Hogan Lovells Argues States, Not Feds, Should Hold Executions in Fight Over Barr's Death Penalty Policy
Justice Department attorney Melissa Patterson urged the three-judge panel to lift a trial court's injunction, noting that three justices indicated they would side with the government.
January 15, 2020 at 01:27 PM
4 minute read
A flood of Big Law and Justice Department lawyers took over the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday, as they argued over Attorney General William Barr's new policy reviving the federal death penalty.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled late last year to block several federal executions scheduled to begin in December under the new policy. The D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court both declined to stay that order while the appeal was litigated.
Justice Department attorney Melissa Patterson urged the three-judge panel to lift Chutkan's injunction, noting that a statement signed by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh indicates they believe the federal government will win the case.
She said the case turns on the reading of the word "manner" within federal death penalty law, arguing that term applies solely to the method of execution, and not other issues like the substance used for a lethal injection or the location of an execution.
Wednesday's panel—comprised of Judges David Tatel, Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas—questioned the law on executions, the Federal Death Penalty Act and what responsibilities it hands to federal and state governments.
Tatel noted the act directly gives some powers to the attorney general but does not address others.
"How can a statute that gives a federal official three express responsibilities," Tatel asked, be interpreted to let that officials fill in the rest of the gaps during an execution?
Arguing on behalf of the four men whose executions are currently blocked was Catherine Stetson, co-head of Hogan Lovells' appellate practice group.
Stetson told the panel that the federal death penalty law blocked the creation of a national policy for executions and that executions should be left to the states.
She noted that Congress had turned to the states to lead execution policies because their protocols were considered "more humane" than those used at the federal level and that the new policy therefore should not be upheld.
The panel of judges did not explicitly signal how they'll rule on the policy. But the panel's makeup, which consists of two judges appointed by Donald Trump, Katsas and Rao, puts the president's judicial nominees at the heart of a decision on a major administration policy.
The case has also drawn a number of Big Law attorneys to the D.C. Circuit. Stetson, alongside fellow Hogan Lovells partner Pieter Van Tol, is representing inmate Daniel Lewis Lee.
Attorneys from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr are representing another inmate, Wesley Ira Purka, and KaiserDillon attorney Jonathan Jeffress is on board to defend Dustin Lee Honken. Federal public defender Shawn Nolan is representing Alfred Bourgeois.
The line for parties in the case stretched far longer than the lines for the press or the public waiting to enter the courtroom ahead of arguments Wednesday morning. And after arguments, a couple of dozen attorneys, including Stetson, could be seen huddling in the courthouse cafeteria.
Chutkan wrote in her November opinion that, "absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs would be unable to pursue their claims, including the claim that the 2019 protocol lacks statutory authority, and would therefore be executed under a procedure that may well be unlawful."
Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh urged the appeals court to act quickly after the Supreme Court denied to pause Chutkan's order.
"The Government has shown that it is very likely to prevail when this question is ultimately decided," Alito wrote at the time, adding, "in light of what is at stake, it would be preferable for the District Court's decision to be reviewed on the merits by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before the executions are carried out."
Wednesday's arguments stem from a years-old case originally playing out in district court. That challenge to the federal death penalty was paused after the executive branch stopped executions but was revived when Attorney General William Barr announced that the agency would restart the practice.
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'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Law Firms Mentioned
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