D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: “Appointed by the Court” Part II
There were just two opinions this week, and neither is especially relevant to administrative law.* Even so, I noticed something interesting. In United States v. Alvaran-Velez, the opinion notes that Carmen D. Hernandez was appointed to argue on behalf of the appellant. And Reid v. Hurwitz was argued by Caleb P. Redmond, a law student. That reminded me that it has been a while since I have recognized the lawyers who have served as appointed counsel. So I had my talented research assistant identify appointed counsel since December 2016.
Here is what she found.
Appointed by Court (or helped someone who was):
Aguiar v. DEA: Marsha Godina Hansford, Kannon K. Shanmugam
Bank of New York Mellon v. Henderson: Paul F. Enzinna
Bartko v. DOJ: Sophia M. Brill, Brian M. Matsui, Deanne E. Maynard
Bartko v. SEC: Brian R. Matsui, Bryan J. Leitch, Deanne E. Maynard
Blount v. United States: David M. Lehn, Seth P. Waxman, Arpit K. Garg
Bowman v. Iddon: Jennifer J. Clark, Jeffrey T. Green
Chichakli v. Tillerson: Kendall Turner, David W. DeBruin
Croley v. Joint Committee on Judicial Administration: Adele M. El-Khouri, Chad Golder
Day v. Trump: Ryan J. Watson, Noel J. Francisco
Durant v. D.C. Government: Anthony F. Shelley, Michael J. Satin, Amelia D. Hairston-Porter
Ford v. Massarone: Zachary C. Schauf, David W. DeBruin
Fourstar v. Garden City Group: Jonathan D. Kossak, Anthony F. Shelley, Dawn E. Murphy-Johnson
Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran: Erica J. Hashimoto
Hill v. Associates for Renewal in Education: Yongo Ding, Anthony F. Shelley
Ivy v. Commissioner of IRS: Travis Crum
Jackson v. Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia: Sarah G. Boyce, Chad I. Golder
Johnson v. Interstate Management Company: Ruthanne M. Deutsch, Steven H. Goldblatt
Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs: Gregory J. Dubinsky, Michael J. Gottlieb
Kaplan v. Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Anthony F. Shelley, Ian A. Herbert, Adam W. Braskich
Kaufman v. Nielsen: Amit R. Vora, Steven H. Goldblatt
Ladeairous v. Sessions: Dawn E. Murphy-Johnson, Anthony F. Shelley
Niskey v. Kelly: Thomas Burch
Palmieri v. United States: Thomas Burch
Price v. DOJ: Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood
Redmond v. Fulwood: David C. Wolff, Kathryn L. Clune
Reid v. Inch: Erica Hashimoto
Sluss v. DOJ: Erica Hashimoto
United States v. Aguiar: Erica J. Hashimoto, Steven H. Goldblatt, Amit R. Vora
United States v. Alvaran-Velez: Carmen D. Hernandez
United States v. Borda: Carmen D. Hernandez
United States v. Brown: Barbara E. Kittay
United States v. Brown: Christine Pembroke, Mary E. Davis, Pleasant S. Brodnax III, Barbara E. Kittay, Jonathan Zucker
United States v. Cooper: Jonathan Zucker
United States v. Davis: Adam H. Kurland
United States v. Durrette: Thomas G. Corcoran Jr., Edward C. Sussman, A.J. Kramer
United States v. Eshetu: Carmen D. Hernandez, Mary E. Davis, Christopher M. Davis, Anthony D. Martin
United States v. Flores: Richard K. Gilbert, Kristen G. Hughes
United States v. Fry: Michael Alan Olshonsky
United States v. Galaviz: Kira Anne West
United States v. Glover: Nicholas G. Madiou, Larry Allen Nathans, Michael Edward Lawlor
United States v. Hicks: Paul S. Rosenzweig
United States v. Hunt: Edward C. Sussman
United States v. Laureys: S. Rebecca Brodey, L. Barrett Boss
United States v. Machado-Erazo: Kira Anne West, Christine Pembroke, Marc Eisenstein, Thomas G. Corcoran Jr., Barry Coburn
United States v. Mattea: Mary E. Davis, Thomas Abbenante
United States v. Meadows: Charles B. Wayne, Jerald R. Hess
United States v. Miller: Dennis M. Hart
United States v. Mosquera-Murrillo: Julia Fong Sheketoff, Louis K. Fisher, Sparkle L. Sooknanan, Richard K. Gilbert, Carmen D. Hernandez, A.J. Kramer
United States v. Murray: Gregory Stuart Smith
United States v. O’Neal: Benjamin Beaton, Paul J. Zidlicky
United States v. Powers: Robert S. Becker
United States v. Pyles: John A. Briley Jr.
United States v. Sitzmann: Paul L. Knight
United States v. Slatten: Brian M. Heberlig, William F. Coffield, Danny C. Onorato, Timothy J. Simeone, Thomas G. Connolly, Steven A. Fredley, Jared P. Marx, Michael J. Baratz, Bruce C. Bishop, Linda C. Bailey, David Schertler, Lisa Hertzer Schertler, Janet Foster, Laina C. Lopez
United States v. Stoddard: James M. Wilcox, William H. Burgess, William L. Welch III, Edward C. Sussman
United States v. Williamson: Richard K. Gilbert
West v. Lynch: David M. Zionts, Robert A. Long, Jr.
Wilson v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission: Erica J. Hashimoto
Student Counsel:
Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran: Harry Phillips, Joseph Flanagan, Vetone Ivezaj
Johnson v. Interstate Management Company: Katherine Connolly, Lauren Ige, David Kanter
Kaufman v. Nielsen: Stephen S. Dalal, Cole. H. Mayhew, Damon R. Porter
Niskey v. Kelly: Aaron Parks, Rachel Zisek
Palmieri v. United States: Ryan Giles, Holly Boggs, Aidan Moss
Price v. DOJ: Benjamin G. Brokh, Jeffrey C. Thalhofer
Reid v. Inch: Caleb Redmond, Erica Hashimoto, Paola Pinta, Sean Stein
Sluss v. DOJ: Dominique Rioux, Benjamin Kurland
United States v. Aguiar: Caleb Redmond, Joseph Flanagan
Wilson v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission: Luke Sullivan, Donna M. Farg
Many thanks to all of these lawyers — and future lawyers — for their service.
* Reid v. Hurwitz is about the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I suppose that makes it an “admin law” case … sorta. Here, Judge Wilkins, joined by Judge Griffith, addressed a prisoner complaint; the prisoner alleged, among other things, that the Bureau violated various regulations by failing to deliver magazines when he was housed — “sometimes for disciplinary reasons, and other times for administrative ones” — in a Special Housing Unit. The district court concluded that the complaint was moot because he wasn’t so housed anymore. The majority, however, concluded his claims were not moot because of the exception to mootness for claims capable of repetition yet evading review. “Having been placed in a SHU in myriad different BOP institutions, subject each time to a restriction allegedly imposed under a purported BOP policy or practice contravening BOP regulations, Reid has proffered a logical theory that the challenged actions reasonably will recur despite his current transfer out of the SHU.” Judge Katsas dissented because he was not persuaded that there was an actual BOP policy that would apply. In United States v. Alvaran-Velez, Judge Pillard (joined by Judges Henderson and Edwards) rejected a sentence reduction because the Sentencing Commission policy at issue never applied to his case, thus negating the relevance of the Ex Post Facto Clause. This case is worth a read if you practice criminal law.
D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed is designed to help you keep track of the nation’s “second most important court” in just five minutes a week.