On June 25, 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, INBLF hosted an online webinar, Litigation In a Brave (Virtual) New World. My presentation, “The Virtual Appellate Advocate,” discussed how federal appellate courts and appellate advocates were coping with the pandemic. Watch my presentation here.
The Virtual Appellate Advocate Read More »
Reprinted from Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse (April 22, 2020) Last Fall I wrote a Legal Backgrounder for Washington Legal Foundation, The Fuss Over Stare Decisis, that highlighted several October Term 2019 Supreme Court decisions in which the Justices’ debated the criteria for overturning precedent. As the April 20 decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924, makes clear, the
Supreme Court Justices Continue to Debate When to Overturn “Bad” Precedent Read More »
This week I filed on behalf of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar, through its Center for Law and Public Policy, an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to review a question that is fundamental to civil litigation fairness: When a private party sues a federal contractor for alleged tortious conduct in connection with
The Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States has posted a Memorandum To Those Intending To File An Amicus Curiae Brief (October 2019). For attorneys with experience authoring and filing Supreme Court amicus briefs — see Learning the High Art of Amicus Brief Writing — the Clerk’s guidance does not contain any earthshaking
“Friendly Guidance” from the Supreme Court Clerk Read More »
The federal AbilityOne Program, administered by the AbilityOne Commission, provides employment opportunities for tens of thousands of people who are blind or severely disabled. These skilled and dedicated individuals work at § 501(c)(3) nonprofit agencies (“NPAs”) that manufacture or provide a wide variety of products or services needed by the federal government. To create and
Supreme Court Urged To Hear Appeal About Saving Jobs For People Who Are Blind Read More »
Late last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several decisions that reveal, in a variety of contexts, the justices’ current thinking on the role and application of stare decisis. My new Legal Backgrounder for the Washington Legal Foundation, The Fuss Over “Stare Decisis”: Four October Term 2018 Rulings Open Window to Justices’ Current Thinking, discusses
Starry, Starry Fight? Justices Debate “Stare Decisis” Read More »
Trade associations and professional organizations do not have to sit on the sidelines while the Supreme Court or lower appellate courts consider legal issues that may significantly affect their members. Amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs give entire industries and professions a direct line of communication to appellate courts on the policy implications and practical
Make Amicus Briefs Part of Your Advocacy Program Read More »
On July 19, Capital Appellate Advocacy founder Larry Ebner moderated an expert panel on how to develop, conduct, and promote a U.S. Supreme Court practice. The panel was part of the annual Appellate Advocacy Seminar sponsored by DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar. The seminar, held in Chicago, was co-chaired by Sarah Spencer of Christensen
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275 (June 17, 2019), reveals the Justices’ sharply differing views on the role that legislative intent should play in cases involving implied preemption of state law — more specifically, (i) state legislative intent where the issue is whether a state statute is barred under
Virginia Uranium Reveals Fissures in Supreme Court Implied Preemption Jurisprudence Read More »
Thank you Glenn Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division at the Washington Legal Foundation—and your WLF colleagues, including Rich Samp and Cory Andrews—for inviting me to moderate the June 19 briefing on How Free Enterprise Fared during the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2018 Term. I began by identifying the wide variety of subjects addressed this Term
Supreme Court Experts Discuss This Year’s Free Enterprise Cases Read More »
