The United States Supreme Court has selected Charles L. McCloud, a former clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, to argue the case of Barrett v. United States slated for the upcoming term. This appointment follows the federal government’s decision not to defend the lower court’s ruling in favor of Dwayne Barrett, who challenged his convictions related to armed robbery under the contention that he was unjustly sentenced under the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution.
Barrett’s legal argument hinges on the double jeopardy clause, asserting that he cannot receive separate punishments for using a firearm during a crime of violence and for murder or manslaughter committed during a robbery. Despite the government prevailing last May in a federal appeals court which rejected Barrett’s argument, the government has opted not to defend the ruling before the Supreme Court, prompting the justices to appoint McCloud.
Charles L. McCloud is no stranger to the apex court. As a partner at Williams & Connolly, a firm based in Washington, D.C., McCloud has previously served as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general and argued two cases before the Supreme Court. His clerkship pedigree includes working for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Judge Paul Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
The Supreme Court’s move to appoint an outside attorney like McCloud, while routine, is notably frequent for the 2024-2025 term, with six such appointments already made. This comes as a response to the government’s unusual stance of aligning with Barrett’s challenge against cumulative punishments imposed by the lower court. The government has suggested that either restructuring Barrett’s sentence or dismissing a charge could prevent a constitutional violation, acknowledging its long-held position that such cumulative punishment is impermissible.
The adjudication of Barrett’s case, scheduled for a fall hearing, awaits further developments as McCloud steps up to elucidate the arguments on behalf of the lower court’s initial ruling. For further details, see the original publication by Amy Howe.