On July 15, 2014, Bancroft secured a unanimous victory for Ralls Corporation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, No. 13-5315. The D.C. Circuit held that Ralls’ due process rights were violated when the President, citing only unspecified “national security” concerns, issued an order under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act prohibiting Ralls from acquiring four small windfarms in Oregon and requiring Ralls to destroy property it had previously constructed. The court also held that Ralls may challenge earlier orders issued by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) as violating the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.
On July 8, 2014, Law 360 applauded Bancroft for its impressive 5-1 record before the U.S. Supreme Court last term. The article also named Bancroft partner Paul Clement as the term’s biggest single winner, calling him “a one-man wrecking crew” for his 4-1 record in the last year and singling out his victory in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
On July 3, 2014, Law360 named Bancroft one of the ‘Legal Lions’ of the week after securing “a groundbreaking victory” and “dealing a major blow to the Affordable Care Act” in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The article credits the Bancroft team of Paul Clement and Michael McGinley as well as co-counsel from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and others.
Jake Simpson, Law360′s Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs, Law360 (July 3, 2014)
On July 7, 2014, Bancroft partner Erin Murphy was featured in a National Law Journal piece on first-time advocates before the Supreme Court during its last term. The article discusses her argument and victory in the “marquee” campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. FEC, and the support she received from Bancroft partner Paul Clement in getting the opportunity.
Tony Mauro, Understudies Take Stage at Supreme Court, The National Law Journal (July 7, 2014)
On July 6, 2014, the ALM Litigation Daily named Bancroft partner Paul Clement ‘Litigator of the Week’ after major victories last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo before the U.S. Supreme Court. The article notes the victories “cap one of Clement’s best Supreme Court terms in years” after he secured victories in four of the five cases he argued this term.
Jan Wolfe, Litigator of the Week: Paul Clement of Bancroft, Litigation Daily (July 6, 2014)
On June 30, 2014, Bancroft attorneys Paul D. Clement and Michael H. McGinley secured a victory in the Supreme Court of the United States for the companies in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell, No. 13-356. The question presented in the consolidated cases was whether the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraception mandate violates the companies’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) or the First Amendment. The companies’ owners operate their businesses according to deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit them from providing health care coverage for abortion-causing drugs and devices, including four out of the twenty mandated contraceptives. The Supreme Court held that RFRA protects the companies’ religious free exercise rights and that the contraceptive mandate violates RFRA.
On June 25, 2014, Bancroft attorneys Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, and Barbara A. Smith secured a victory in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of petitioners (television producers, marketers, distributors, and broadcasters) in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et. al. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461. By a vote of 6-3, the Court ruled against Respondent Aereo, which is in the business of capturing over-the-air television broadcasts and retransmitting them over the internet for profit to tens of thousands of public members without permission from underlying copyright holders. The Court held that Aereo “performs” petitioners’ works “publicly” within the meaning of the Transmit Clause, in violation of the Copyright Act.”
Bancroft partners Paul D. Clement and Viet D. Dinh have been named to the 2014 Washington, D.C. “Super Lawyers” list, while Bancroft partner George W. Hicks, Jr. has been named to the 2014 “Rising Stars” list. Clement and Hicks were named in the area of appellate law, while Dinh was named in the area of business and corporate law. The lists are formulated based on peer nominations and evaluations of professional achievement.
On April 9, 2014, as reported by the National Law Journal, Zac Hudson argued in Hinds v. Holder, before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, that deportation is a penalty that must be weighed in proportion to the crime committed. Specifically, the statutory provision tasking immigration judges with deciding whether an alien is removable from the United States must be read to prohibit the entry of removal orders that would otherwise raise serious due process problems. Hudson told the Court that removal orders that amounted to unduly harsh penalties and had tragic consequences would raise serious constitutional questions, and that in order to avoid those problems the statutory provision at issue should be construed so as to bar removal orders in certain exceptional cases. Hudson explained that the plight of Bancroft pro bono client Rogelio Blackman Hinds proved the point. Mr. Blackman is 59, has lawfully resided in the U.S. for nearly 40 years, is married to a U.S. citizen and has five U.S. citizen children (one is severely mentally and physically handicapped), served this country honorably as a U.S. Marine, and suffers from several health issues that are likely the result of his military service.
Hudson’s arguments received substantial amicus support, including from the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Immigration Council, the Post-Deportation Human Rights Project at Boston College, the American Civil Liberties Union, and several law professors.
On April 3, 2014, the ALM Litigation Daily named Bancroft partner Erin Murphy ‘Litigator of the Week’ after she secured a major victory in the U.S. Supreme Court earlier in the week in McCutcheon v. FEC. Last fall, in her first argument at the high court, Murphy made the case that the federal limits on an individual’s aggregate campaign contributions violate the First Amendment. The court agreed, giving Murphy her first win in a high-profile case that has sparked widespread public debate.