thread: at least one veteran high court advocate represented a party in the case.
Three former U.S. solicitors general are involved in the granted cases, as well as some of the best-known advocates before the Supreme Court including Williams & Connolly partner Lisa Blatt, who has argued 37 cases before the court, more than any other woman.
The grants are a snapshot of the preeminence of veteran practitioners in shaping the Supreme Court's docket. Yes, the court sometimes grants review in cases submitted by newcomers, but undeniably, it helps to have a familiar name on the brief if possible.
Here is the lawyer lineup in the five cases granted Monday:
>> Atlantic Richfield v. Christian, a dispute between Montana landowners and Atlantic Richfield Co. over environmental damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Lisa Blatt represents Atlantic Richfield, and Joseph Palmore, partner at Morrison & Foerster, represents the landowners. The court granted Blatt's petition even though the solicitor general recommended against taking up the case.
>> Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, a claim that Comcast Corp. committed race discrimination in negotiations with Entertainment Studios Networks, an African-American-owned media company. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada represents Comcast and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of University of California, Berkeley School of Law represents the respondents. Latham & Watkins partner and former solicitor general Gregory Garre filed an amicus brief supporting Comcast.
>> McKinney v. Arizona, a test of how mitigating and aggravating evidence should be weighed in a criminal case. Hogan Lovells partner and former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal represents death row inmate James McKinney. Senior Arizona litigation counsel David Cole represents the state.
>> Monasky v. Taglieri, a dispute under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Gibson Dunn partner Amir Tayrani represents the mother in the case, Michelle Monasky, and Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown represents the Italian father Domenico Taglieri.
>> Intel Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, a dispute over limitation periods in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., now a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, represents Intel, and Matthew Wessler, a principal at Gupta Wessler, represents Christopher Sulyma, an employee of the company.
“Today's order list is more, piling-on evidence, of the veteran SCOTUS bar's increasing dominance of the court's docket,” said Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus, who has written about the growth and influence of the Supreme Court bar. “On balance, their participation is most certainly a good thing because the court benefits greatly from the better advocacy they supply. But even something that on balance is good does not mean that there are not simultaneously some significant nagging concerns and downside costs.”
Justices have not been shy in acknowledging that they like to see familiar faces at oral argument. “We are so, so lucky,” Justice Elena Kagan said during a 2017 discussion at the University of Wisconsin Law School. “We have an extremely high caliber bar.” She went on to say that many arguments are made by “repeat players” who “really know the court, who know the process of arguing before the court, who know what it is we like, who know what they should be doing, what they shouldn't be doing.”
And at a University Houston Law Center event last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was explicit in her frustration when novice criminal defense lawyers bungle arguments before the high court. She said, “I think it's malpractice for any lawyer who thinks, 'This is my one shot before the Supreme Court, and I have to take it.'”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState Appellate Court Upholds $149M Punitive Damages Award Against Hyatt
4 minute readLawyers, Law Groups Oppose Proposal to Require Court Approval for Amicus Briefs
Uvalde Shooting 'Fresh in Everyone's Mind:' Lone Dissenting Judge Disagrees with School's Disciplinary Decision Over Pellet Gun
9th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250