This wintry week heated up with reports that two of the best-known Supreme Court practitioners in Washington had jumped ship to new law firms. We offer our take on the ramifications of the moves. We're also reporting on what may be a dress rehearsal for a looming debate over whether Congress can take steps to require that the Supreme Court adopt its own code of conduct. Thanks for reading, and contact us at [email protected] and [email protected].

Takeaways on the Shanmugam and Blatt Moves

The news that veteran Supreme Court advocates Kannon Shanmugam and Lisa Blatt played musical chairs over the weekend, ending up in entirely new law firms—Paul Weiss and Williams & Connolly, respectively—has reverberated around the tight-knit Supreme Court bar.

Apart from the surprise factor, here are some important takeaways from the moves:

>> The enduring importance of the U.S. solicitor general's office as a source or incubator, not just for appellate practices generally but for diversity. Just as Paul Weiss went under The New York Times microscope on the issue of diversity, it hired Shanmugam, a Kansas-born son of Indian immigrants, and a former assistant to the solicitor general from 2004 to 2008. Meanwhile Williams & Connolly picked up Blatt, also a former assistant to the SG from 1996 to 2009, and the woman who has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other female.

>> Both helped clear the path for other women and minorities who have left the SG's office for significant appellate practices, including: Nicole Saharsky, who recently jumped from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to become co-head of Mayer Brown'sappellate practice; Pratik Shah at Akin Gump, Elaine Goldenberg and Ginger Anders at Munger, Tolles & Olson and Roman Martinez of Latham & Watkins.

Martinez said Tuesday, “One reason the SG's office is an incubator is that it's really the only place where an appellate litigator can get significant Supreme Court experience at a relatively early stage in his or her career.”

>> Paul Weiss, based in New York for nearly 150 years, is the latest Big Apple firm to show a need for a Supreme Court and/or appellate practice.

New York firms have long viewed Supreme Court litigation as a sort of loss leader. When Jeffrey Wall left the SG's office in 2014 for Sullivan & Cromwell, firm partner Robert Giuffra Jr. acknowledged that many New York firms haven't considered the Supreme Court as a major practice area “since the days of John W. Davis.”

>> Looking at it another way, Shanmugam's move to Paul Weiss signals that top Am Law 100 firms are also discovering the value of a Supreme Court practice. The last time this happened was when Kirkland & Ellis bought a Supreme Court practice lock, stock and barrel in 2016, taking over the 17-lawyer Bancroft firm led by former SG Paul Clement.

For, and Against, a SCOTUS Code of Conduct

The House Judiciary Committee held its first hearing Tuesday on a proposed bill that would require the Judicial Conference to craft a code of conduct that would cover justices of the Supreme Court.

The tenor of the discussion was set early when committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York (above) declared that the Supreme Court is “the only court in the country currently not subject to any binding code of ethics.”

H.R. 1 is the bill in question, encompassing a range of other reforms that also would affect voting rights and campaign finance issues as well.

Testimony that touched on the Supreme Court ethics code provision seemed like the opening salvos in a debate that could raise constitutional issues. Some of the comments:

>> Sarah Turberville, director of The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight, made the case in favor of the provision: “By extending a code of ethics to the Supreme Court for the first time, this legislation seeks to balance the need to enhance the public's faith in the judiciary with the imperative to safeguard the separation of powers between the Congress and the courts. And notably a code of conduct for the entire federal judiciary has bipartisan support.”

>> Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, pushed back with arguments that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has also embraced: “The Supreme Court was not created by Congress. It's an independent, co-equal branch. In the same way that the Justices can't dictate what ethics rules apply to you, you cannot dictate what ethics rules apply to them.”

>> Turberville's counter-punch: “Congress can place obligations on the justices that do not interfere with the Court's structural or decisional independence endowed by the Constitution. Throughout history, whether by mandating the size of the Court, determining the length and dates of its term, setting out recusal standards, or imposing financial disclosure requirements, Congress has exercised its constitutional prerogative to pass laws that govern the Court's form and function.”

The debate will surely continue. Will Roberts or his colleagues weigh in?

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

>> Jim Obergefell (above right), the named plaintiff in the Supreme Court's landmark 2015 same-sex marriage ruling, raises questions about the nomination of Eric Murphy to the Sixth Circuit. Murphy argued in defense of Ohio's gay marriage ban. [The Washington Post]

>> Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni recently ate dinner at the White House with President Trump and the first lady. Ginni Thomas would later get a meeting with Trump at which she and fellow conservative advocates questioned same-sex marriage and women serving in the military. [NYT]

>> The pharmaceutical company Allergan, represented by Jonathan Massey of Washington's Massey & Gail, is “asking the Supreme Court to rule that the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe can use its sovereign immunity to fend off challenges by makers of low-cost generic copies of the best-selling prescription eyedrops, Restasis.” Read the petition. The tribe's lawyers include a team from the Dallas, Texas, firm Shore Chan DePumpo. [NYT]

>> “Two doctors who perform abortions and an abortion clinic asked the justices to block a lower-court ruling that upheld a Louisiana law that, according to a federal trial court, would leave 'only one physician providing abortion in the entire state.'” [SCOTUSblog]

>> The U.S. Justice Department doesn't want the justices to rush into a dispute over the reach of last term's union-fee ruling, urging the court to turn down a petition from a Litter Mendelson team representing In-N-Out Burger in a workplace clothing dispute. [NLJ]

>> “With its overdue decision to hear another 2nd Amendment case, the court can finally elevate the right to keep and bear arms to the same level as the others in the Bill of Rights,” John Yoo and James Phillips argue. [Los Angeles Times]