Ex-Jones Day Associate Leads New DOJ Team in Trump's Census Case Maneuvering
David Morrell, a former Jones Day associate and Clarence Thomas clerk, is leading the new team. He joined the Justice Department in May from the Trump White House.
July 08, 2019 at 06:16 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department on Monday announced a new team of lawyers in court cases backing the Trump administration's drive to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that called the government's motivations “contrived” and upheld an injunction blocking the effort.
The new legal team, led by a former Trump White House lawyer, replaces Justice Department lawyers who had argued for more than a year that the Trump administration faced a June 30 deadline to wrap up its printing plans for the upcoming decennial census. The government pointed to that deadline in urging lower judges, and the U.S. Supreme Court, to quickly review lawsuits and to rule by that date.
Swapping out government legal teams is rare, and it's a possible sign that the Justice Department attorneys assigned to the census cases either refused to continue or faced an ethical dilemma by their continued service, according to former Justice Department lawyers. The new team of lawyers could make arguments in court that undermine statements made by the trial court lawyers and Supreme Court team, led by Noel Francisco, the U.S. solicitor general.
“It almost certainly means that some or all of the lawyers involved in the cases are unwilling to contribute to or sign briefs that will contradict the representations DOJ, and the SG, have made to the courts,” Martin Lederman, a law professor and former Obama-era Justice Department lawyer, said in a blog post.
The Supreme Court's decision last month in a census case stopped the Trump administration from moving forward to add a citizenship question, which the challengers in cases in New York, Maryland and California said would discourage Hispanics and other non-citizens from responding. Still, the justices gave federal officials the opportunity to develop a new rationale to justify adding the question. The Justice Department has said it is pursuing various avenues to get around the Supreme Court ruling.
The 11th hour maneuvering comes days after the Justice Department told a Maryland federal judge, presiding over one of the census cases, that the Trump administration would not include a citizenship question. A tweet from President Donald Trump, saying his administration “absolutely” would not back down, upended the representations DOJ lawyers made in court. One of the lawyers, Joshua Gardner, who withdrew from the case Monday, told a Maryland judge last week: “I am doing my absolute best to figure out what's going on.”
The DOJ's new legal team—including Christopher Bates, Glenn Girdharry, Colin Kisor, David Morrell, Christopher Reimer and Daniel Schiffer—features of mix of political appointees and career government lawyers from the department's consumer protection branch and office of immigration litigation.
Morrell, leading the team, is a deputy assistant attorney general who joined the Justice Department in May from the White House. He had been an associate at Jones Day from 2013 to 2017, and he was part of the early wave that joined the Trump administration. Morrell clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas during the 2012-2013 term, and he earlier clerked for Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Bates joined the Justice Department in April as a senior counsel to Hunt. Girdharry, who joined the Justice Department as a trial attorney in 2010, now serves as assistant director in the office of immigration litigation, where Kisor is deputy director.
Reimer and Schiffer both work in the civil fraud division within the Justice Department's consumer protection branch. Schiffer had been an associate at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius before joining the Justice Department in 2014.
Attorneys from DOJ's federal programs branch, a component of the civil division that defends federal agencies in court, had taken the lead in defending Trump officials in the census litigation. Lederman, who teaches at Georgetown University Law Center, said the appearance of lawyers from the other civil division branches “suggests that perhaps the entire federal programs branch is refusing to have anything to do with” the census case any longer.
The Justice Department has declined to say why the agency is installing a new team of lawyers at this stage of the litigation.
DOJ federal programs branch lawyers who had been litigating census cases until now included 16-year veteran Gardner, Garrett Coyle, Stephen Ehrlich, Courtney Enlow, Martin Tomlinson, Kate Bailey, Daniel Halainen and Carol Federighi. James Burnham is the deputy assistant attorney general overseeing the federal programs branch, and John Griffiths is the director. Burnham, a former Jones Day associate, was named deputy assistant general in April. Carlotta Wells, an assistant director in the federal programs branch, has also appeared in the census cases.
“Since these cases began, the lawyers representing the United States in these cases have given countless hours to defending the Commerce Department and have consistently demonstrated the highest professionalism, integrity, and skill inside and outside the courtroom,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement Sunday. “The Attorney General appreciates that service, thanks them for their work on these important matters, and is confident that the new team will carry on in the same exemplary fashion as the cases progress.”
The Justice Department hasn't announced its next steps in the census litigation. Trump told reporters over the holiday break that the administration was thinking about an executive order, a move that would invite further litigation.
The Supreme Court upheld an injunction against Trump issued in the New York case, and now the attorneys in that challenge, led by teams from the American Civil Liberties Union and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, want a judge to hold the government to its word that June 30 was the deadline for the Trump administration to finalize its census plans.
“The Trump administration repeatedly argued the census forms could not be altered after June 30. They've now changed their tune because the Supreme Court ruled against them. They can't have it both ways,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge George Hazel in Maryland is preparing to hold new hearings on whether the Trump administration acted with discriminatory motivations in pushing for the citizenship question. The government argued that it needed the data to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, but the challengers contend that this rationale was pretextual and masked the true desire to reduce the number of Hispanic residents in an effort to influence election maps that benefit Republicans.
New evidence recently emerged suggesting a direct connection between a Republican redistricting specialist who championed a citizenship question and the Commerce Department, which oversees the census bureau. Justice Department officials have disputed the relevancy of the evidence, and the Supreme Court's decision did not make any reference to it.
Hazel on Friday refused to pause the proceedings in his court to allow the government to explore any new argument to defend putting a citizenship question on the census.
“Regardless of the justification defendants may now find a 'new' decision, discovery related to the origin of the question will remain relevant,” Hazel said in an order. “Given that time is of the essence, therefore, the prudent course is to proceed with discovery.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Should I Sue?': Navigating the New APA Landscape With Latham's Phil Perry and Andrew Prins
Litigator of the Week: Akin's Pratik Shah Helps the Chamber Block the NLRB's 'Joint Employer' Rule
Litigators of the Week: Hogan Lovells Duo Protects a 'Speed Bump' for High-Frequency Traders
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250