As we discussed in July, the California Supreme Court upheld an arrangement where Santa Clara hired contingent-fee attorneys to bring a public nuisance case against ARCO. ARCO has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 10-546) on the theory that the use of private prosecutors who have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of governmental prosecutions violates the Due Process Clause. The Chamber (in a brief with Victor Schwartz as lead counsel) and NAM, inter alia, have weighed in in favor of certiorari. Sean Wajert discusses.
State-hired contingent fee counsel: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Santa Clara
- Obamacare Debate Complete: The participant with the most compelling argument was...
- Sackett v. EPA
- Coming next week: featured discussion on PPACA
- A small victory against the EPA
- New Podcasts: Making sense of the court order in Kiobel
- Kiobel debate complete
- New Featured Discussion: Kiobel and corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute
- Supreme Court hears argument on Stolen Valor Act
- Compucredit v. Greenwood
- Wherein George Soros wastes his money
- The myth of the pro-business Supreme Court (continued)
- The expense of the death penalty
- Alex Tabarrok on medical patents
- Reuters releases innovative SCOTUS tracking tool
- Supreme Court TV?
Center for Legal Policy at the