4th Circuit Postpones Oral Arguments as Courts Tighten Restrictions Over Coronavirus
The circuit said it would reschedule next week's arguments "due to concern for the safety of our communities and our employees."
March 13, 2020 at 06:07 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Friday said it was delaying its argument schedule for next week, amid rising court restrictions over the COVID-19 respiratory illness.
The court did not explicitly mention coronavirus in its notice announcing the postponement of next week's arguments. It did say it was making the decision "[d]ue to concern for the safety of our communities and our employees."
"Counsel will receive orders in those cases and will be provided additional guidance regarding rescheduling," Friday's notice reads.
The Fourth Circuit previously sent out notices in several cases scheduled for next week's sitting, encouraging them to contact the court if they were experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 or were in contact with someone with the virus. "This will enable the Court to reschedule an argument that might otherwise risk spreading the Coronavirus," the notice, sent on Monday, read.
Other federal courts across the country have restricted access to courthouses, delayed arguments or offered ways for attorneys to appear in court remotely in response to coronavirus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rescheduled arguments in two high-profile cases, and relocated arguments in other cases. The court is also allowing more widespread use of phone and video conferencing.
The federal appeals court closest to the Fourth Circuit's courthouse in Richmond, Virginia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has not delayed arguments, but did send notices to counsel to not appear for upcoming cases if they have any symptoms of coronavirus. Visitors are also restricted at the Washington, D.C., federal courthouse.
Seventy-three cases were scheduled for the Fourth Circuit's sitting next week. Among those was a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's "public charge" rule, which makes it easier for the federal government to deny legal status to immigrants who have also applied for public assistance.
A notice was filed Tuesday in the public charge case that arguments had been rescheduled from March 18 until May 5. A clerk for the court said at the time that the rescheduling was not related to the coronavirus.
Attorneys at Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who are representing plaintiffs in the case, filed a motion Thursday to expedite oral arguments, noting the "case has been briefed in a timely fashion, with neither side making any requests for extensions in light of the pressing matters at issue."
The filing also cited the COVID-19 pandemic as reason to have arguments sooner than later.
"The COVID-19 outbreak has magnified the harms caused by the rule—particularly to vulnerable populations, the organizations that support them, and the public-health officials who are on the front lines of managing this public-health crisis," the filing reads. "Because the Rule has deterred noncitizens and their family members from seeking necessary medical care, it will be more difficult to contain the effects and spread of this dangerous illness."
The attorneys asked the court to hold arguments as scheduled on March 18, adding they "welcome any means of facilitating oral argument on the original date, including telephonic or video-conference oral argument or in-person oral argument before a different panel."
On Friday, the court denied the motion. And shortly afterward, the court posted the notice on the postponement of oral arguments.
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'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readWho Got the Work: Latham & Watkins and Shumaker Defend NASCAR in Antitrust Case
4 minute read'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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