ACLU Spurns U.S. Solicitor's Call for Attorney Sanctions in Abortion Case
The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday called "baseless" and "extraordinary" the U.S. Justice Department's accusation that lawyers for the group acted unethically in their advocacy for a pregnant immigrant teen who sought an abortion.
December 04, 2017 at 09:19 PM
5 minute read
Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin, speaking at a Federalist Society conference in 2008. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM
The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday called “baseless” the U.S. Justice Department's accusation that lawyers for the group acted unethically in their advocacy for a pregnant immigrant teen who sought an abortion.
The civil liberties group was responding in the U.S. Supreme Court to a petition filed Nov. 3 by U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco. The conflict between the Justice Department and the ACLU centers on the scheduling of the teenage girl's abortion and communications about that timing between the lawyers on both sides. The abortion had been at the center of a case in Washington federal district court.
“The solicitor general has filed extraordinary and baseless complaints to distract from his own failure to act promptly in response to an adverse decision of the court of appeals,” Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips, representing the ACLU, said in the new court filing in Hargan v. Garza. “The ACLU's lawyers acted in the best interest of their client and in full compliance with the law. That the government failed to seek further review quickly enough is entirely their own responsibility.”
In his brief, Phillips, chairman of Sidley Austin's executive committee and a veteran Supreme Court advocate, also asked the justices to reject Francisco's argument that the lower court decision allowing the teen to have the abortion should be vacated and all claims related to abortion access for unaccompanied minor immigrants be dismissed.
The teen, known as “Jane Doe,” had sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in October, alleging the Trump administration was preventing her from obtaining an abortion despite her compliance with Texas legal requirements. The girl was being detained in a Texas shelter under contract with the federal government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an unsigned, en banc decision, ruled in the teen's favor and she obtained an abortion on Oct. 25. The underlying suit remains pending.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/ The National Law JournalIn the Justice Department's high court petition, Francisco said the teen's lawyers had told the government that the abortion procedure would occur on Oct. 26, and Justice department lawyers, in turn, said they planned to appeal the D.C. Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court on Oct. 25.
Francisco also claimed that the teen's lawyers said they would keep the government informed of changes in the schedule but did not do that when a doctor became available to perform the abortion on Oct. 25.
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October told Fox News that ACLU lawyers committed “a breach of the kind of confidence a lawyer should have with one another and we're very upset about it. And I think it's a serious problem, should not have happened and we're disturbed about it, I've got to tell you.”
Francisco argued that the actions of the ACLU lawyers denied the government an opportunity for the Supreme Court to review of the lower court decision. He suggested that the justices might wish to issue an order to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against those lawyers.
Phillips disputed the government's account of the communications between the two sides. The government, he said, failed to seek review in the Supreme Court “based on assumptions it made about the timing of Ms. Doe's procedure, not on the basis of any commitments from Ms. Doe's lawyers.”
“If government counsel wished to ensure that they would have an opportunity to seek a stay before the abortion procedure, they could and should have requested such an assurance from respondent's counsel and, if they did not receive a sufficiently clear commitment, they could and should have immediately sought relief from this court,” Phillips wrote. “They inexplicably failed to take these reasonable steps, and cannot now blame respondent's counsel for the consequences of their own inaction.”
The ACLU's brief in opposition is posted below:
Read more:
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
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