The Lawyers Who Argued the Most This Past Term | Abortion Rights and 2nd Amendment Petitions Await Justices | SCOTUS Headlines: RBG and the Harvard Law Class of 1959
Welcome to Supreme Court Brief. Scroll down for reporting on lawyers who argued the most cases this past term, and we've got our eyes on new abortion rights and 2nd Amendment petitions that await the justices. Thanks for reading!
July 22, 2020 at 07:00 AM
8 minute read
Good morning and welcome to Supreme Court Brief. Since the end of the term, the justices have been busy with emergency applications involving the death penalty and voting rights. We pause for a look back at the lawyers who argued the most cases during the term. We also look forward to next term—petitions confronting abortion rights and the Second Amendment await the justices' review. Plus: treat yourself to Slate's marvelous oral history of the women in the Harvard Law Class of '59, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Thanks for reading, and your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Contact Marcia Coyle at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @MarciaCoyle.
|
The Lawyers Who Argued the Most Cases This Past Term
Most lawyers consider it a career or lifetime highlight to argue just one case in the Supreme Court. During the 2019-2020 term, 30 lawyers argued two or more cases, roughly one-third of the total number of advocates making their arguments.
Of those 30 lawyers, 12 scored three or more arguments—fewer than the 15 in the October 2018 term and 17 in the October 2017 term, according to term statistics compiled by Empirical SCOTUS and SCOTUSblog.
Not surprisingly, lawyers from the U.S. solicitor general's office dominated the three or more argument category. Former Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who has since returned to Jones Day, topped the list with 7 arguments; then-Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall had five arguments, and Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart had four. Wall is now serving as the acting U.S. solicitor.
Breaking into the top 12 were three lawyers from private firms: Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement (6), Williams & Connolly partner Lisa Blatt (3) and McDermott Will & Emery partner Paul Hughes (3).
All but Hughes had had experience in the solicitor general's office, and of the 30, all but seven had worked in the SG's office in the past.
The 30 lawyers arguing two or more cases last term came from 11 private firms, two state solicitors general's offices (Louisiana's Elizabeth Murrill and Kansas's Toby Crouse), the U.S. House (Douglas Letter), and Stanford Law's Supreme Court clinic (Jeffrey Fisher). In addition to the three firms mentioned above, the other firms were: Goodwin Procter (Brian Burgess); Jones Day (Shay Dvoretzky); Hogan Lovells (Neal Katyal); Latham & Watkins (Roman Martinez); Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Theodore Olson); Morrison & Foerster (Joseph Palmore); Jenner & Block (Adam Unikowsky), and Munger, Tolles & Olson (Donald Verrilli Jr.).
The number of law firms represented by advocates making two or more arguments has remained fairly consistent over the last three terms.
There also were 11 in the October 2018, with standout appearances by Clement, Daniel Geyser of Alexander Dubose & Jefferson and then-Williams & Connolly partner Kannon Shanmugam (now at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison) with four arguments apiece, and David Frederick of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick with five. —Marcia Coyle
|
Abortion Rights and Guns Redux Next Term?
Abortion rights and gun petitions are never far from the Supreme Court's door. After disposing of the Louisiana abortion clinic case and the New York City gun regulation case last term, the justices will have an opportunity this fall to decide whether they want to weigh in again on those contentious issues.
Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, whose challenge to the New York City regulation was dismissed as moot, is back with a petition in Zoie H. v. Nebraska, a somewhat unusual Second Amendment case.
A 2018 Nebraska law bars possession of a firearm until age 25 by anyone adjudicated by a juvenile court to have committed certain offenses. Juvenile adjudications are civil, not criminal proceedings, and there is no right to a jury trial. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected Zoie's argument and concluded that the prohibition was a collateral consequence of the civil adjudication, not punishment.
"The state cannot deprive the accused of her constitutional right to a jury trial on the rationale that this is just a juvenile proceeding, and then tell an adult that she has no Second Amendment right to keep and bears arms because of the result of a bench trial," Clement wrote in his petition. "The state cannot disregard both constitutional guarantees. Worse still, the reasoning of the decision below would allow juveniles to be disenfranchised from exercising all manner of constitutional rights well into their adult years, as long as the disenfranchisement was a collateral consequence of a separate statute rather than part of the sentence for the offense."
The state's response by counsel Nebraska Solicitor General James Campbell is due August 6.
Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which successfully argued the Louisiana clinic case, June Medical Center v. Russo, is also back—but this time as the respondent, not the petitioner.
In the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi Special Assistant Attorney General Paul Barnes asks the court to grant review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit striking down the state's ban on abortions after 15 weeks, except for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities.
Mississippi wants the justices to decide whether all previability abortion prohibitions are unconstitutional. The state argues the viability standard "eviscerates a state's ability to account for advances in medical and scientific technology."
The medical community consensus is that viability typically begins at 23-24 weeks after the pregnant woman's last menstrual period.
The Fifth Circuit panel, in an opinion by Judge Patrick Higginbotham, said, "In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman's right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman's right but they may not ban abortions."
Barnes, however, tells the justices: "If the court cannot reconcile Roe and Casey with other precedents or scientific advancements showing a compelling interest in fetal life far earlier in pregnancy than those cases contemplate, the court should not retain erroneous precedent."
The Center's Hillary Schneller is counsel to Jackson Women's Health Organization. Her response to the petition is due August 9. —Marcia Coyle
|
Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading
'It's Amazing to Me How Distinctly I Remember Each of These Women.' "Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflects on her nine female classmates at Harvard Law School and the divergent paths their lives all took from there." [Slate]
Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: A Term Like No Other. "Although OT 2020 won't officially start (presumably remotely) until the first Monday in October, the new clerks are already 'arriving' and starting their work (also remotely)." [Above the Law]
MacArthur Appellate Group Adds Ex-SCOTUS Clerks From Big Law. "The MacArthur Justice Center has poached two ex-high court clerks from Big Law for its Supreme Court and appellate practice that's won a string of civil rights and criminal justice victories since launching four years ago. Easha Anand (at left), who clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor and came from Orrick, and Devi Rao, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and came from Jenner & Block, joined the civil rights law firm's Supreme Court & Appellate Program." [Bloomberg Law]
A Timely Case on Police Violence at the Supreme Court. "The justices may have wanted to duck the question of police violence. The case from Albuquerque, Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292, will force them to confront it." [NYT]
Belated Ginsburg cancer disclosure renews focus on SCOTUS transparency. "The five-month delay that preceded Ginsburg's statement Friday was just the latest episode to prompt concern among court watchers that the justices are being too opaque about their health." [Politico]
Roberts is the swing justice, but he's not becoming more liberal. "But when he does swing, it will likely be political and institutional factors, not a shift in his ideology, that guide his vote. And that means liberals really can't rely on him to rule their way in the future." [FiveThirtyEight]
Roberts's power hinges on Trump's re-election. "Roberts is a savvy operator on the court no matter its makeup. Still, he remains in the central position so long as the justices a reelected Trump would replace are conservatives or the ones a President Biden would replace are liberals. [The Washington Post]
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 AllGeorgetown Law Professors Face Off in First Amendment Supreme Court Case
The Week Ahead: Justices To Tackle Civil Forfeiture and First Amendment
Supreme Court Brief: Religious Employees | Fair Claims Act 'Pendulum' Case | On the NJ-NY Waterfront
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
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