The NLJ's Most Memorable Columns of 2019
Take a look back at our op-eds on the U.S. Supreme Court, presidential power and other key topics that resonated most with readers.
December 20, 2019 at 12:00 PM
6 minute read
In 2019, The National Law Journal opinion columns that resonated most with our readers dealt with the scope of presidential power, a key Title VII case before the U.S. Supreme Court, what the National Football League might teach federal judges about clerk diversity and more. Take a look back at the pieces that were your favorites.
Sen. Whitehouse: There's a Crisis of Credibility at the US Supreme Court
In our most-read column of the year, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, argued that the five sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents have "delivered rulings that advantage big corporate and special interests … causing a crisis of credibility that is rippling through the entire judiciary."
Draining the Reservoir: The Steady Erosion of Credibility at the DOJ
"Working at the U.S. Department of Justice is like joining a storied sports franchise with a long history of excellence," wrote Matthew Collette, a DOJ alum and Massey & Gail appellate partner. But now, he argued, "Norms are being smashed as the department sends career attorneys for cringe-worthy appearances to defend administration positions."
The Troubling Premise of Quid Pro Quo
"Quid pro quo defenses suggest that 'wink and nod understandings' are fair game in the rough and tumble of politics so long as no one crosses the thin red line. And political parties on both sides of the aisle seem to accede to this premise," wrote Pepperdine Law professor Barry McDonald following President Donald Trump's release of call summaries with the Ukrainian president.
Why We Should Adopt a Rooney Rule for Law Clerks
The National Football League's coach search process is "fairer and more methodical than the judicial competition for clerks" due to the NFL's Rooney Rule, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California wrote in January. The judge shares why he applies his own version of the rule to clerk hiring and why he believes other jurists should too.
The Best and the Brightest Clerks: Why the Justices Should Look Beyond Harvard and Yale
In another popular piece on clerk hiring, Todd Peppers, a visiting professor of law at Washington and Lee University, argued for more academic diversity at the U.S. Supreme Court. Peppers "propose[d] that each term the individual justices each select one law clerk from a different second- or third-tier law school," adding that these schools produce "bright, well-educated and able" graduates that would bring both academic and socioeconomic "diversity to the justices' chambers."
Playing the Long Game: Client Development Strategies for Young Lawyers
In September, MoloLamken's Eric Nitz kicked off our National Law Journal series, "On the Rise: Voices from Young Lawyers," in which leading, young attorneys tackle key practice topics. Nitz wrote about how young lawyers can build successful strategies for client development, as he called it, "one of the most mystifying aspects of legal practice."
Will It Be Game-Set-Match for Women's Sports?
One of the U.S. Supreme Court's Title VII cases this term proved rich fodder for several contributors. Jennifer Braceras and Anita Milanovich, respectively, the director of the Independent Women's Forum's Center for Law & Liberty and counsel of record for IWF's brief in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, argued that the case could have broad implications for women who participate in competitive sports.
Race and Sex are Fundamentally Different. That Should Matter to SCOTUS
John Bursch, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, represented Harris Funeral Homes in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. Bursch wrote that "while many things have changed in the last half a century, the meaning of sex discrimination in Title VII hasn't expanded to include sexual orientation or transgender status." He wrote that the "Supreme Court should leave whether and how to change our nondiscrimination laws to Congress."
Congressional Subpoenas: If the President Can't Resist Them, Who Can?
Ahead of oral arguments on President Donald Trump's challenge to a congressional subpoena before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Justin Shur, Caleb Hayes-Deats and Allison Gorsuch of MoloLamken wrote that "the difficulty of [the president's] position arises from the breadth of congressional power."
Why Greg Craig's Trial Was a Misguided and Unnecessary Prosecution
William Taylor III, a founding partner of Zuckerman Spaeder, represented former White House Counsel and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner Gregory Craig at his trial, in which he was acquitted by a federal jury on a charge that he deliberately misled the Justice Department about his past work for Ukraine. "In most cases, lawyers in my position would thank the jury for doing the right thing and move on. But this misguided and unnecessary prosecution deserves more scrutiny than it has received." Taylor wrote.
Make That Move: Evolving From Junior Partner to Rainmaker
You've billed your way up the ladder to make it to the partnership. Now how do you build a top practice? Lillian Hardy, practice group head of Hogan Lovells' crisis leadership team, tackled that topic in the fourth column of our "On the Rise" series.
Lisa Helem, a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, has served as editor-in-chief of The National Law Journal since September 2017. In that role, she also serves as lead editor for contributed content. In September 2019, she launched the NLJ's series, "On the Rise: Voices from Young Lawyers," a platform for leading, young attorneys to share key practice insights.
Read More:
On the Rise: Voices from Young Lawyers
Where Gorsuch Sees Ambiguity, Kagan Sees Clarity in LGBT Rights Case
Greg Craig Found Not Guilty of Deceiving DOJ About Ukraine Work
Law Clerk Diversity: 'It's Complicated'
Bad Play: Let's Not Cast Transgender People as a Threat to Sports
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 AllFenwick and Baker & Hostetler Add DC Partners, as Venable and Brownstein Hire Policy Advisers
2 minute readSignaling Growth Goals, Some Law Firms Promote Record Partner Classes
Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
4 minute readDC's Birchstone Moore Combines With Chicago-Founded Wealth Planning Firm
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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