New Judge Katsas Makes Debut on DC Circuit
Greg Katsas, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in December, served as deputy White House counsel before joining the court in December.
February 12, 2018 at 07:44 PM
4 minute read
If former Deputy White House Counsel Gregory Katsas had first-day jitters at his debut oral argument Monday, the newest judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit didn't show it.
Katsas, nominated by President Donald Trump last September and appointed to the court in December, did not hold back when it came to questioning attorneys on both sides of the two cases he heard Monday morning. Katsas remained engaged throughout the roughly two-and-a- half-hour-long hearing, asking pointed questions about factual records and legal theories.
Katsas heard the arguments alongside two other judges who've been in the news recently: Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Barack Obama for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 but denied a hearing by the Senate majority leader, and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whose name appears on Trump's latest list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
There were also some big names sitting in the audience Monday. Chad Readler, the chief of Department of Justice's Civil Division, attended, as did Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan. Katsas, Mooppan and Readler all worked at Jones Day before joining the Trump administration.
Monday's cases, which focused on disability discrimination and Medicare payments, are by no means the most controversial to reach the court, which in recent months has decided major cases involving the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Board and the rights of undocumented minor immigrants to obtain abortions. Katsas, however, appeared to give complete attention to the advocates before him Monday, often making eye contact and nodding his head in what seemed to be agreement or understanding.
One case involved a disability discrimination lawsuit brought against the Department of Housing and Urban Development by an employee. Katsas questioned the appellant's lawyer, Charles Elliot Wagner, about how many hours of work his client missed and the record of claims raised in proceedings within the agency.
When the government's lawyer, Josh Kolsky, took the stand, he faced intense questioning from Katsas. The judge said he found it “troubling” that the government counted all of the employee's 1,800 missed hours of work as showing she was not qualified for her job, instead of subtracting the time she took for annual and sick leave. Still, he conceded that the number of hours she took for approved leave was likely a “relatively small number.”
In the other case, more than 200 hospitals challenged a 2013 Department of Health and Human Services regulation. The hospitals argued HHS used faulty data in the 1980s that helped determine Medicare payment rates used today, and that the 2013 regulation illegally bars them from referencing the use of the faulty data in their challenges to reimbursement rates.
The questioning sparked some playful back-and-forth between the judges. Katsas, questioning Jackson Walker partner Edgar Morrison, asked about whether HHS was acting reasonably, given that it would be difficult for the agency to reinvestigate the data it used decades ago. He added that the alleged error in the data was “relatively small.”
“Well, it's hundreds of millions of dollars,” Kavanaugh said, jumping in quickly. Katsas smiled, asked a clarifying question, and moved on.
Katsas also pressed the government's lawyer, Melissa Patterson, on whether the text of the regulation showed it applies to appeal proceedings, a central issue in the case and a main point in the government's argument, in addition to reopening proceedings.
Patterson used language in the preamble of the regulation to support her argument that it applied to appeals. But Katsas disagreed, arguing “the only textual reference” to appeals in the regulation itself did not prove that it applied to both kinds of proceedings.
“The statutory and regulatory structure seems crystal clear that an appeal is one kind of thing, and a reopening is another kind of thing,” the judge said.
Katsas' next oral arguments are set for Feb. 22.
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'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
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
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