Sixth Circuit Judge Amr Thapar delivers the 2024 Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at the Heritage Foundation (screenshot via YouTube).
Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the newest legal publication by me, David Rutt. For more information about Original Jurisdiction, please visit our About page. You can also email us at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication. Click here to subscribe.
I can’t believe Halloween is just a few days away. My son Harlan (7 years old) has become a pirate and we are dressing Chase (15 months old) in a (super cute) tiger costume.
I’m not usually very interested in Halloween. But if it were me, I might pretend to be a McDonald’s employee instead of a food poisoning lawsuit, given the recent controversy over whether Kamala Harris worked at Mickey Dee’s. Toiling under the golden arches is a role I know well, having worked at McDonald’s in the summer of 1992. Yes, I can prove it.
Now, here’s the news.
Lawyers of the Week: Jacob Buchdahl, Elisha Baron, Tamar Lustig, Stephanie Spice.
Last year, litigator Sussman Godfrey secured a $787.5 million settlement for his client Dominion Voting Systems in Dominion v. Fox. Thanks to the success fee he earned in that case (I estimated it at just over $100 million), Sussman ranked No. 4 on the Am Law 100 in profits per equity partner. But a monumental victory and a huge reward were set. The challenge for Sussman is: Can he repeat that performance in 2024?
Here’s something that might help: Sussman won a $1.6 billion verdict for the plaintiffs in BML Properties, Inc. v. China Construction America, Inc. After an 11-day jury trial, Judge Andrew Bolock of the New York Supreme Court (Commercial Division) ruled in favor of the case. Investigators from Bahamas casino resort developer BMLP have concluded that CCA, the Chinese contractor hired to work on the resort, committed fraud that was “proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
Also, while I’m not familiar with Mr. Sussman’s compensation arrangement with BMLP, the firm’s focus on contingencies that could result in large judgments will result in an additional nine-figure fee. I suspect that this will happen. Congratulations to the trial team of Susman partners Jacob Buchdahl, Elisha Barron, and Tamar Lusztig. Stephanie Spice’s colleague. Mr. Sussman’s co-counsels, Mark Zauderer and Jason Cohen of Dorff Nelson & Zauderer;
Dominion was, of course, resolved by settlement, but the BML contains a judgment that may be appealed by CCA, represented by Debevoise & Plimpton. So Sussman’s victory here isn’t final yet — he won a $4.7 billion jury award in the NFL’s “Sunday Ticket” antitrust case that was later thrown out by a judge. (a decision the company is currently appealing). But $1.6 billion is such a large number that it could be reduced on appeal, or the parties could settle for a lower amount, and Sussman’s lawyers are still acting like bandits. There is a possibility that it will be taken. Expect special food offerings at this year’s Sussman’s Manhattan Holiday Party.
Other lawyers featured in the news:
Congratulations to Michael Ng, Daniel Zaheer, and the Kobre & Kim trials team. They won a $605 million jury verdict for their client, California low-carbon fuel retailer Propel Fuels, in a trade secret lawsuit against Phillips 66.
However, remember again that the case is not over until all appeals are completed (or the case is resolved). Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy and Canon Shanmugam of Paul Weiss obtain 11th Circuit reversal of $440 million judgment against four major cruise lines in Helms-Burton case As such, a talented appellate attorney can do wonders. Unclear) Federal law regarding the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
A request last week for insight into the mindset of large-scale tax evaders went unanswered. But based on a lawsuit filed by former Moody’s general counsel John Goggins, who was sentenced Thursday to eight months in prison for failing to file four years of federal income tax returns, during which he earned $54 million, , I’m guessing that mental health issues are: There are many things involved.
If you share my fascination with former Munger Tolles colleague and potential second lady Usha Vance, check out Irin Carmon’s profile of Usha in New York Magazine Try it (I’m quoted several times in it).
Speaking of the second Trump administration, who might take on leadership roles in the White House Office of Counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and other federal agencies? According to ABC News, candidates for attorney general include former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, Judge Eileen Cannon of Florida, former Justice Department official Jeff Clark, former White House Counsel Mark Paoletta, and former Senate Judiciary Committee member. This includes the association’s attorney, Mike Davis. Other top candidates include Steve Engel, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of General Counsel, and Will Levi, former chief of staff to Attorney General Bill Barr. (On the selection of an AG, Ken White suggested in Serious Trouble that Judge Cannon may be “extreme,” but not “an extreme Jeffrey Clark.” may be more in line with who they’re looking for this time around, assuming he can win Senate confirmation.
And speaking of lawyers and politics, Jim Wall of Walden, Mahat, Haran & Williams has been described by the New York Times as “a prominent and well-regarded lawyer who has represented causes across the political spectrum.” Deng is in the running to succeed embattled Eric Adams. As Mayor of New York.
This week’s judge: Justice Amr Thapar.
What can we do to make American law schools more respectful of free speech and intellectual diversity? Judge James Ho (5th Circuit) defends controversial clerkship hiring boycott One of the arguments made is that there are no effective alternatives.
Judge Amr Thapar (6th Circuit), another prominent conservative legal scholar and Supreme Court nominee in the second Trump administration, says there are other options. He made his case when he delivered the 2024 Joseph Storey Distinguished Lecture at the Heritage Foundation, “Why an Originalist Courtroom Needs an Originalist Classroom.” You can watch the talk in its entirety on YouTube and read it on Bloomberg Law, National Law Journal, and Reuters (thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing for all the links).
In a nutshell, Judge Thapar argued that too many law professors are “overwhelmingly anti-primitivist” and “view widely accepted primitivism through a distorted, uncharitable, and often inaccurate lens.” “We teach a method based on principles.” This biased teaching has a negative impact on the world beyond law school. This is because, after the students of these professors graduate and become law clerks, they are less equipped to advise judges, especially district court and trial court judges, on how to apply originalism.
But the situation could improve “if taxpayers and donors alike demand it,” Judge Thapar continued. If taxpayers, who support public law schools, and donors, who are the primary source of funding for private law schools, threaten or actually withhold funding from schools that do not adequately teach creativity. , perhaps we will see positive changes. In academia, as in many other fields, money speaks.
In The Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Josh Blackman argues that Justice Thapar’s approach is because law students “have little control over what is taught, yet are likely to bear the brunt of any funding cuts.” opined that “this would have a negative impact on many innocent actors.” ” While that is true to some extent, I would argue that boycotting clerk jobs does more harm to innocent actors (primarily students) than funding cuts. Overall funding cuts to law schools will not only affect students, but also (highly paid) faculty and administrators, including deans. However, the people who feel most strongly about boycotting clerkships are students, especially conservative students who are interested in clerking for conservative judges, and so far students are the only ones participating in the boycott. is. So, if given a choice, I would choose to exercise the power of my wallet over boycotting clerk jobs (though, of course, you could argue that you can use both strategies).
In nomination news, the Biden administration has nominated two judicial nominees, the 54th judge nominee, and a judge nominee from California, although confirmation will have to wait until the Senate returns after the election. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Celina Murillo (CD Cal.).
What happens to the federal judiciary in the long run will, of course, depend on what happens on Election Day. In this Times article (gift link), Matasias Schwartz and June Kim discuss how Donald Trump and Joe Biden will reorganize the federal judiciary by appointing about half of all federal judges between them. It is full of data and deeply delves into the question. I would like to share with you a small passage from this work that I thought was most noteworthy. Mr. Biden’s judges were, on average, somewhat more liberal than those nominated by his Democratic predecessors. On average, Trump’s judges were ideologically similar to judges nominated by previous Republican presidents. ”
This week’s decision: Al Otro Lado v. Office of Immigration Review.
Donald Trump has reportedly told his advisers that immigration is the biggest issue in this election. And while polls show that voters’ top concern is actually the economy, immigration is also high on the list.
So let’s talk about immigration. Specifically, an opinion by a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit that raises interesting questions of statutory interpretation. And if Trump wins the election and reverses some of the Biden administration’s policies, the ruling could have significant real-world implications.
