'Slammed': What Has Driven Departures From Trump's Justice Department
"There's just a higher volume of politically oriented cases, or cases the political appointees are interested or involved in, which makes things more difficult," one former U.S. Justice Department appellate lawyer says.
September 18, 2019 at 06:47 PM
10 minute read
At least seven U.S. Justice Department lawyers have left the civil division's appellate staff in recent months, an unusual and sudden spike in departures that has diminished the team of lawyers defending U.S. government policies in federal appeals courts across the country.
Between March and July, the departures depleted a staff in a key litigating component that is unaccustomed to such high turnover in a short amount of time, according to veterans of the civil division's appellate team. One former Justice Department lawyer said the departures represent a "huge percentage" of the staff.
The string of departures offers a new view into a Justice Department strained by President Donald Trump's administration and a demanding caseload ever more dominated by politically charged matters that often have come with tighter deadlines than more routine appellate cases. Indeed, the Trump Justice Department, through its appellate team, has raced to the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous instances in an effort to speed up challenges to rulings that went against the White House.
"Everybody's kind of been slammed just with the volume of litigation that has been going on in the department," said Catherine Dorsey, a partner at Baron & Budd who joined the firm in June after a nearly 17-year career on the appellate staff of the Justice Department's civil division. "There's just a higher volume of politically oriented cases, or cases the political appointees are interested or involved in, which makes things more difficult."
A DOJ official declined to comment on the departures but said the civil appellate staff has hired new lawyers in recent months. There are about 55 lawyers now on the civil appellate team, the official said, describing that total as higher than normal for a staff that is considered at full strength with 60 lawyers. The DOJ official said job postings for roles on the appellate staff have consistently drawn strong interest, attracting more than 200 applicants.
At least one lawyer on the civil appellate staff, Martin Totaro, is on detail from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, court records show. Totaro this summer joined the Justice Department team defending Trump against allegations he is illegally profiting off of his business empire in violation of the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses.
To be sure, not all of the departures were necessarily driven by a distaste for any Trump administration policy or the workload that has been created through litigation over new or rescinded rules. Some lawyers left for career opportunities that might have lured them away from the Justice Department regardless of the political party or president in power, according to people familiar with the departures.
But veterans of the civil division's appellate staff said the number of departures this year has dwarfed more routine turnover in an office that is widely regarded not just for attracting strong lawyers but also retaining them.
Across presidential administrations, the appellate staff of the Justice Department's civil division has maintained a tradition of allowing career lawyers to avoid defending policies they strongly oppose. But there is an unspoken understanding that, for the tradition to survive, career lawyers can only sparingly choose not to participate in a case.
Under the Trump presidency, the appellate staff of the Justice Department's civil division has taken up the defense of the travel ban, the administration's push to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, the bid to include a citizenship question on the U.S. census and subpoena fights involving Trump's financial information. More recently, the Justice Department's appellate team successfully challenged a ruling that had stopped the Trump administration from implementing an effective ban on asylum along the southern U.S. border.
As new cases challenging Trump administration policies arrived, it became increasingly difficult for some attorneys on the appellate staff to avoid being asked to defend in court policies they found questionable, former Justice Department lawyers told The National Law Journal.
"No matter what your politics are, the burden that exists from all of this creates a snowball effect. People who were viewed to be a little more sympathetic to the Trump administration's positions got assigned a lot of these cases," said Matthew Collette, a partner at the law firm Massey & Gail who stepped down last year as deputy director of the civil division's appellate staff, ending a 30-year career at the Justice Department. "The burden was even more on them."
The turnover has come as the Trump administration faces mounting criticism over how Justice Department appellate lawyers are litigating some cases. In a number of cases, the Trump-era Justice Department has dashed through federal appeals courts—to get to the Supreme Court more quickly—in an effort to erase rulings that have gone against the White House. Civil appellate lawyers work closely with the U.S. solicitor general, coordinating which cases to appeal and how to argue them.
Just last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lamented the Trump Justice Department's regular race to the Supreme Court, bypassing full review in the lower courts. Sotomayor voted against her colleagues' decision to allow the Trump administration to raise new hurdles for migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. A federal appeals court has not yet addressed the merits of the White House's new restrictions.
"Historically, the government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively. Not long ago, the court resisted the shortcut the government now invites," Sotomayor wrote.
|New leaders, and where some DOJ appellate lawyers have gone
The Justice Department's civil division is led by Jody Hunt, who served as chief of staff to former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Other Trump-era appointees in the Justice Department's civil division include Hashim Mooppan, a former Jones Day partner who now serves as the deputy assistant attorney general in charge of the appellate staff, one of six litigation branches within the civil division.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Mooppan defended Trump against claims he is violating the Constitution's anti-corruption clauses, which broadly prohibit sitting presidents from receiving financial gains, or "emoluments," from foreign or state governments. Mooppan also argued in defense of the Trump administration's appointment of then-White House budget director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
James Burnham, a former Jones Day associate, leads the federal programs branch, the group primarily responsible for defending administration policies in federal trial courts. Burnham stepped into the role in April, succeeding Brett Shumate, who last month joined Jones Day as a partner. The Justice Department's 2019 budget for the federal programs branch noted "a greater number of and more complicated challenges to the administration's laws, regulations and policies."
The civil division's leaders also include Scott Stewart, a deputy assistant attorney general who formerly clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and who was an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. David Morrell, a former Jones Day associate and Thomas clerk, joined the civil division in May from the Trump White House. Ethan Davis, the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the civil division, formerly was a King & Spalding partner and clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Lawyers who have left the appellate staff in recent months have taken positions among other government ranks and at various advocacy groups.
After less than two years on the civil division's appellate staff, Rachel Homer joined Protect Democracy, a progressive organization that is opposed to the Trump administration. Homer earlier clerked for U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington and Judge Diane Wood on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Megan Barbero jumped to the U.S. House general counsel's office in March, where she is working under the leadership of Douglas Letter, a former top civil division lawyer who left the Justice Department in 2018 after spending more than 30 years there. Letter is leading court cases that are challenging the Trump administration's refusal to comply with various subpoenas.
Another civil division lawyer, Tara Morrissey, formerly at Jones Day, left the Justice Department appellate team this year to become deputy chief counsel at the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Morrissey, a former clerk to Justice Samuel Alito Jr., had first joined the civil division in 2014.
After less than a year on the civil division's appellate staff, James Xi left to clerk for Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. He first joined the civil division in October.
Carly Zubrzycki stepped down recently after serving nearly four years on the civil appellate staff. Zubryzcki started a fellowship at Harvard Law School. Tyce Walters, who joined the civil appellate team in 2015, will soon join Latham & Watkins.
More broadly, departures of Justice Department lawyers can chip away at a prized asset: collective experience, former DOJ lawyers said.
"When you have a large chunk of experienced attorneys leaving in a short period of time, it is very disruptive. There is also the major problem of the loss of the institutional memory," said Robert Loeb, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe who spent 25 years as a career appellate lawyer in the Justice Department's civil division. "Attorneys build a wealth of knowledge on the issues facing the government. They learn who are the experts at the various government agencies. The experienced attorneys have the knowledge base to be a check on outlier arguments."
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
- 1Squire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
- 2Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 3More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
- 4OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
- 5Saying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
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