Gibson Dunn Sues Trump State Department Over Retooled Human Rights Report
The Center for Reproductive Rights turned to Gibson Dunn again in a battle over the Trump administration's approach to a regularly-issued government report.
December 05, 2018 at 07:32 PM
4 minute read
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has sued the U.S. State Department on behalf of the Center for Reproductive Rights, as part of the group's effort to unearth details of the Trump administration's alleged changes to regularly issued government human rights reports.
Wednesday's complaint comes after the organization filed a Freedom of Information Act request in October 2018 in an unsuccessful effort to learn more about how the 2018 Human Rights Reports are being constructed. It's the group's second FOIA suit against the department in just a few months regarding the changes to a subsection that was included in prior iterations of the report, titled “Reproductive Rights.” Gibson Dunn brought the first complaint on the center's behalf in September.
The Obama administration included that subsection the annual report, detailing concerns about abortion restrictions, the availability of contraception, and rates of maternal mortality in various countries, according to the complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The 2017 Human Rights Report looked different, the complaint contends, and featured a subsection labeled, “Coercion in Population Control” regarding forced abortion, involuntary sterilization and other coercive population-control techniques.
Troubled by the Trump administration's approach and the prospect that information incorporated by the Obama administration would be “erased” from forthcoming reports, the center submitted FOIA requests, the complaint said. When the federal government failed to satisfy the center's most recent request, the center turned to Gibson Dunn, including partner Katherine Smith and associates Wendy Miller and Mia Donnelly.
“The DOS' apparent decision to remove the 'Reproductive Rights' subsection and replace it with a 'Coercion in Population Control' section undermines the credibility and integrity of the reports, which are purportedly comprehensive,” the center's complaint argued. “The Center is particularly concerned that this demonstrates a shift away from protecting and advancing women's reproductive rights in line with a broader effort to backtrack on decades of law and policy protecting women and girls' rights to basic health care at home and abroad.”
The complaint calls on the court to compel the Trump administration to satisfy the center's request by a yet-to-be-determined date and to award the center attorneys' fees.
Gibson Dunn's latest human-rights-focused litigation follows scrutiny it received for representing the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia amid the October killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.
Through its U.S. embassy, the Saudis agreed in September to pay Gibson Dunn $250,000 to lobby the U.S. House of Representatives, but the Gibson Dunn team—including partner Theodore Olson Jr.—cut ties with the kingdom one month later after Khashoggi's killing raised human rights concerns. Gibson Dunn's decision to represent the Saudis spawned the firm's first registration under the Foreign Agents Registrations Act in more than 20 years, since the firm registered to work for the Saudis in the mid-1990s.
Another short-lived business venture involving Gibson Dunn's Washington, D.C., office attracted attention last week when Nicole Saharsky, former co-chair of the firm's appellate and constitutional law practice, jumped ship. Saharsky quit Gibson Dunn to join Mayer Brown after one year.
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 All'So Many Firms' Have Yet to Announce Associate Bonuses, Underlining Big Law's Uneven Approach
5 minute read‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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