The Supreme Court made a notable decision on Tuesday by appointing two external attorneys to defend lower-court rulings in two cases where the federal government has chosen not to intervene. This appointment was made evident through a brief order. Michael Huston, co-chair of the appellate group at Perkins Coie, will argue in Parrish v. United States, which challenges a procedural appellate question. Meanwhile, Christopher Mills of Spero Law LLC will represent in Martin v. United States, probing legal issues stemming from a mistaken raid by an FBI SWAT team.
The appointment of Michael Huston follows the government’s decision not to defend a Fourth Circuit ruling deemed “incorrect” by former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, despite her advice to the court to deny the review due to its perceived minor implications. Huston’s background includes clerking for Chief Justice John Roberts and serving as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, fortifying his position to argue before the justices.
In contrast, the Martin case revolves around the 11th Circuit’s rejection of claims for false imprisonment and assault following an erroneous FBI raid. The federal government agreed that the court’s reasoning diverged from other circuits, yet insisted that it did not alter the overall outcome. Mills, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas and speaker at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, was selected to argue these matters, marking his first appearance before the Supreme Court.
Such appointments, whereby external counsel acts as an “amicus curiae” to uphold lower court decisions, occur approximately once every Supreme Court term. This practice is documented extensively by legal scholars, showcasing its routine nature. This term also featured Michael McGinley defending a Fifth Circuit judgment in Hewitt v. United States.
For further insights, Amy Howe’s comprehensive analysis can be explored on Howe on the Court.