Puerto Rico Cases Pit Don Verrilli Against Ted Olson at Supreme Court
In an unusual order, the high court granted certiorari in five cases testing the legitimacy of the Financial Oversight and Management Board. The order was so complex that the court quickly issued a corrected version.
June 20, 2019 at 06:38 PM
4 minute read
Updated June 21
Former U.S. solicitors general Theodore Olson and Donald Verrilli Jr. are set to square off before the U.S Supreme Court in October to resolve a complex dispute over the status of an oversight board, established by Congress in 2016 to help Puerto Rico recover from a devastating financial crisis.
Olson, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Verrilli, partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson are counsel of record for the main parties in the dispute. They are veteran advocates who have argued on the same and opposite sides of numerous appellate cases. Current solicitor general Noel Francisco is also likely to argue, though that is not certain.
In an unusual order, the high court Thursday granted certiorari in five cases testing the legitimacy of the Financial Oversight and Management Board, created by the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act passed by Congress.
Parties in the cases had specifically asked the court to consider the case at its Thursday conference in hopes it would quickly grant review and expedite the briefing schedule so it could be argued early in the fall term, which begins on the first Monday in October.
The order consolidated the five cases and gave detailed instructions on the length and color of the briefs. In spite of its new rules reducing the length of merits briefs from 15,000 to 13,000, the court said one set of briefs that will focus on the two main aspects of the case could run as long as 20,000 words and would bear a light red cover.
The order was so complex that the court issued a corrected version Thursday afternoon informing readers that it had incorrectly used the word “supporting” to describe one set of parties, when it actually was “challenging” an aspect of the disputed ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The order did not specify how long the arguments would last or which parties would have argument time. Verrilli told NLJ on Friday that it's “not clear yet exactly how argument will sort out.”
A group of hedge funds as well as a labor union in Puerto Rico challenged the board's legitimacy because the board members appointed without being confirmed by Congress. The First Circuit agreed with the challengers, but said the actions it had already taken could stand. The parties in the cases before the Supreme Court have differing views about both aspects of the circuit decision.
Verrilli, who represents the oversight board, argued in his petition that the First Circuit ruling was a “radical departure” from precedents that say territorial government officers do not have to conform to the appointments clause of the Constitution. The United States agreed with the board.
“We also disagree on what consequence should follow if the appointments clause does apply and the appointments are invalid,” Verrilli told NLJ. “We argue, and the First Circuit agreed, that the Board's prior work should not be invalidated.”
Olson, who represents Aurelius Investment, a creditor of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, argued in his reply brief that the board members are covered by the appointments clause “like every official that holds a continuing office and exercises significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.”
In a statement Thursday, Olson said: “The Appointments Clause is vitally important to our democracy because it ensures that citizens can hold the President accountable for the actions of the thousands of unelected officials that populate the federal government. The Oversight Board says that this safeguard against tyranny-by-bureaucracy does not apply in Puerto Rico, but the people of Puerto Rico are entitled to all the same constitutional rights and protections that citizens of the 50 States enjoy.”
|This report was updated with comment.
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 AllWilmer, Miles & Stockbridge, and Polsinelli Hire Litigation, Government Contract Attorneys
2 minute read'Sharp and Profound' Policy Shifts Prompt DC Law Firms to Evaluate Opportunities, Challenges
5 minute readTrump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute read'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
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