webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Kirkland & Ellis

===

621 primary on jeff bossert clark, protect corps ~ EPA trump admin, rev dr

===

caved 4 25

Susman Godfrey, the firm that won a $787 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News for spreading lies about Dominion Voting Systems, is now suing the administration over President Donald Trump’s executive order “penalizing firms that employed his enemies or engaged in work he opposes,” the Daily Beast reports.

“No administration should be allowed to punish lawyers for simply doing their jobs, protecting Americans and their constitutional right to the legal process,” the firm wrote in a statement about the suit.

As the Beast reports, “On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order barring Susman Godfrey from federal contracts held by the firm’s clients, removed its employees’ security clearances, and banned them from accessing federal buildings.”

READ MORE: Gretchen Whitmer just did all of us a huge favor

According to the suit, Trump has made “no secret of its unconstitutional retaliatory and discriminatory intent to punish Susman Godfrey for its work defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.”

“But this goes far beyond law firms and lawyers,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement, “Today it is our firm under attack, but tomorrow it could be any of us. As officers of the court, we are duty-bound to take on this fight against the illegal executive order.”

According to the Beast, “Four firms—including the two largest firms in the country, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins—cut deals on Friday to avoid falling victim to one of Trump’s executive orders. They agreed to provide a total of at least $500 million in pro bono work for the current administration.”

“Susman Godfrey joined the handful of firms—including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—that have taken action against the president, calling the president’s spree of executive orders ‘so obviously unconstitutional,’” the Beast reports.

---

unger new republic

As I reported in American Kompromat,Jones Day,the fourth-largest law firm in the land, represented at least 10 major corporations and organizations close to Putin. These included: Oleg Deripaska’s Basic Element; theAlfa Groupand Access-Renova Group, which jointly own billions in oil and gas assets; Alfa Bank, the largest private commercial bank in Russia; Letterone, a $30 billion holding company for assets in technology, oil, and gas;Rosneft,the world’s largest listed oil company; the Sapir Organization, which helped fund Bayrock’s Trump SoHo; and more.

:{

}:

Likewise, Kirkland and Ellis is the biggest law firm in the world, with a star-studded cast of GOP power brokers in its ranks—among them, former Attorney General William Barr; former solicitor general andGOP attack dog Kenneth Starr; Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh; Viet Dinh, chief legal and policy officer of Fox Corporation, and as such the secret power behind Fox News; and former national security adviser John Bolton, to name but a few. Its most prized Russian clients have includedAlfa Bank,whose key figures, Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, were entirely dependent on Putin for their wealth, and Oleg Deripaska’s En+ Group, the largest producer of aluminum in the world outside of China.

===

pro pub trump town jbc:

kirkland & Ellis: The Law Firm Behind the Trump-Barr Power Grab at the DOJ

BY KEVIN CONNOR

OCTOBER 30, 2020

Attorney General Bill Barr’s alarming expansion of political control at the DOJ in advance of the election is also a story of corporate capture: a single law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, has a revolving door monopoly on the highest ranks of the Department of Justice that deserves far more scrutiny.

READ MORE :{→:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

==

name checks in his threat to kenner merchants of doubt doc:

I have some experience with libel suits; thanks to Kirkland & Ellis, we prevailed against an environmental lawyer, a groupie of then-Senator Al Gore. It took a lot of my time and was costly. I would prefer to avoid having to go to court; but if we do, we are confident that we will prevail.

===

singer:

Cosmos article be dropped.9 Neither the editors nor the publishers consented to the requests (near demands) of Lancaster and Socci. My repeated requests to Dr. Lancaster that he cease his defamation and retract his false accusations failed to get an acceptable response. Only then and encouraged by my wife, Candace Crandall, did I file a libel suit against Dr. Lancaster.

The Libel Suit Against Dr. LancasterThe Center for Individual Rights of Washington, D.C., filed the libel suit on my behalf in April 1993, with the Washington law firm of Kirkland and Ellis serving as pro bono counsel. Dr. Lancaster, an attorney, first handled his own defense but later was represented pro bono by the Boston law firm of Goodwin Procter and Hoar. The discovery process for the suit produced a number of revelations about Dr. Lancaster’s interactions with Senator Gore and the senator’s staff (including Dr. Socci) and about the senator and his staff’s intentions. According to Dr. Lancaster’s deposition, Senator Gore called him after the Easterbrook article appeared. During the phone call, the senator asked Dr. Lancaster about Dr. Revelle’s mental capacity in the months before his death and whether the article accurately reflected his views. In a draft for a letter in reply to the senator’s questions, Dr. Lancaster completely undermined the claims that he later made against me, stating Dr. Revelle was “mentally sharp to the end” and that he was “not casual about his integrity,” Dr. Lancaster also wrote that Dr. Revelle had shown the Cosmos manuscript to him before it was published, with the comment that he “felt it was honest to admit the uncertainties about greenhouse warming, including the idea that our ignorance could be hiding benefits as                [9. A. D. Socci, letter to Mr. Robert Grant,CRC Press, October 27, 1992.

The Revelle-Gore Story

enstrom related docs to singer lancaster, 3 from am thinker 1 by singer, ETS

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/Kenner030915.pdf

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06062017/trump-names-bp-oil-spill-lawyer-climate-policy-foe-top-doj-environment-attorney

Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a lawyer who has repeatedly challenged the scientific foundations of U.S. climate policy and was part of a legal team that represented BP in lawsuits stemming from the nation's worst oil spill, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, was nominated by President Donald Trump on Tuesday to serve as the Justice Department's top environmental lawyer.

Clark, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis, has represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in lawsuits challenging the federal government's authority to regulate carbon emissions. In court he has repeatedly argued that it is inappropriate to base government policymaking on the scientific consensus presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"When did America risk coming to be ruled by foreign scientists and apparatchiks at the United Nations?" Clark demanded in a 2010 blog posting on the EPA's endangerment finding.

Clark was prominently involved in industry challenges to the EPA's "endangerment finding" that set the scientific basis for all subsequent attempts to regulate greenhouse gases, including from autos and industrial sources. It was a demonstration of opposition to the underpinnings of the whole Obama administration regulatory approach to carbon dioxide, which were consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.

One of the legal briefs he signed is such a comprehensive compendium of thoroughly debunked denial of the scientific consensus that it stands as a classic of the genre, replete with condemnations not just of the EPA but of the IPCC, whose work the petitioners tried to persuade the court to rule out of bounds. A series of podcasts and papers he has written on The Federalist Society website continue his arguments against the endangerment finding and climate science more broadly.

"He has a long history of opposing climate action for corporate and ideological clients," saidDavid Doniger, who heads the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council,after learning of Clark's nomination. "I would expect that history would require him to recuse himself from such cases as over the Clean Power Plan, where he filed an amicus brief against the rule."

In one case Clark presented on behalf of theChamber of Commerce, a brief argued that, under Obama-era policies, starting with the endangerment finding, "hundreds of billions and possibly trillions will be drained from the American economy based on novel legal theories marking "a significant shift of power from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch."

The brief said that the legal basis of carbon controls under the Clean Air Act "generated what quite likely are the costliest regulations ever promulgated based on EPA's belief that it can take a red pencil to plain statutory text"— an argument that resonates through Trump administration policies to this day.

"EPA asserted a new regulatory jurisdiction over essentially every energy-consuming building and activity in the nation, all the way down to houses of worship, neighborhood bakeries, and private homes," the brief said.

In 2007, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in the case that established the endangerment finding, Clark spoke to the American Enterprise Institute, saying the finding was where the court "erred most significantly."

"They wanted to be able to compel the agency to determine whether CO2 and other greenhouse gas emission were causing or contributing to climate change," he said. "They didn't have that procedural right. At every possible turn, though,  they attempted to pitch their case that way and it would seem the Supreme Court bought into that."

Clark also successfully defended BP in a legal challenge brought by Louisiana parishes over the company's multi-billion settlement of claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to his law firm. He was involved in the fight against the U.S. government to obtain documents regarding officials' deliberations over how fast the oil was flowing. The size of the oil spill, which was deeply underestimated at first, was crucial to determining the penalties that BP might face.

Clark served in the George W. Bush administration from 2001 to 2005 as deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department. His nomination to become assistant attorney general for the same department in the Trump administration will require Senate confirmation.

InsideClimate

PUBLISHED UNDER:

POLITICS

GULF OIL SPILL

DONALD TRUMP

CLIMATE CHANGE

==

Last week, I visited an alternate universe. The real world sees a pandemic of bank misconduct, but to the white-collar defense lawyers of Washington, the banks are the victims as they bow beneath the weight of regulators' remarkably harsh punishments.

I was attending the Securities Enforcement Forum, a gathering of top regulators and white-collar defense worthies. The marquee section was a panel that included Andrew Ceresney, the current S.E.C. enforcement director, and five of his predecessors. Four of those former S.E.C. officials represent corporations at prominent white-collar law firms: Robert S. Khuzami, President Obama's first enforcement director who now plies his trade atKirkland & Ellis;Linda Chatman Thomsen, who served at the George W. Bush-era S.E.C. and now works for Davis Polk & Wardwell; William R. McLucas, the longest-serving agency enforcement director who is now at WilmerHale; and George S. Canellos, who just left the Obama S.E.C. to work for Milbank Tweed. (The well-known Stanley Sporkin, who served in the agency in the 1970s, rounded the panel out.)

==

Kirkland & Ellis LLP was founded in 1908 by Stewart G. Shepard and Robert R. McCormick and has grown to approximately 1000 attorneys, with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, London, San Francisco, and, most recently, Munich. [1]

 ultra donoer:

Robert Dold (R)ILKirkland & Ellis$106,100

Contents[hide]

Justice Department Incubator

"Not only do DOJ political appointees tend to know somebody important, they often know each other from work outside of government. Indeed, a large number worked in the D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis at some point in the past decade.

"On the roster of former Kirkland lawyers who have served in the Bush administration are Ciongoli; Philbin; Clement; Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel; R. Alexander Acosta, head of the Civil Rights Division; Kannon Shanmugam and Daryl Joseffer, both litigators in the Office of the Solicitor General; Jeffrey Clark, a senior official in the Environmental and Natural Resources Division; and John Wood, chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. Kirkland partner Jay Lefkowitz, who served as domestic policy adviser in the White House, returned to the firm in 2003.

"It's no coincidence that the firm is also home to Starr, the former D.C. Circuit judge and Whitewater independent counsel. In 1993, after leaving the post of solicitor general, Starr went to Kirkland with a handful of other former Justice Department officials, and the group set about building an appellate litigation practice with a conservative ideological bent.

"Starr's reputation as a leading conservative thinker drew young lawyers to Kirkland who identified with his politics. Nearly all came from prestigious appellate and Supreme Court clerkships. Perhaps without fully intending it, Kirkland's recruiting efforts built a farm team for the current Republican administration. Starr, who is of counsel at Kirkland and dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, declined comment.

"Thomas Yannucci, chairman of Kirkland's board and a former official in the Carter Justice Department, says the firm doesn't consider itself Republican or Democrat.

"'We try to recruit from everywhere. We invite all the Supreme Court clerks to come to Kirkland, but obviously there's a stronger pipeline to Scalia and Thomas,' Yannucci says. 'People want to come and work with people they met through clerkships and law school.'

Tobacco Issues

Kirkland & Ellis is the law firm that represented the defense inFalise.

Lawyers

Contact Details

URL:http://www.kirkland.com/

SourceWatch Resources

External links

This article may include information from Tobacco Documents Online.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis

2009: Chamber Claims No ‘Plausible Theory’ To Link ‘Climate Change With Extreme Weather Events And Disease In TheUnited States,’ Disputes ‘Claims Of Ocean Acidification.’ In an official filing prepared by the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis for the comments on the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited blog posts by global warming deniers such as Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger to challenge a broad range of climate change science, including sea level rise and the “UN/IPCC forecasted temperature increases.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, [8/25/09]

Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General of the United States, has been handling investigations into the Bush administration's controversial U.S. attorney firings at the U.S. Department of Justice since April 2007.[1]

Clement's name, as well as that of Michael Chertoff, has been rumored as a replacement[2] for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, "whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress", who resigned August 27, 2007,[3] and will leave office on September 17, 2007.[4][5] Clement "could remain acting attorney general for an indefinite time after Gonzales leaves."[6]

Clement was nominated March 11, 2004, by President George W. Bush to be Solicitor General at the Department of Justice. On July 4, 2004, he was appointed Acting Solicitor General of the United States to replace former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson. He was confirmed by the Senate June 8, 2005. Clement had been Principal Deputy Solicitor General previously.

Contents[hide]

Profiles

The July 4, 2004, official DOJ press release] stated that,[7] as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Clement "represented the United States in 18 arguments before the Supreme Court. He handled cases including the Court's landmark campaign finance decision (McConnell v. FEC), an important decision expanding the rights of individuals with disabilities (Tennessee v. Lane), and the enemy combatant cases (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla). Mr. Clement also has represented the United States in important lower court litigation, including cases arising out of the war on terror and the GAO's suit against the Vice President. In addition, as Principal Deputy, Mr. Clement handled a portfolio including issues such as civil rights, religious liberty and government liability."

The March 11, 2005, White House nomination news release[8] said that Clement was then serving at the Justice Department as Acting Solicitor General. "In addition, he also serves as Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Clement previously served as Partner and Head of Appellate Practice for King & Spalding in Washington, DC. Earlier in his career, he served as Chief Counsel for the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. Mr. Clement earned his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, his master's degree from Cambridge University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School."

Education

Experience

Resources and articles

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ "U.S. Attorney Investigation: Meet The New Boss," TPMmuckraker, April 9, 2007.
  2. ↑ Paul Kiel, "Gonzales Replacement Talk Update," TPMmuckraker, August 27, 2007.
  3. ↑ Gonzales' resignation letter dated August 26, 2007, posted by TPMmuckraker, August 27, 2007.
  4. ↑ Pierre Thomas, et al., "Attorney General Gonzales Resigns," ABC News, August 27, 2007.
  5. ↑ "Gonzales Resigns," Think Progress, August 27, 2007.
  6. ↑ "5 Top Contenders for Attorney General," NewsMax, August 28, 2007.
  7. ↑ News Release: "Paul Clement to Serve as Acting Solicitor General," U.S. Department of Justice, July 4, 2004.
  8. ↑ News Release: Personnel Announcement, Office of the White House Press Secretary, March 11, 2007.

External articles

Categories: U.S. government | Law | George W. Bush

Steven G. Bradbury, of McLean, Virginia, was nominated June 23, 2005, by President George W. Bush to be an Assistant Attorney General (Office of Legal Counsel) at the Department of Justice. His nomination[1] was sent to the U.S. Senate on June 23, 2005. Bradbury replaced[2] Jack Landman Goldsmith, who resigned.

Contents[hide]

Bush Administration War on Terror Memos

ProPublica notes that "the Bush administration’s "war on terror" - including its controversial policies on detentions, interrogations and warrantless wiretapping - were all underpinned by legal memoranda. While some of those memos have been released ... the former administration chose to keep many others secret, citing security and confidentiality concerns. The decision to release them now lies with President Obama. To help inform the debate - and inject an extra dose of accountability - we’re posting a list of the relevant memos, both public and secret." [1]

Memo authors include John C. Yoo, Steven G. Bradbury, Jay Bybee, James B. Comey, Robert J. Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, James Ho, Daniel Levin, Patrick Philbin, legal architects (and some internal critics) of the Bush Administration's use of torture and detention policies now being reversed or reviewed by the Obama Administration.

Profiles

At the time of his nomination,[1] Bradbury was serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.

Bradbury previously served as a Partner with Kirkland & Ellis, LLP in Washington, DC, "concentrating his practice in the areas of antitrust, securities law, telecommunications, appellate practice and administrative law." [2]

Bradbury served as a Law Clerk for The Honorable Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court of the United States (1992-1993) and for The Honorable James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1990-1991). He was also an Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice (1991-1992). [3]

Bradbury earned his bachelor's degree in 1980 from Stanford University, where he belonged to Stanford's "alternative lifestyles" co-op, Synergy House, and his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

In 2007, as head of the elite Office of Legal Counsel, Bradbury came under fire when it was revealed that he was the author of two secret legal opinions approved severe interrogation techniques by the US government [4].

Opinions & Documents

Gun Control

""The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias." --Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General: "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right," Department of Justice, August 24, 2004: Researched and prepared by: Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Howard C. Nielson, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General; and C. Kevin Marshall, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General. (93-page document was released December 17, 2004.)

Video News Releases OK

"Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow. ... The legal counsel's office 'does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or covert, regardless of whether the content of the message is propaganda,' Bradbury wrote. 'Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency.'" --Christopher Lee, "Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos. GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda," Washington Post, March 15, 2005.

Limits Prosecutions Under Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)

"A new ruling handed down by the Justice Department sharply limits the government's ability to criminally prosecute individuals for violations of HIPAA. The ruling, that was signed by Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel.

"The ruling stated that people who work for an entity covered by the act are not automatically covered by that law and therefore may not be subject to its criminal penalties, which include a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison for the most serious violations. The opinion comes from the office of legal counsel to the Justice Department and is binding on the executive branch of the government, but not on judges." June 13, 2005.

Memoranda concerning Central Intelligence Agency interrogation program

Bradbury reportedly authored several memoranda addressing the legality of interrogation practices by the CIA. One Bradbury memorandum described the legal basis for a July 20, 2007 executive order issued by President Bush setting requirements for CIA interrogations to comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Former Clients

Publications

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Nominations, Office of the White House Press Secretary.
  2. ↑ Personnel announcement, Office of the White House Press Secretary, June 23, 2005.

External articles

Categories: Law | George W. Bush

Jeffrey Clark

Education:

1970: B.S. Virginia Commonwealth University

1972: M.A. Virginia Polytechnic Institute

1974: Ph.D. Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Before he began working at the University of Tennessee-Chattanoogna (UTC) he had several positions like:

Contents[hide]

Tobacco Industry

Jeff Clark wrote in 1987 when he was a professor at FDU several pro-tobacco articles in newspapers about the influence of tax on tobacco on the local economy [3] [4] [5].

On the list of 'Communications Activities in January 1990' of the Tobacco Institute is written: "Editorials, written by economists Richard K. Vedder of Ohio University, Dominick Armentano of the University of Hartford, and J.R. Clark of the University of Tennessee, appeared. These editorials, opposing excise taxes and discussing "user fees," appeared in .." [6]

In the Tobacco Institute's "Public Affairs Management Progress Report" of February 1990 they wrote on page 3:

Several new excise tax projects progressed in February, ... These undertakings supplement the 1990 tax program and are an effort to aggressively bolster anti-excise tax arguments and maintain a "fair taxation" environment.

The 1990 op-ed program involving consulting economists' articles on the excise tax and "user fee" question moved forward last month. We reviewed additional draft articles and returned them to the authors to seek placement.

Meanwhile, the previously cleared op-eds continue to appear in print. Recently published articles include those by J.R. Clark (with placements in five different Tennessee newspapers); ..." [7] (emphasis added)

In that same document they mentioned that the year-to-date expenses for the 'prof. fees' were $90,768 but with the remark that "Billing from some consultants will appear in upcoming months".

In July 1990 Jeffrey Clark was mentioned in another internal document of the Tobacco Institute as one of the consulting economists who are "weighing in on the federal budget debate with a new series of anti-excise tax op-eds to be placed in newspapers in key congressional districts." [8]

Jeff Clark was a professor of Economics at UTC when he was a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the pro-tobacco junk science report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination [9] published on August 11, 1994, by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). Also Richard Vedder was a member of that Academic Advisory Board.

His biographical information says about Mr. Clark

"His consulting experience includes Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, universities, and publishing firms as well as performing litigation support for law firms in personal injury, wrongful death, business evaluations and matrimonial cases." [10] (emphasis added)

His former colleague Judy Ann Sandefer wrote about him

"A self-made millionaire, he was and is very different from anyone I have ever known, .." [11] (emphasis added)

Dwight R. Lee

He wrote together with Dwight R. Lee (antoher member of that Academic Advisory Board) several articles:

The UTC received in 1998 $4,000 from the Earhart Foundation with the comment:

*Jeff Ray Clark

Department of Economics

During the summer of 1998 to prepare one or more journal articles on the topic "Optimal Trust in Government."* [12]

Jeffrey Clark was the President of the Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE).

Current Positions:

Books

Related Links

bailed from FREE when busted (santelle and d ginsburg)

Professional Profile

Edward Warren concentrates his practice in the areas of appellate litigation, administrative law, environmental law, and toxic tort litigation.

Considered one of the "first generation" of environment attorneys, Edward was selected as one of America's Leading Lawyers for Business in Environment by *Chambers USA 2005*.Edward was also selected as a "Super Lawyer" for 2011 by Super Lawyersmagazine.

Representative Matters

Extensive litigation experience under all of the federal health, safety and environmental statutes.

Appellate litigation including oral arguments in more than 40 significant cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals, state Supreme Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Successful litigation record including:

(1) American Auto. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Massachusetts Dep't of Envt'l Protection, 208 F. 3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (invalidating Massachusetts zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) regulations under Clean Air Act preemption provisions.);

(2) American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (companion cases invalidating ozone and particulate Clean Air standards on constitutional non-delegation grounds), certiorari granted (May 22, 2000);

(3) Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Clean Air case invalidating attempted EPA imposition of California Low-Emission Vehicle standards in 12 Northeast States and the District of Columbia.);

(4) E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. The Bush Ranch, Inc., 99 f.3d 363 (11th Cir. 1996) (reversing $115 million contempt fine in products liability case on constitutional grounds);

(5) United States v. Hays, 115 S.Ct. 2431 (1995), on remand Hays v. Louisiana, 936 F.Supp. 360 (W.D.La. 1996) appeal dismissed, 116S.Ct. 2542 (1996) (mem.) (invalidating Louisiana Congressional redistricting plan on constitutional grounds);

(6) Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 112 S.Ct. 1046 (1992) (reinstating Clean Water Act permit in interstate water pollution case);

(7) Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991) (overturning EPA ban of asbestos under Toxic Substances Control Act);

(8) Center for Auto Safety v. Thomas, 847 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir.) en banc vacated, 856 F.2d 1557 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc) (lead case of several against EPA and NHTSA in which we saved the automobile industry nearly $2 billion in CAFÉ fines); and

(9) Indus. Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980) (overturning occupational exposure standard for benzene on constitutional and statutory grounds).

Other Distinctions

Adjunct Professor, University of Chicago (1994-present)

Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University, Administrative Law (1995)

Adjunct Professor, George Mason University, Appellate Litigation (1994-95, 1997, 1999)

Member, Board of Visitors, University of Chicago Law School

Chairman, Administrative Law Practice Group, Federalist Society

Member, American Law Institute, American Academy of Appellate Lawyers

Member, Court Appointed Scientific Experts Advisory Committee, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences

Publications

Recent publications include: "Reforming Regulatory Reform: Doing Better with Less" (American Enterprise Institute) (forthcoming); Edward W. Warren & Gary E. Marchant, "More Good Than Harm: A First Principle for Environmental Agencies and Reviewing Courts," 20 Ecology L.Q. 379 (1993). See also, "Judge Leventhal's Revenge: The Courts as "Gatekeepers" of Good Science after Daubert," 1994 Public Interest L. Rev. 93; Judicial Proceedings-D.C. Circuit, 140 FRD 481, 566-588 (1991) (panel consisting of Justices (then judges) R.B. Ginsburg and S. Breyer and Judges Easterbrook, Wilkinson and then Judge Starr discussing the elements of effective oral advocacy.

Attachments