As of May 20, 2013, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in three cases petitioned by Bancroft attorneys. Willis of Colorado, et al., v. Troice, No 12-86, Bond v. United States, No. 12-158, and Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 12-462 will be argued before the Supreme Court during the 2013 Term.
The National Law Journal named Bancroft to “The 2013 Appellate Hot List”. The National Law Journal recognized Bancroft’s “impressive track record” and “killer appellate work before the Supreme Court, federal circuit courts of appeal and state courts of last resort” in making its selection.
On May 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Bancroft client PPL Corporation in PPL Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 12-43. Bancroft partner Paul D. Clement argued the case on PPL’s behalf on February 20, 2013. The case involves the creditability for U.S. purposes of a U.K. windfall tax imposed on certain companies after their privatization in the 1980s and 1990s led to greater profitability than the U.K. government had anticipated. Agreeing with PPL that courts should look to the substance, not the form, of a foreign tax when determining creditability, the Court reversed the decision below and held the U.K. windfall tax creditable. This is the second unanimous victory that Bancroft has secured for PPL in the past two Supreme Court terms. Bancroft attorneys Paul D. Clement and Erin E. Murphy prepared the briefing in both this matter and PPL Montana v. Montana.
Bancroft attorney Erin Murphy argues recess appointments challenge before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
On May 15, 2013, Bancroft attorney Erin Murphy presented argument in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Appellants HealthBridge and a group of nursing care centers in Kreisberg v. HealthBridge Management, LLC, No. 12-4890. The case involves a constitutional challenge to recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, as well as statutory questions regarding the scope of the Board’s authority to seek and the district court’s authority to grant injunctive relief under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. HealthBridge and the centers maintain that recent appointments to the Board were not authorized by the Recess Appointments Clause, and that the Board therefore lacks a duly constituted quorum and, as a result, lacks the power to seek a section 10(j) injunction. Paul Clement and Erin Murphy prepared the briefing.
On May 9, 2013, Bancroft partner H. Christopher Bartolomucci presented a speech, “Identification Please: State Voter ID Laws and the Voting Rights Act,” to the Austin Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.
On May 7, 2013, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation announced that Bancroft partner Paul Clement will receive the 2013 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Achievement. Michael W. Grebe, President and CEO of the Bradley Foundation, described Mr. Clement as “[a]n advocate for freedom, he has argued many cases to preserve both individual liberty and national security.”
On April 23, 2013, Bancroft lawyer Paul D. Clement presented argument in the Supreme Court on behalf of Giridhar C. Sekhar, petitioner in the case Sekhar v. United States, No. 12-357. The case concerns whether the recommendation of an attorney is “property” that can be the subject of extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Sekhar’s brief argues that in enacting the Hobbs Act, Congress only intended for the Act to cover the wrongful obtaining of transferable, alienable things of value, and did not intend for it to reach intangible rights to autonomy like a recommendation or the right to make a recommendation. Paul D. Clement and George W. Hicks prepared the briefing.
On April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court held in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) does not reach alleged misconduct that “took place outside the United States.” Since the 1980s, plaintiffs have sought to use the ATS to bring claims in U.S. courts involving events that occurred in remote foreign countries. In an opinion by the Chief Justice, the Court applied the presumption against extraterritorial application of federal law and concluded that nothing in the text of the ATS “suggests that Congress intended causes of action recognized under it to have extraterritorial reach.” The Court’s decision is likely to significantly curtail ATS litigation, which had become a serious problem for multinational companies that did business in developing countries.
Bancroft attorneys Paul Clement and Jeffrey Harris filed two amicus briefs in support of the Respondent on behalf of IBM Corporation (one when the case was first argued last term and another when the Court ordered additional briefing on the question of extraterritoriality). Those briefs were co-written by John Bellinger and Reeves Anderson of Arnold & Porter, who represented BP America, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, General Electric, Honeywell, and Monsanto.
Bancroft partner Paul Clement argues for the Guardian ad Litem as representative of respondent Baby Girl before the U.S. Supreme Court
On April 16, 2013, Bancroft partner Paul D. Clement presented argument in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Guardian ad Litem as representative of respondent Baby Girl in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a Minor under the Age of Fourteen Years, Birth Father, and the Cherokee Nation, No. 12-399. The argument concerned whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erroneously interpreted and applied the Indian Child Welfare Act to require removal of Baby Girl from her adoptive home without consideration of her individual best interests, in violation of her equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Bancroft partner Paul Clement argues for the NFL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
On April 9, 2013 Bancroft partner Paul D. Clement argued for the NFL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The argument concerned whether the resolution of plaintiffs’ claims, contending that the NFL failed to fulfill a duty to ensure the safety of NFL players, requires interpretation of the terms of applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements.