Welcome to Supreme Court Brief. The justices this morning hear two partisan gerrymandering cases, and perhaps Emmet Bondurant, making his return to the lectern in more than 30 years, will help guide the court to a lasting resolution. Plus, a recent swearing in of new members of the Supreme Court bar caught our eye—find out why below. Four University of Chicago law grads have snagged clerkships for this upcoming term. Tips and feedback welcome: Contact us at [email protected] and [email protected], and follow us on Twitter at@Tonymauro and @MarciaCoyle. Thanks for reading!

Emmet Bondurant Returns to SCOTUS in Gerrymandering Case

Emmet Bondurant's soft tone only enhances his enduring outrage over voting rights violations. Bondurant, 82, partner at Atlanta's Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, is returning to the Supreme Court this morning to argue against partisan gerrymandering. He last argued in the high court more than 30 years ago.

“The case presents the most extreme, overt and brutal partisan gerrymander than any court has ever seen,” he said. “The North Carolina General Assembly adopted written criteria and expressly stated the objective of the plan was to entrench their current (Republican) control on the congressional delegation and preserve their 10-3 partisan advantage. And they said how they were going to do it.”

In Rucho v. Common Cause, Bondurant has 20 minutes not only to persuade the justices that North Carolina's congressional redistricting plan violates four provisions of the Constitution, but that the high court can do what it has failed to do in past challenges—announce a standard for judging when partisanship in redistricting runs afoul of the Constitution.

Representing Common Cause, Bondurant shares argument time with Allison Riggs of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, who is counsel to the League of Women Voters of North Carolina. Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement represents Republican leaders of the North Carolina General Assembly. The justices extended argument time from 60 minutes to a total of 70 minutes.

The justices will hear a second partisan gerrymandering challenge on the heels of the Rucho case. In Lamone v. Benisek—a return of the same challenge heard last term—Republican voters challenged the Democratic-controlled Maryland General Assembly's redistricting of the 6th congressional district as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Mayer Brown partner Michael Kimberly represents challenger John Benisek; Maryland solicitor general Steven Sullivan will defend the redistricting plan.

The North Carolina case is in a sense a bookend to Bondurant's career, which spans more than five decades.

A 1960 graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law, Bondurant argued his first Supreme Court case—and won—in 1964: Wesberry v. Sanders. A 6-3 majority held population differences in Georgia congressional districts violated the one man, one vote requirement.

Two years later, he was back in Fortis v. Morris but this time he lost a challenge, 5-4, to an 1824 provision in the Georgia constitution on the election of the governor after the candidates failed to receive a majority of the vote.

Nearly 20 years later, he was back at the podium in Hishon v. King & Spalding in which the justices in 1984 unanimously held the law firm illegally discriminated against his client, attorney Elizabeth Hishon, on the basis of her sex by denying her a partnership in the firm.

Besides his long commitment to civil rights, Bondurant has pursued indigent defense—death penalty, habeas and other issues—with equal passion. But the North Carolina gerrymander case may be his biggest challenge. The case has drawn numerous amicus briefs from across the political spectrum. And the next round of redistricting looms large.

“There is no question that this is really a pivot point in this kind of litigation,” Bondurant said. “All of the theories are before the court on the most favorable factual record.”

An affirmance, he said, will constrain and guide legislators and tell them they can't deliberately disadvantage voters to entrench themselves in power. But a loss, he added, will tell legislators after 2020 that there are no constitutional limits on partisan gerrymandering. “You will be endorsing the legality of the practice and giving state legislatures an unlimited hunting license.”

All in the Family, and All SCOTUS Bar Members

In the annals of Supreme Court lore, quirky stories about the otherwise routine ritual of swearing in new members of the Supreme Court bar are numerous.

In 2011, five brothers in the Mitchell family of Maryland were sworn in at the same time. In 2006, nine members of the Snyder family from New York were sworn in, among them four siblings including two sisters. Nine Perla family members, also from New York, were sworn in in 1994, including four brothers and a sister.

A variation on the theme took place March 20th when Dana Matthews I, a partner at the Florida firm Matthews & Jones, moved the admission of a son, a nephew, a cousin and then another son along with six other unrelated lawyers. (Pictured above, left to right, in the U.S. Supreme Court library: Dana Matthews II, Michael Long, Thomas Matthews and Jason Campbell.)

It may be the first time that that many relatives got sworn in with a cohort of non-relatives.

The unusual group was announced as being from Western New England University School of Law, though that is a bit of a misnomer. Movant Matthews was not an alum or dean of the school and only six of the 10 lawyers admitted were alums of the school.

Jason Campbell, a solo practitioner in Boston, masterminded the event to celebrate the tenth anniversary of his graduation from Western New England. He rounded up a mix of friends and relatives for a St. Patrick's Day road trip to Washington and was one of the relatives moved by Matthews.

“It's always been a passion of mine to get sworn in to the Supreme Court bar,” Campbell said. When he first organized the trip two years ago, he called it the Golden Bears, the university's mascot. But court officials preferred a more formal name, so it was named for the university.

Laughter in the court swelled as Matthews rattled off the names of his relatives, all second cousins—son Dana Matthews II, a lawyer at his father's firm; nephew Michael Long, staff attorney at Children's Legal Services of San Diego; another son Thomas Matthews, general counsel for Texas Southern Land and Minerals; and cousin and Boston lawyer Campbell.

A spectator even clapped, which doesn't happen often in the court. Turns out that was another cousin, not a lawyer—one of five other relatives who came to watch.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. joined in the merriment: “Your motion is granted, and your relatives and the other applicants will be admitted.” After the session was over, the four relatives repaired to the court library, which they could now visit for the first time as members of the court bar.

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

>> Four Law School Alumni to Clerk on Supreme Court Next Term. “Four University of Chicago Law School alumni will clerk for U.S. Supreme Court justices during the 2019-20 term. Kelly Holt, JD'17, and Stephen Yelderman, JD'10, will clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch; Mica Moore, JD'17, will clerk for Justice Elena Kagan; and Caroline Cook, JD'16, will clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas.” [University of Chicago]

>> Supreme Court to Deliberate Fate of Partisan Gerrymandering—Again. “The two cases present the court with several different constitutional arguments against gerrymandering, much along the lines of Justice Stephen Breyer's suggestion last term to combine all the challenges together into something like a seminar. 'You could have a blackboard and have everyone's theory on it.'” [WSJ]

>> Justices Skeptical of Agency Deference in Junk-Fax Case. “Several U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical during a March 25 oral argument that district courts should defer to the Federal Communications Commission's definition of an advertisement under a federal robocall law.” [Bloomberg Law]

>> With Kavanaugh, a Second SCOTUS Justice Is on Scalia Law School Faculty. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, through the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, will co-teach a two-week course in Runnymede, England, this summer on the creation of the Constitution with professor Jennifer Mascott. Justice Neil Gorsuch is co-teaching a two-week course in Padua, Italy, as part of George Mason's National Security Institute. [Law.com]

>> News 105-Year Prison Term Denied Second Look at Supreme Court. “The U.S. Supreme Court just denied a six-time bank robber a second chance of review of his 105-year sentence. The high court's 1993 decision in Thomas Lee Deal's case, an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was undone by the First Step Act, the bipartisan criminal justice reform law signed by President Donald Trump in December.” [Bloomberg]

>> Justices Uphold Mueller Subpoena in Mystery Company's Grand Jury Fight. The Alston & Bird lawyers representing a mystery foreign-owned company fighting a Mueller grand jury subpoena failed to convince the justices to review a D.C. Circuit decision. The company is being fined $50,000 daily for its refusal to comply. [NLJ]