Update: Jenner & Block Associate Scores SCOTUS Win
Lindsay Harrison at One First Street. Photo by Patrice Gilbert.
Earlier this year, we conducted an interview of Lindsay C. Harrison, an associate in the Washington office of Jenner & Block. In January, Lindsay had the privilege of arguing before the United States Supreme Court — in her first oral argument ever. We chatted with her about the argument she presented in what was then Nken v. Mukasey and is now Nken v. Holder: what she wore, how she prepared, who was mean to her at argument.
This morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case. And even though Lindsay took the “liberal” position, she prevailed — by a 7-2 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the Court. Congratulations, Lindsay!
Here’s a summary of the decision, from the ABA Journal:
A court of appeals retains its traditional authority to grant stays in deportation cases, despite a 1996 statute that limited the circumstances in which courts may block the removal of aliens, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 7-2 opinion…..The government had argued that a provision in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 limited the circumstances in which stays could be granted. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the statutory provision — on injunctions blocking the removal of aliens — leaves intact the court’s traditional authority to grant stays….
Harrison says the decision is “a critical victory” for [Jean Marc] Nken. “It’s a case that could really literally mean life or death for my client,” she says. “If he were deported while his appeal was pending, he is likely to be killed or jailed or tortured in Cameroon.”
As Lindsay told us in our earlier interview, she and her colleagues at Jenner in D.C. have devoted hundreds — by now, thousands — of hours to the case (pro bono). It looks like the Chicago office of Jenner isn’t the only one that can burn the midnight oil.
(Digression: One tipster is skeptical of the claim that Jenner’s office in Chicago is busy round-the-clock: “Amusing article about a condo owner who can’t sleep because her new next door neighbor, Jenner & Block, leaves its lights on all the time. Every lawyer in Chicago knows that Jenner is faking it — it’s like the guy who slips into the office on Sunday for two minutes, just to be seen by anyone who happens to be there.”)
This afternoon, we caught up with Lindsay Harrison over the phone. Our interview, after the jump.
ATL: So — how are you feeling?
LCH: I feel pretty good actually! I’m very excited.
ATL: How did you learn of the decision? Where were you — at Court?
LCH: I was at work. The clerk’s office called at 10:03 and said that they announced the decision that morning. They left a message because I was not at my desk. I was in a colleague’s office, pressing “refresh” repeatedly on SCOTUSblog. That’s when they left me a voice mail.
In the voice mail, the person from the clerk’s office summarized the disposition as “vacated and remanded.” So I was thinking — what was vacated and remanded? Was the Supreme Court’s own stay vacated, or was it the lower court decision denying the stay?
Finally the opinion came up on the Supreme Court website. My colleague wanted to read it through carefully, but I said, “Go ahead to the end of the syllabus, so we can see who won!”
ATL: Did you have a sense of how it was going to turn out?
LCH: We figured that the opinion would be written by either the Chief [Justice] or Justice Kennedy, based on who had written what earlier in the Term. I had a good feeling about the Chief, based on the argument. He was very engaged in trying to find an answer.
ATL: And what about the remand — are you concerned about that?
LCH: My mind did immediately go to the remand. What can I do to make sure my client obtains the relief that he needs? This case just addressed the right standard for applying for a stay — so now we are back to how I get him permanent relief.
ATL: I think I saw that the two dissenters, Justices Thomas and Alito, were silent at oral argument — am I right about that?
LCH: Yes. It’s a little frustrating; maybe if we could have engaged on the issue, they might have come around.
ATL: Any thoughts on the opinion — anything strike you as particularly interesting?
LCH: The question of whether or not a stay is an injunction has never been squarely addressed in a Supreme Court case — just in dicta, or circuit opinions. So this is a first.
ATL: Any other fun tidbits?
LCH: There’s a good anecdote by Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog. This morning, Eric Holder was introduced to the Court as attorney general. As he is walking out of the courtroom, Chief Justice Roberts starts to announce the decision in Nken versus Holder — and emphasizes the “versus Holder” part, to laughs from the audience. So Holder turns around, stays, and listens to the decision.
ATL: So, what are you doing next? Are you going to Disney World?
LCH: I’m going to work on a brief on habeas case — a pro bono matter, a death penalty case in Georgia. Tonight I’m having drinks with a friend who clerked for Justice Thomas, which should be fun — we can toast to the dissent, I suppose. And then this weekend, I’m going to Minneapolis, to a bat mitzvah in the Mall of America.
ATL: Wait — the bat mitzvah is in the Mall of America? Or is it in Minneapolis, and you’re going to visit the Mall of America?
LCH: The bat mitzvah reception, the dinner, is in the Mall of America.
ATL: Wow, that’s kinda awesome. Have fun — and congrats again!
Nken v. Holder (PDF) [U.S. Supreme Court]
Nken v. Holder [ScotusWiki / SCOTUSblog]
Jenner & Block Secures Landmark Immigration Law Win [Jenner & Block (press release)]
Jenner Associate Wins Supreme Court Pro Bono Victory in Immigration Case [ABA Journal]
Jenner & Block Associate Wins Pro Bono Case Before U.S. Supreme Court [Law.com]
Court makes it easier to fight deportation [AP]
Trump tower Chicago complaint: Bright lights are a big pain [Chicago Tribune]
Earlier: Jenner & Block Associate Argues Her First Case - In the Supreme Court
(67) Comments
Comments
Is the author of this post, David Lat, by any chance related to the gentleman who appeared on Fox Business today, David Lit?
Congratulations, Lindsay!!! You're a rock star.
Very very cool. Might as well use the recession to do pro bono work and get great experience.
(USF Student) "I should have been the one to argue that case!"
ATL: I think I saw that the two dissenters, Justices Thomas and Alito, were silent at oral argument -- am I right about that?
LCH: Yes. It's a little frustrating; maybe if we could have engaged on the issue, they might have come around.
Oh, come ON, oral argument never changes anyone's mind.....
If the lights are on at Jenner in Chicago, it is probably because they are working.
Most modern office buildings have motion-activated lights. They go off if there is no movement for a certain time.
"Oh, come ON, oral argument never changes anyone's mind....."
Maybe if it was REALLLLLY good oral, am I right? ;)
call bluff on #6, at least on the corporate end. they don't even have enough work for the partners to do, let alone the younger associates.
Congrats Lindsay! It sounds like you did a great job at the argument. A 7-2 win is most impressive!
Lat is now writing an angry letter to his parents for not throwing his Confirmation reception at a mall.
Where they could play with My Little Pony dolls.
It's nice to read positive stories like this on ATL. I am tired of all the bad news - layoffs, salary freezes, bonus cuts.
More happy news, please!
Yo, I just watched Lat on Fox. He is a friggin' nerd. Seriously, he sounds like one of those annoying intellectual types. Go be a professor.
Congrats Lindsay! Now *cracks whip* back to the salt mine!
Lat, seriously, you need to get some lessons on how to cultivate a better TV appearance. Your voice, posture, mannerisms, diction all scream ivory tower.
Partner Emeritus would say:
A Peer Firm dedicates itself completely to the needs of its clients. I applaud Jenner attorneys for burning the midnight oil in the service of excellence. It's in the best traditions of the Midwestern work ethic and gritty manufacturing roots. And any notion that this use of electricity is wasteful is enthralled by the leftists who advance the crock of"global warming" to debase the power and prestige accumulated by great corporations advised by firms such as Jenner & Block. And I salute their tradition of distributing libations to the attorney staff at the close of business on Fridays.
Furthermore, the building is old and Jenner's lights are not motion activated.
12 / 14 - If you thought today's appearance was nerdy / ivory tower, check out when Lat was on The Charlie Rose Show:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8335
12/14: Yah dudes, it sucks listening to someone articulate and well spoken on TV. Now go back to watching MTV you morons.
The Mall of America seems like a strange place for a bar mitzvah.
Jenner D.C. is a world apart from the rest of Jenner.
Very elite appellate shop, w/very different hiring standards.
Shouldn't a firm this devoted to pro bono be more green? Why do they have to use all that electricity?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-talk-trump-lightsapr22,0,5860643.story
12, 14, and 16: The guy on Fox was David Lit, an entirely different person than David Lat.
Congratulations to Lindsay and to Jenner!
A great win for a great firm. Enjoy Minneapolis, Lindsay.
Nice post, but not as interesting as the original interview:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/01/jenner_block_nken_case.php
17 = Lat
ATL: So -- how are you feeling?
LCH: I feel pretty good actually!
Why "actually"? You just won a 7-2 victory in the freakin' SUPREME COURT. You should feel awesome!
Jenner DC would be nothing without Jenner Chicago.
17,
Chill out. You can be articulate without sounding like a distant, ivory tower intellectual. He wasn't sympathetic towards the pain and suffering going on right now. This tragedy is great for him to boost traffic to his site. He don't give two shits about you.
After 4 years of being surrounded by pompous undergrads, and 3 years of whiny pseudo-intellectual law students, and too many years with Type A "friends", I've forgotten how real people act. Certainly not with this professorial, somewhat condescending tone. You can be smart, articulate, yet human too. I'm just saying Lat was not particularly "human" which, as a businessman, he needs more than ever.
Peace out, 17 (aka Lat)
Once Cap and Trade gets passed, corporate fatcats like Jenner & Block won't be able to leave their lights on all night.
congrats to the associate, but if you're reading this. you should definitely get some more current sunglasses
Regardless, the ship be sinking.
LATHAM SUCKS MORE THAN SEYFARTH TOXIC TORTS.
To those cretins that doubt my existence, I will be making a personal appearance at the planned demonstration on May 1 at the Lipstick building. I will try to bring my good friend Don Moffat so that you morons can finally see that I am as real as your misery. If you see me on May 1, tremble and bow down and do not dare to be disrespectful to an elder pioneer of this business. The purpose of my attendance is to gather evidence of the poor culture among young attorneys who are ungrateful about the fair treatment of peer firms. The evidence maybe enough to convince the management committee to adopt my foreign outsourcing plan. Look for me and my camera man on May 1 and if you have the courage to address me, do not do so dressed in a rat's outfit or while wearing a wig.
PE, you are boring, have been boring, and need to go. Furthermore, for such an allegedly erudite and eloquent asshole, you really shouldn't screw up the simple things: "may be," not "maybe." Jackass. Go back to your torts class and don't get your ass kicked on Saturday. Seriously.
PE -
Stop it. Seriously. Not funny. You must have been a geek in high school.
32,
One day someone will beat the shit out of you. Quit while you're ahead.
14
I can tell you from a lengthy experience working at Jenner that the lights do not go off -- the offices do not have light switches or motion detectors. If you want your lights off, you have to request the building to turn your lights out permanently and then bring in your own lighting. This is why for the lights out hour last year, the firm closed the blinds instead of actually turning its lights out. Ridiculous.
To 5, I was there for it and Thomas was awake but of course didn't ask any questions. He seemed to be reading through the record most of the time. Alito had his eyes closed from start to finish.
PE is much better than most of the other schticks we've had here.
27 - "Pain and suffering"? Jeez. We're not talking Darfur here.
What is Lat supposed to do - get all choked up, like Anderson Cooper in post-Katrina New Orleans?
36 - Don't blame Jenner, blame Mies van der Rohe. Jenner didn't design the space.
What other firms give associates the opportunity to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court?
I hear that Mayer Brown - DC is egalitarian about giving out arguments. Anyone know if that's true?
I actually like PE. He's more witty than most commenters. And, real or not, he has some pretty good insight. Although, I have to say, he's a bit of a knock off of the Anonymous Lawyer.
Amazing job, Lindsay! 7-2 in your first oral argument? Way to show 'em how it's done.
The comment about "a condo owner who can't sleep because her new next door neighbor, Jenner & Block, leaves its lights on all the time" made me burst out in tears.
It was my dream to have a condo in a building nice enough to be disturbed by BigLaw.
--Still Renting for (at least) One More Year.
39,
Shut up. Way to take an extreme interpretation of what Lat could've done. He didn't have to cry. But, damn, he could've at least been human to some degree.
Anyway, Lat, quit posting defenses of yourself on TV. Chill out, you're just not TV friendly. You're still smart and an all-around OK dude. But TV personality you're not. No biggie.
27
42,
PE is lame. Anonymous lawyer was much funnier. PE is just some kid who gets his kicks commenting on this blog.
44 - Read the full article. It's a million-dollar condo:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-talk-trump-lightsapr22,0,5860643.story
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the condo complaint. If you didn't check out the facing towards EXISITING buildings, that's your own fault.
Lat, thank you for working around the clock for us! We all know that Elie clocks out by 5:05 pm, and strolls into the office after 10:30. You were great on TV today!
I'm having trouble coming up with a Section 90 (ie promissory estoppel) angle to write about here. Anyone?
40, quit being such a little bitch.
Volokh Conspiracy on possible reliance -- ie promissory estoppel -- claims for deferred law students. Looks like someone read Section 90...
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_19-2009_04_25.shtml#1240347717
Congratulations, Lindsay! Nice to see productive, interesting pieces on this blog.
ATL: It's pointless to include/compare Jenner DC and Chicago in the same piece. They are completely different in terms of office culture, hiring standards, recruiting, prestige and work. The Chicago office is a normal, big law firm. The DC office does unique litigation, recruits entirely from top law schools and clerkships, and has a pleasant culture.
There are lots of positive stories on ATL (maybe too positive):
1. Covington & Burling:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/open_thread_the_good_news.php
2. UCLA:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/ucla_the_latest_law_school_to.php
53 - That is true of many firms' DC shops:
- Mayer Brown general vs. Mayer Brown DC
- Gibson general vs. Gibson DC
- Latham general vs. Latham DC
- Kirkland general vs. Kirkland DC (although here the difference may be less significant)
So does Ms. Harrison only do pro bono work? Is she one of those associates that just bumps up the firm's pro bono hours?
That's pretty good. She's definitely got job security. I should have been a litigator and worked on high profile cases...wait...I was doing document review even though I was in the "corporate section." Does that make me a litigator??
www.laidoffdiary.wordpress.com
18,
Bat, not Bar, Mitzvah. Japs live in malls, so it's an entirely appropriate location. (I'm Jewish, lest the pc monsters attack).
PE is the best. Maybe one of the best on the net. I look forward to his comments every day... There are a few other good posters, but no peer for him on this blog, that's for damn sure.
When did ATL begin to publish "promotional/sponsored editorials" from law firms ? Or is Lat related in any way to Lindsay? Sorry but I don't see why this info is newsworthy on ATL. There are millions of SCOTUS decisions which have been made (with associates working just as hard on the case as this Lindsay), yet none of them had such an extensive coverage. There are thousands of lawyers who won SCOTUS cases, it's not like she is the first one ever.
First to say - I'm still Jenner on the Block, used to have a little now I have a lot....
PE, didn't you play the President in "Clear and Present Danger"? Give us just one,"How dare you come in here and bark at me like a junkyard dog. I am the President of the United States!"
Ugh, pro bono. Congrats on the win, just don't think it'll make a lick of difference if the economy doesn't turn around.
52, thanks for the link. David Post and most of those commenters crack me up - all going on about a few references to cases in the ALR. The freaking ALR! Why didn't he go find those cases? And why doesn't he bring a claim - that would be funny to see.
I have a lot of respect for the intellectual capabilities of the pointy heads who make up our nation's finest law schools, but posts like this one show that they're best kept out of the harsh light ot day and practical legal analysis.
Now it is just going to be that much more sad when she loses this case on remand. This case only deals with the proper review procedure. The underlying matter still needs to come to a final resolution and chances are her client is getting deported. So, good job?
Congratulations to Lindsay on her big win. Now please ask J&B to buy you some new sunglasses!
60 - what would you consider to be "newsworthy"? Layoff news? AP found this to be newsworthy. So did law.com and the ABA Journal.
Name ONE other associate who has argued and won a Supreme Court case within the past 3 years in his or her first argument.
God, no wonder some of you are unemployed.