State of the Practice
on Jan 8, 2008 at 5:21 pm
As the Court completes its Winter recess and grants the final cases to be argued this Term, this seemed an appropriate time to summarize the state of the docket as it relates to our practice at Akin Gump. Thus far, the Court has granted 66 cases, although two have been dismissed (and one or two more are likely to be settled and dismissed as well), leaving at this point 64 merits cases that will be decided for the Term. We represent a party in ten of those cases.
The firm is lead counsel in four merits cases. Andy Rossman argued NY Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres (involving the constitutionality of New York’s system for electing judges) on October 3, 2007. I will argue Virginia v. Moore (involving the constitutionality of an arrest that violates state law) on January 14. Patricia Millett will argue United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn (involving the mechanism for recovering an unconstitutional export tax) in March. And on Friday, the Court granted our petition for certiorari in Sprint & ATT v. APCC Services, which will be argued in April.
The firm is co-counsel in a fifth case, District of Columbia v. Heller (involving the constitutionality of D.C.’s firearms laws).
In addition to Virginia v. Moore, the firm also has five other merits cases that it is litigating as co-counsel with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Pam Karlan will argue Riley v. Kennedy (involving the pre-clearance requirement under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) in March. Jeff Fisher will argue Kennedy v. Louisiana (involving the constitutionality of a death sentence for child rape) in April. Kevin Russell will argue Greenlaw v. United States (involving whether the government must cross-appeal before a court of appeals may increase a criminal sentence) in April. Jeff Fisher will argue Burgess v. United States (involving the enhancement of federal sentences based on a prior state conviction for possession of cocaine) in April. And we are co-counsel to the petitioner in Crawford v. Indiana (involving the constitutionality of voter ID laws).
The firm and the clinic represent petitioners and respondents in additional cases the Court will consider in the next two weeks as well, which could of course be set for argument this Term.
