Rod Rosenstein's Borrowed SCOTUS Garb Was 'Not Bad,' but Will He Win the Justices?
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, attired in the government's traditional Supreme Court garb of morning coat and vest—borrowed for the event from the U.S. Solicitor General's Office—made his first high court appearance Monday.
April 23, 2018 at 02:40 PM
5 minute read
For 30 minutes on Monday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein traded political scrutiny of his duties overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller for judicial scrutiny of his arguments in a criminal sentencing challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rosenstein, attired in the government's traditional Supreme Court garb of morning coat and vest—borrowed for the event from the U.S. Solicitor General's Office—made his first high court appearance, arguing in the case Chavez-Meza v. United States.
Rosenstein appeared before eight justices, not the usual nine, because Justice Neil Gorsuch recused. The case came out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit—Gorsuch's court before his Supreme Court confirmation.
The deputy attorney general arrived in the sparsely attended courtroom with briefcase in one hand and binder in another and was accompanied by three other Justice Department lawyers who sat at counsel's table with him. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall sat in the bar section behind Rosenstein. It is customary for someone from the Solicitor General's Office or one of the deputies to attend when a Justice Department attorney argues.
Before the argument, a smiling, seemingly relaxed Rosenstein greeted and shook hands with attendees in the first row of the bar section. A reporter commented on his borrowed traditional attire, and Rosenstein, flexing his arm, said, “Not bad.”
Rosenstein, who has a calm, conversational style, defended the Tenth Circuit's decision, which held that the district court, in resentencing Adaucto Chavez-Meza, did not have to explain its thinking when granting a partial reduction in sentence in response to a sentencing guideline change.
The deputy attorney general appeared completely at ease at the lectern, insulated and isolated for the moment, from ongoing rumors of his possible firing by President Donald Trump over his management of Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The circuits are split on how much explanation is required to satisfy a sentence reduction decision under Section 3582 when a sentencing range has been lower by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The judge in Chavez-Meza's case issued a court order using a court form stating that applicable factors had been considered.
Chavez-Meza had been sentenced initially to 135 months in prison for possession and distribution of methamphetamine. After a change in the guideline range, which reduced offense levels, Chavez-Meza sought a 108-month sentence. He received only a partial reduction to 114 months.
The justices actively engaged Rosenstein and his opponent, Todd Coberly of Coberly & Martinez in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They repeatedly pressed Coberly on how much of an explanation a judge must give for a sentence reduction in order to provide meaningful appellate review.
Coberly told the court he was not asking for much, but for more than checking a box on a form.
“No matter what, whether within or outside [the guideline range], the district court has an obligation to explain the reason for the sentence,” Coberly argued.
Rosenstein countered that a federal judge is not required to provide reasons for a sentence that falls within the guideline range. The form that the judge checked in Chavez-Meza's case, he said, reflected what district courts are required to do by statute.
“It's not merely checking a box,” he said. “The judge is making a decision about the sentence.”
Although Monday's case was his debut in the Supreme Court, Rosenstein had argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit twice when he served as U.S. attorney for Maryland.
With his Supreme Court appearance, Rosenstein follows in the footsteps of other Justice Department officials outside of the Solicitor General's Office who argued before the court.
William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia made high court arguments while serving in the Justice Department. And it is not unusual for an attorney general also to appear. Attorneys general Janet Reno, William Barr, Michael Mukasey and Richard Thornburgh also took their turns at the lectern.
Read more:
Rod Rosenstein Set to Make Supreme Court Argument Debut This Month
Ex-King & Spalding Partner Robert Hur Follows Rosenstein as US Attorney
If Rosenstein Goes, Here's Who Takes Over the Trump-Russia Investigation
Don't Call It the 'Rosenstein Memo,' but DOJ Just Revised Its FCPA Guidance
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
© 2025 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 AllDC Circuit Rejects Jan. 6 Defendants’ Claim That Pepper Spray Isn't Dangerous Weapon
Supreme Court May Limit Federal Prosecutions Over 'Misleading' but True Statements
US Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute read11th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
- 5Will a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to a Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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