On October 14, 2014, Bancroft attorney Zac Hudson argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as court-appointed amicus in Clark v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 13-1261. The case concerns whether the Court has jurisdiction to review an Authority General Counsel’s order unilaterally settling an unfair labor practice charge after a complaint is filed and, if so, whether the settlement in Mr. Clark’s case is valid.
On October 6, 2014, Tony Mauro in Supreme Court Brief noted that Bancroft partner Paul Clement will argue his 75th case before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 8, 2014. Clement represents the appellant in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk.
Tony Mauro, Docket Chat: Clement’s Milestone and a Jones Day Associate’s Debut, Supreme Court Brief (October 6, 2014),
On September 27, 2014, the AmLaw Litigation Daily discussed the recent unanimous victory by Bancroft partners Paul D. Clement and George W. Hicks, Jr., in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re: Fairfield Sentry Limited), No. 13-3000. The court’s decision vacated and remanded the district court’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s decision and ordered the bankruptcy court to hold a hearing under Section 363 of the bankruptcy code over whether the trade of a claim against the estate of Bernard Madoff continued to be financially justifiable.
Jan Wolfe, Fairfield Liquidator Wins New Chance to Void Madoff Deal, The AmLaw Litigation Daily (September 27, 2014)
On September 22, 2014, Bancroft partners Paul Clement, Erin Murphy, Jeffrey Harris, and George Hicks published an overview of the leading cases that will be argued during the Supreme Court’s 2014 Term. The presentation focuses on cases of interest to the business community, but also addresses high-profile cases regarding voting rights, the separation of powers, and religious freedom. The Court’s new Term begins on Monday, October 6, 2014.
On September 17, 2014, oral argument was heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit over whether a district court abused its discretion by sentencing Ty Warner, the creator of Beanie Babies, to probation and community service, in addition to paying back taxes plus interest and $50 million civil penalty, for a single count of tax evasion in connection with failure to disclose a foreign bank account. Bancroft partner Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of Mr. Warner, asserted that the district court acted well within its discretion in concluding that Mr. Warner’s unique personal history and characteristics made a sentence of probation—the sentence most commonly imposed in offshore account cases—appropriate. Bancroft partner Erin Murphy also serves as counsel in the case.
Jason Keyser, Beanie Babies Creator’s Sentence Debated in Court, Associated Press (September 17, 2014)
On September 15, 2014, Bancroft partner Viet Dinh testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the constitutionality of S. 132, the New Columbia Admission Act. The act would grant full statehood to the District of Columbia, while preserving a reduced federal district containing the White House, the Capitol, the National Mall, and various monuments and federal government buildings. Dinh testified that the bill is constitutional as it violates neither the New States Clause, the District Clause, nor the Twenty-Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and does not require the consent of the State of Maryland. Dinh concluded, in all events, that the courts would likely not rule on the bill’s constitutionality, but would defer to Congress by finding this a political question.
On September 15, 2014, the National Law Journal named Bancroft partner Erin Murphy to the “D.C.’s Rising Stars” list. She was singled out for her victory in McCutcheon, as well as her work in Aereo and Bond. The Journal felt inclined to point out that Ms. Murphy argued and won her first Supreme Court case at age 33.
The National Law Journal’s DC’s Rising Stars: Erin Murphy, National Law Journal (September 15, 2014)
On September 3, 2014, Bancroft partner Erin Murphy secured a unanimous victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Rivera-Gomez v. Holder, No. 12-70147, a pro bono case that she argued on behalf of a Honduran citizen seeking to reopen his removal proceedings. The court concluded that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion to reopen notwithstanding compelling evidence that the persecution he faces in Honduras on account of his refusal to join a gang has significantly worsened since he was ordered removed. This is one of multiple cases in which Bancroft has successfully partnered with an immigration law clinic to provide pro bono assistance to individuals seeking asylum or withholding of removal.
Bloomberg Businessweek Highlights Bancroft Partner Chris Bartolomucci’s Involvement in SEC Challenge
On August 8, 2014, Bloomberg Businessweek reported on the legal challenge to the SEC’s “Pay to Play” rule, which prohibits investment advisers from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or associated parties contribute to certain elected officials or candidates. Bloomberg reports that the success of the challenge could significantly impact the fundraising ability of state officials running for federal office. Bancroft partner Chris Bartolomucci represents the New York Republican State Committee and Tennessee Republican Party in the challenge to the SEC rule.
Robert Schmidt, Wall Street Campaign-Cash Restrictions Face Legal Attack, Bloomberg Businessweek (August 8, 2014)
Fortune Magazine Profiles Bancroft Partner Paul Clement’s Representation of International Franchise Association
On August 14, 2014, Fortune magazine profiled Bancroft partner Paul Clement and his representation of the International Franchise Association in a challenge to elements of Seattle’s minimum wage ordinance. Clement states in the article: “[A]lthough Seattle is in the headlines because this law gives them the highest minimum [w]age in the land, the legal challenge is not over the simple fact that they raised the minimum wage above the national standard; the lawsuit really focuses in on the discriminatory treatment of franchise businesses.”
Claire Zillman, Supreme Court Ace Challenges America’s Highest Minimum Wage, Fortune (August 14, 2014)