We’ve been busy with four filings — three cert. reply briefs and a supplemental brief — yesterday and today. We expect the cert. filings in each of the four cases to be distributed to the Justices today for consideration at their last conference (on June 22) before the summer recess.
We are filing this cert. reply brief today in No. 05-1243, Medeiros v. Sullivan, which presents the question whether private parties have standing to bring Tenth Amendment claims. The briefs in opposition of the Solicitor General and the non-federal defendants (Michael Sullivan, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission) are available here and here. The case arises out of our work with our Supreme Court litigation class during the winter term at Harvard. Our co-counsel on the brief are Rob Caron and Pam Karlan. Tom spearheaded the reply brief effort with help from three of his law clerks at Akin — Hashim Mooppan, Warren Postman, and Rob Yablon — and me.
We are filing this cert. reply brief today in No. 05-1092, Mouelle v. Gonzales, which deals with the validity of an immigration regulation that prohibits parolees in removal proceedings from applying to adjust their status. In his response brief, the Solicitor General recommended (and we agree) that the Court should GVR the case for reconsideration in light of interim rules (issued on May 12) that repeal the challenged regulation. Pam Karlan is co-counsel with us in the case, which arises out of our work with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
Tom is filing this supplemental brief today in No. 04-1350, KSR International v. Teleflex, which deals with questions of patent obviousness. The brief responds to the SG’s invitation brief, which recommends that cert. be granted. Tom represents the respondents; his co-counsel in the case, Rodger Young of Michigan’s Young & Susser, is counsel of record. Tom also had help from Cody Harris, Karl Blanke, and Mike McGuinn, all of whom are at Akin for the summer.
Finally, we filed this cert. reply brief yesterday in No. 05-1074, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. The case, which arises out of our work with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, deals with the application of the statute of limitations for Title VII claims when an employee is challenging her current pay based on pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period. Kevin Russell gets credit for the brief; our co-counsel are Robert Wiggins and Jon Goldfarb of Birmingham’s Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis and Pam Karlan of Stanford. Goodyear’s BIO can be found here.
.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY