Happy Wednesday—and welcome to Supreme Court Brief. John Paul Schnapper-Casteras and Carolyn Shapiro talk with us about their new joint venture, and scroll down for some of the cases for which we—and many others—are awaiting opinions in the coming weeks. Plus, check out our spotlight this week on a strip-search case that could reshape the Supreme Court's immunity doctrine. Feedback is welcome, and thanks for reading Supreme Court Brief. Contact us at[email protected] and [email protected], and follow us on Twitter at@Tonymauro and @MarciaCoyle.

Growing a Supreme Court Boutique

In January 2018, John Paul Schnapper-Casteras left his position as special counsel for appellate and Supreme Court advocacy at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund to launch his own law firm.

Schnapper-Casteras, who goes by JP, recently announced that Carolyn Shapiro(above), former Illinois solicitor general and faculty member at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, was joining him as of counsel. She also co-directs the law school's Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States.

We caught up with them by email for a conversation about the new partnership:

How did this arrangement come about?

JP (at left): We first met back in 2015 at Stanford Law School's “Supreme Court at Mid-Term” conference, and crossed paths at a gathering of the American Constitution Society a few years later in D.C. On both occasions, I was struck, not just by her extraordinary appellate acumen, but by Carolyn's longstanding commitment to public interest law.

Carolyn: I'd add that from my perspective, when I met JP at those meetings, I was very impressed by his energy, enthusiasm, and intellect. He's a lot of fun to talk law with, and I am very excited to be collaborating with him.

Carolyn, why did this path appeal to you? You probably could have had your pick of BigLaw firms to join. I continue to be a full-time law professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. I love teaching, and I very much value the intellectual independence that comes with being an academic. Working with JP will allow me to continue to practice—which I also love—in ways that are consistent with my academic interests and convictions and with my commitment to working in the public interest.

JP, why did you decide to partner with Carolyn rather than staying solo?

My vision in founding this firm was to serve individuals and organizations at the cutting edge of change. Some days, that entails challenging the Trump Administration or working with civil rights groups on appellate litigation. Other days that takes us to converted garages to brainstorm with startup founders about regulation and legal strategy.

Carolyn brings a wealth of knowledge and experience about litigation and progressive causes. For our technology practice, Misha Guttentag, who co-founded the Law and Technology Society during his time at Yale Law, joined me full-time in November 2018 and is doing brilliant work around open source software and financial technology.

What areas of law do you plan to specialize in? Are you creating a Supreme Court boutique? Carolyn and JP: We think we can add value particularly in plaintiff-side cases and constitutional litigation. We are already starting to see a growing number of national organizations and public interest groups turn to boutiques and consultants for help around impact litigation and appellate strategy in this new era. Over the last 20 years, the expansion of the Supreme Court Bar and proliferation of law school clinics has been remarkable, but we still see a unique role for boutique practices.

Carolyn: Supreme Court work is exciting and important. But smart lawyers addressing today's pressing issues think about the Supreme Court not just throughout the life of a case but also while developing strategies that may or may not include litigation. Our experience with and knowledge about the Supreme Court will help us advise and represent clients more broadly.

A Homestretch Watch List

Between now and the end of June, the justices are expected to publish opinions in more than half of the 71 argued cases (consolidated cases counted as one) in the current term. The large number is no surprise.

Despite Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s hopes early in his tenure to front-load oral arguments so the writing periods in May and June are not so onerous, the docket and the justices' individual writing paces rarely make that possible.

New York federal defender Sarah Baumgartel might be feeling a little angst over the outcome of her argument against Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall in Gundy v. United States. The Gundy case is the oldest argument pending decision. The justices heard those arguments on the term's second day—Oct. 2.

Baumgartel, representing Herman Gundy, argued that Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the attorney general “unguided discretion” to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to persons convicted of a sex offense before the law's enactment.

Gundy is one of the cases we'll be waiting for in the weeks ahead. With the understanding that nearly every term has a “sleeper” that can become a major decision, here are other cases on our end-of-term watch list:

>> Kisor v. Wilkie: Will the justices use this veteran's case to overturn so-called Auer deference to agencies' interpretations of their ambiguous regulations?

>> U.S. Department of Commerce v. New York: the term's most high-profile case asks whether a district court erred in blocking a citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 census. The court heard arguments last month.

>> Rucho v. Common Cause/ Lamone v. Benisek: Will the justices articulate a test for determining when partisan gerrymanders violate the Constitution? Justices Elena Kagan and Niel Gorsuch showed how far apart the court might be.

>> American Legion v. American Humanist Association: Does a 93-year-old WWI memorial cross violate the First Amendment? Walter Dellinger and Martin Lederman offered the court a middle path in an amicus brief.

>> Apple v. Pepper: Consumers who purchased apps from Apple want to sue the tech giant for antitrust damages, but can they sue Apple or the app developers? The Justice Department was on Apple's side.

>> Iancu v. Brunetti: Does the Lanham Act's ban on federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, such as FUCT, violate the First Amendment? The justices, and advocates, couldn't bring themselves to say the trademarked name.

>> Gamble v. United States: Will the high court overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause? Kagan threw some originalism shade at her colleagues during the argument.

>> Carpenter v. Murphy: Is the eastern half of Oklahoma a Creek Nation reservation?

>> Tennessee Wine & Spirits Association v. Blair: Does the 21st Amendment allow states to impose in-state residency requirements of specific duration for the granting of retail and wholesale liquor licenses? Take a spin: Here's a “cocktail-by-cocktail” history of Supreme Court eras.

>> Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Does the word “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act mean that government can only withhold data that would cause competitive harm to businesses?

Supreme Court Headlines: What We're Reading

>> Justice Clarence Thomas' Moment May Finally Have Arrived. “Thomas, for the first time, is on a court where there are at least four votes for some 'pretty radical' decisions, said political science professor Corey Robin, the author of a Thomas book due out in September. Robin says the question will be whether the court's more conservative justices—Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito—can get Chief Justice John Roberts, a more moderate conservative, to go along.” [Associated Press]

>> Strip-Search Case Could Reshape Supreme Court's Immunity Doctrine. The petition on behalf of the girl has drawn wide support from “cross-ideological groups,” as one amicus brief put it, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund as well as groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, the R Street Institute and the Second Amendment Foundation. [NLJ]

>> Justice Brett Kavanaugh says judges 'owe our allegiance to the Constitution'. “Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed judicial independence and 'allegiance to the Constitution' in his first major appearance outside of Washington since his contentious confirmation last October. Speaking at a conference of judges and lawyers in Milwaukee on Monday night, Kavanaugh also declared, 'It's important for judges not be in a bubble.'” [CNN] The Wall Street Journal has more here: Kavanaugh Warns Technology Will Force Re-Examination of Rights, War Powers