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.
On March 21, 2014, Bancroft partner Paul D. Clement was featured in a PBS piece on a landmark case before the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, before arguing the case to the high court later that week. PBS cites Clement as ”an experienced Supreme Court advocate, who, as Solicitor General in the Bush administration, argued some of the government’s most weighty cases.”
On January 31, 2014, Georgetown Law reported on Bancroft partner Erin Murphy’s participation as a panelist on the Supreme Court Institute’s 2013 Mid-Term Preview. Ms. Murphy joined “other standouts of the Supreme Court bar” in providing a look at upcoming cases on the Court’s docket.
On January 6, 2014, the Legal Times spotlighted Bancroft partner Paul Clement’s role in a lawsuit filed by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Senator Johnson is challenging an Office of Personnel Management rule that allows lawmakers and their staff to receive subsidies for their health plans under the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Clement has been retained to consult on possible appellate issues.
On December 3, 2013, the National Law Journal reported on Northwest v. Ginsberg, a wide-reaching case argued by Bancroft lawyer Paul Clement before the United States Supreme Court. The case involves Northwest Airlines’ termination of Rabbi S. Binyomin Ginsberg’s Platinum Elite membership in its frequent-flyer program in 2008 after he made numerous complaints and booked himself on full flights in order to get bumped, and whether Ginsberg’s subsequent claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. As quoted in the article, Clement argued that “you can’t run a national, let alone international, airline if every one of your judgments about taking an unruly passenger off or taking out an abusive customer is going to be second-guessed by a jury.”
On November 19, 2013, Law360 reported on the multitude of diverse amici who have filed briefs in support of the petition for certiorari Bancroft filed on behalf of over a dozen broadcast networks in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. v. Aereo, Inc. Aereo is in the business of capturing over-the-air television broadcasts and, without obtaining authorization from or compensating anyone, retransmitting that programming over the Internet for a profit. As reported in the article, a number of major sports leagues, media conglomerates, labor unions, and legal scholars have filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, explaining that Aereo’s unauthorized retransmissions not only threaten basic copyright rules, but also risk significant economic harm to networks and their employees.
On November 14, 2013, E&E News reported on Mingo Logan Coal v. Environmental Protection Agency, a high-stakes case brought to the United States Supreme Court by Bancroft and its client, Arch Coal. The petition for writ of certiorari filed by Bancroft challenges the EPA’s unprecedented attempt to revoke a permit for material disposal sites properly issued by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007. The article quotes Senator David Vitter, who strongly supports the filing and argues that “It’s unacceptable that a business in the United States would be forced to spend hundreds of man-hours to obtain a federal permit and in order to provide needed jobs for coal workers, only to see the EPA arbitrarily revoke the permit in an instant.”
On November 9, 2013, an interview with Bancroft partner Paul Clement aired on CNN discussing Bond v. United States. Clement had argued the case before the United States Supreme Court earlier in the week. The story explores the actions of Bancroft client Carol Anne Bond, who was prosecuted in federal court after being accused of violating the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention following a domestic dispute that resulted in a thumb burn. Clement challenges the role of the federal government in this case, questioning “Is that something that really violated an international treaty, that really implicated international law? We would respectfully suggest that is not the case.”
On October 21, 2013, the National Law Journal reported on Bancroft client Carol Anne Bond and her constitutional challenge in Bond v. United States, which questions the right of the federal government to override a state’s ability to prosecute criminal cases in order to implement an international treaty, in this case the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the article, Bancroft partner Paul D. Clement argues, ”Domestic disputes culminating in a thumb burn neither implicate the concerns of the Chemical Weapons Convention nor come within Congress’ authority.”
Marquette Lawyer profiles Bancroft partner Paul Clement after his delivery of the annual E. Harold Hallows Lecture at Marquette University Law School, where he discussed national security legal issues, the Affordable Care Act, and the Supreme Court bar. Among others, the cover story quotes Tom Goldstein, publisher of SCTOTUSblog, who says, “My opinion remains unqualified that he is the best.”