In criminal cases, all-out efforts to get the Court's attention The chances of convincing the Supreme Court to grant review in a criminal case are astronomically low. So an increasing number of petitioners are making their pitch to the Court with high-powered amicus curiae groups on their side.

"We're seeing more and more concerted campaigns" in criminal cases at the certiorari stage, said Sidley Austin partner Jeffrey Green. Green co-chairs the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers amicus committee. The association itself, Green said, has been "inundated" in recent years with requests for amicus help from defendants planning to petition the high court.

The latest example is a full-court press that has been mounted in a high-profile immigration case, aimed at making it impossible for the justices – and their law clerks – to ignore.

"The Court takes so few criminal cases, we wanted to make clear how unusual our case is," said Nathan Lewin of the D.C. firm Lewin & Lewin. The case is Rubashkin v. United States, contesting the prosecution and sentencing of Sholom Rubashkin, owner of an Iowa meat processing plant who was charged with financial and immigration crimes after a 2008 raid found illegal aliens in his employ.

The petition in the case by itself telegraphs importance: joining Lewin on the brief is Paul Clement of the Bancroft firm in D.C. In addition to a docket heavy with the term's top cases, Clement has taken on several criminal cases in which he claims prosecutorial abuse and recruits amicus help. In the Rubashkin case, the challenge claims judicial misconduct resulting in an unfair trial, as well as an unjustly high sentence.

To bolster those claims, Rubashkin's legal team enlisted other big names from the start. At the trial stage, when the U.S. government recommended life imprisonment, six former attorneys general – ranging from Democrats Nicholas Katzenbach (who died May 8) and Ramsey Clark to Republicans Edwin Meese III and Dick Thornburgh – sent the judge a letter decrying the sentence as excessive for a first-time offender with record of community service.

More amici were enlisted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. "They didn't get us anywhere, frankly," said Lewin, pointing to the appeals court decision. The decision affirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed a motion seeking a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows for retrials in "the interest of justice." The Rule 33 claim was based on the conduct of trial judge Linda Reade, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit uncovered documents showing numerous ex parte communications between the judge and prosecutors in the planning stages of the raid. Legal ethics experts Stephen Gillers and Mark Harrison submitted affidavits calling the conduct of the judge and the prosecution unethical.

Continue Reading ...

Courtside: Stevens tips Stetson to Texas lawyers

At age 92, retired Justice John Paul Stevens continues to travel around the country, freely offering commentary about his former colleagues while also tossing out verbal bouquets to lawyers he admires. Stevens' recent speech before the University of Texas Law Review's annual banquet last month was no exception.

Brief of the Week: Taser case evokes a personal response

Kirkland & Ellis attorney Michael Williams was expecting his eighth child when he read a ruling that sided with police officers who repeatedly used a Taser on a pregnant woman at a routine traffic stop. "It really struck me on a personal level," Williams said of the case, Brooks v. Daman, so he offered to work pro bono on a petition for certiorari.

Hall v. United States Federal income tax liability resulting from debtors' post-petition farm sale was not "incurred by the estate" under Bankruptcy Code §503(b) and thus was neither collectible nor dischargeable in Chapter 12 plan (Sotomayor, J.)

Marcia Coyle at the Supreme Court: The last day of ACA arguments

Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, discusses developments on the last day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court involving the Affordable Care Act.

VIEW ALL VIDEO »

Healthcare case capped a rough year for solicitor general :: Los Angeles Times

Gay Marriage Moves Closer to Supreme Court :: Reuters

Health Care Case In Fantasy Court: What Would Honored Justices Say?:: Huffington Post

Bay Area Races Pit Dem against Dem :: San Francisco Chronicle