Harriet Shapiro Supreme Court Petition for a Writ of Appreciation

No . 00-1972 and 00-2001 I 1ht tbe �upremc Qtourt of tbe Ulniteb �tates O<,’T0BER TRRMS, 1972-2000 IN RE HARRIET S. SHAPIRO, ESQ. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF APPRECIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DEP ARTMEN7′ OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL PETITION FOR A WRIT OP APPRECL�TION All Soli.citors General 1972 to pre.sent Counsel of Record All Asmtant . .4.ttm·neys General Al.l De-pu,t,y Solicitors Ge11,mul All Assista.nts to the Solicitors General All OSG Suppcrr t St,aff All Attorneys in A�ll.ate Seetions Department of Jus’tice Washington, D.C. i-0590-0001 (20f) 514-ff17 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether adequate words exist to express fully our appreciation for the nearly three decades of outstanding contributions and dedication by Harriet S. Shapiro, Esq., to the Office of the Solicitor General, to the United States government, and to the pursuit of justice. (I) II PARTIES TO TIIE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners include all of the current and former members of the Office of the Solicitor General, including the Solicitors General, Deputy Solicitors General, Assistants to the Solicitors General, and members of the Front Office, Secretarial Staff, Administrative Office, Case Management Unit, Desktop Publishing Unit, Paralegal Unit, Messeng�rs Unit, and Bristow Fellows. Petitioners also include other friends and colleagues of Harriet S. Shapiro, Esq., too numerou� to list, including, but not limited to, countless attorneys in the appellate sections of the several litigating divisions of the United States Department of Justice. TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinions below ……………………………………….. . J urisdic.tion …………………………………………….. . Constitutional provision involved ………….. . Statement ……………………………………………….. . Reasons for granting the petition ………….. . Conclusion ………………………………………………. . Page 1 2 2 2 8 Appendix ………………………………………………… . 10 la TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases argued (in order argued): Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (1974) (argued Oct. 17, 1973) (injunction against Renegotiation Bo�rd proceedings pending Freedom of Informat10n Act request for Board documents) . . . . . . Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975) (argued Oct. 15, 1974) (defending sta�ute mandating dismissal of male naval officer against challenge that it �nconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of sex when compared to the mandatory attrition statute applicable to female naval officers) . . . . . . (Ill) ‘ IV Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (argued Ja�. 13, _ 1975; reargued Jan. 12, 1976) (constitut10nahty of Social Security Act provision �hat granted eligibility for Medicare insurance programs to certain resident citizens, but denied eligibility to aliens unless they had been admitted for permanent residence and resided in the ·united States for at least five years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (argued Mar. _ 19, 1975) (constitutionality of Social Security Act provision prohibiting a wage �arner’s widow. or stepchild from receiving msurance benefits unless their relationships to wage earner existed nine months prior to his death) ………………. . United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 77 (1975) (argued Oct. 15, 1975) (action by United Sta�es, under the priority statute, against assignee for benefit of creditors of government contractor that had defaulted on defense contracts) ………….. . Bayside Enters., Inc. v. NLRB, 429 U.S. 298 (1977) (argued Nov. 10, 1976) (NLRB ruling th3: t certain truck drivers employed to deliver feed were not agricultural employees excluded under NLRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . V Califano v. Boles, 443 U.S. 282 (1979) (argued Apr. 25, 1979) ( Social Security Act provision that restricted mother’s insurance benefits to widows and divorced wives of wage earners). Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979) (argued Oct. 1, 1979) (regulations prohibiting commercial transactions in parts of birds legally killed before the birds came under protection of the Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act) . . . . . . . . . United States v. Clark, 445 U.S. 23 (1980) (argued Oct: 31, 1979) (Civil Service Retirement Act provision governing entitlement to survivor’s annuities for recognized natural children who “lived with” employee) ….. New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980) (argued Feb. 19, 1980, as amicus curiae) (authority of federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to allow a prevailing party attorney’s fees for legal services performed in state administrative and judicial proceedings that Title VII requires federal claimants to invoke) ………………… . VI . Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980) (argued Apr. 15, 1980, as amicus curiae) (authority of federal courts under federal statutes, or as matter of inherent power, to tax attorney’s fees directly against counsel who have abused the processes of the courts) ………………… . Universities Research Ass’n v. Coutu, 450 U.S. 754 (1981) (argued Nov. 10, 1980, as amicus curiae) (private right of action by employee ‘ under Davis-Bacon Act for back wages under a contract that has been administratively determined not to call for Davis-Bacon work and which does not contain a prevailing wage stipulation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982) (argued Mar. 30, 1982) (validity of applying federal unemployment insurance tax statutes to certain religious schools under Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and question of jurisdiction under Tax Injunction Act) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983) (argued Apr. 27, 1983) (EEOC guidelines interpreting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to apply to pregnancy coverage for spouses in benefit plans of male employees) ……….. . VII Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984) (arguedFeb.22, 1984) (government condemnation proceedings challenged as an unconstitutional taking) …….. . Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank, 467 U.S. 867 (1984) (argued Mar. 19, 1984, as amicus curiae) (whether judgment in a class action that determined that employer did not engage in racial discrimination against certified class of employees precluded a class member from maintaining a subsequent civil action alleging individual claim of race discrimination against employer) . . . . . . . VIII IX Cases briefed (in chronological order): Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 l Cases-Continued: United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. (1973) ··························································· 166 (1974) ··········””‘”””’ ………………………… . Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United NLRB, 412 U.S. 84 (1973) ………………… . States, 420 U.S. 376 (1975) ……………….. . Fri v. Sierra Club, 412 U.S. 541 Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619 (1975) ………. . (1973) ················································ ……… .. National Coal Operators’ Ass’n v. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Kleppe, 423 U.S. 388 (1976) ……………… . Comm’n, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) ………….. .. Kleppe v. Delta Mining, Inc., 423 U.S. Sloan v. Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973) .. . 403 (1976) ···················································· Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973) ··························································· Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) ··························································· Conimittee for Public Educ. v. Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973) ……………. . (1976) ··························································· Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. Train v. Colorado Pub. Interest 417 (1974) ···················································· Research Group, 426 U.S. 1 (1976) …… . United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (1974) ··························································· Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524 (1976) ··························································· Hernandez v. Veterans’ Admin., 415 United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. U.S. 391 (1974) ………………………………….. .. 413 (1977) ···················································· Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) ······•· ………………………………………….. . United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974) ···················································· United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562 (1974) …………………………………………………. . Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (1977) …… . United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) ……………………………. . Vermont Yankee Nucl’ear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978) …………. . Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861 (1974) ……. . Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) ··························································· 547 (1978) …………………………………………… . Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 (1978) ………. . X Cases-Continued: Board of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp., 439 U.S. 234 (1978) ……….. . Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 (1979) ……………. . B 1 ldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222 ( 980) ··························································· Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) ················�· …………………………… . Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456 (1981) …………………… .. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ················· ………………………………….. . Dif98f nd v. Bradley, 450 U.S. 381 ( ) …………………………………………………. . Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981) …………. .. McDaniel v. Sanchez 452 US 130 (1981) ‘ .. Charles “jj:·B�-;,;�;���·Li-;,;�·�·s�;;; … ·�:··”···· NLRB, 454 U.S. 404 (1982) ………………. . Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U .s. 363 (1982) ……………………………. . Longshoremen v. Allied Int’l, Inc., 456 U.S. 212 (1982) …………………………… .. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982) ………………………………………………… .. United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) ………………………………………………… .. ,, I XI Cases-Continued: Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773 (1983) …………………………………………………. . United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476 (1983) …………………………………………………. . Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330 (1984) ………………………………………….. .. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985) ………….. . Bennett v. Kentucky Dep’t of Educ., 470 U.S. 656 (1985) …………………………… .. Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400 (1985) ……………………………. . United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986) …………………………………………………. . 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy, 479 U.S. 335 (1987) …………………………………………… . FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245 (1987) …………………………………………… . Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) ……. . Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755 (1987) … Vermont v. Cox, 484 U.S. 173 (1987) … Arizona v. RQberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) …………………………………………………. . United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326 (1988) …………………………………………… . Northwest Cent. Pipeline v. State Corp. Comm’n, 489 U.S. 493 (1989) …… XII Cases-Continued: Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) ·······························–·············–··–···–·· IRS v. FLRA, 494 U.S. 922 (1990) …… .. United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (1990) …………………………… .. Dura v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990) …………………………………………………. . Cornmissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) …………………………… .. Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) ………………. .. Stevens v. Department of Treasury, 500 U.S. 1 (1991) ……………………………….. .. Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 500 U.S. 603 (1991) …………………… . Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129 (1991) …………………………………………………. . Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) …………………… . Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992) ……………………………………………. .. Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992) ……………….. .. City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) ……………………………. . 3Jn tbe �upreme hi;on, Gentler, I.Jla<‘k, Rohhin� (;(cit, Ilern­ .i;l�in, Streicher. 1.’hird Row: Trusten, Scifort, w�lll!, L(‘u,vit1, Sim8, Childrci;s, Sh11.piro, LAW REVIEW The Colunihia Law Review’5 purpose is two-fold: to publish a periodical useful to the ]cgal profeNiion, nnd, like scvera] other 11Ludc1J,L run extracurricular activities, to supplement an11 enrich the legal training of its members. The articles and hook rcview11 which are contributed by leading members of the ]cga] profc!fflion suhscrvc the first objective abnost exc1usively, hut t11e rest of the Review material attempts to balance the two aima more evenly. Thua, the cuac1 noted, while providing an oJiportnnity for the sh1• dent editors to familiarize themselves whit variou1 areaa of the lnw and to learn tbe teclmiqnes of rc.aeal’Ch and writing, a1.ao gave the profession several adva11tage11. The ca,e notc1 cull attention to the cnec, provide n col1cction of relevant auLhoritie1, evaluate the holding,, rnul prese:nt their effects on the ]aw. Notes, longer student pieces whic11 center around ]ega] problems, rather than single cases, have analogous functioos. The administrative hoard was composed of: Harriet· Shapiro, Editor•in•chief; Barbar” Gordon, Reviews Editor; Maree] Lax, Note, Editor; h-furtiu Rahiuowitrt, Decision» Edi• tor; Afan Schwarz, Rescarcl1 Editor; Michael Sovern, Articletl Editor. (la) 2a COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW Vol. 54 11ARCEL LAX Notes Editor ALAN Scaw ARZ Rtsta.rch Editor FRANCES BERXSTE.IK BARDARA A. BLACK J A�ES D. Cnn..oREss Gn.BEJtT S. EDEI.SOS RE)IEE A. GERSTLE.R ERxr.sT A. Gu:1T Mn.nR£D D. NOBIS Business Sa,-e/o,-y GEORGE .A.. Euis FORSYTH \\”rcrEs DECEMBER, 1954 BOARD OF EDITORS HARRIET STURTEVANT SHAPIRO Editor-in-Chief MICHAEL I. SOVERN Articles Editor Editor.r JEWEL HUMPHREY \Vll..LIAM H. JOSEPHSON YALE. KAMISAR RICHARD E. LEAVITT Eow1N RoeBINS ARTHUR J. SEIFERT Tru.slee.r of the Columbia Law Re7.,-i.cw WILLIAM C. WARREN No. 8 MARTIN J. RABINOWITZ Decisions Editor BARBARA GOR.DoN RC1.>it”Ws Editor How ARD E. s H APDl:O LEON ARD M. Srns ABNER P. Surr RICHARD P .. STIIBICHER LEONARD M. TROSttN ROBERT \VANG CECELIA ScHLEsINGE:R Executive Secretary YOUNG B. SMITB ALBERT G. REDPATH Citations coniorm with A Uniform System of Citations (8th ed. 1949), copyright by ·the Columbia, Harvard, and University af Penns:ylvania Law Rrviru•s and the Yale Law lounwl. -I I CH/U,4EJE;R60F” JUSTlCE: FELIX Ff=!ANK.F\.JFITER My dear Miss SM-pira: 3a ;il1¥t”mtr Qjour! of tftt � JiW…­ �a:aqittghnt �. � � February 22, 1955, On my very :first day as a law atu:l.ent at Cembridgs lllY roommate., s. second yee:r man .,took me for a walk, His easy manner suddenly changed., as he said to me in a hushed voice, pointing to a :figure ahead of us: “There goes the Ed.itor-inChief of the Herve.rd Law Review”, There could not have been more reverence in his .voice i:f he had pointed out ta me the Holy Ghost or the Angel Gacriel. The ave which was thus engendered. for the Editar-in-Chie:f of a law review has never been exorcised., To this day I do not feel wholly at ease in the presence of that great personage, ev�n though I have had :perhaps ha.J.f a dozen E’ditors-in-Chie:f as law clerks. And so, tremblingly as one of a fast vanishing race who likes ta think ive are a learned profession s!;ld that learning :implies fastidious respect fo r hallowed. :farm� I -want to protest as vigorously as my feeble voice permits against what I regard a.a a kind. o:f book-burning,Wh:,· do not you esteemed Editors-in-Chief reprint the Reports of the Supreme Court prior to 91 U.S., reentitle them U.S. l to 90 a.._�d disregard the fact that the Reports on 1’hich the profession was ‘oreri and which to this d.ay the Su� preme Court would not th;ink of citing other than �s Dall-, Ci-,.nch, Wneat., Pet., HD1′., BlacJ,:, Wall. , are to be cited as such. Therce is no such thing . es a “U, S.” prior to 91 U.S.! Having in my tIDe e.s editor of a. law revieiJ deemed. it r,1y d.uty to ovBrr’..ll.e the SUpreme Court wit11out ado, cf col.lrs2 I e:(Pect le.v; reviews to do t;1at.. 3ut I am still of the opinion t;:2..t t1rn Su.p:rcrae Court r.1ight be enti., cletl. -to decid.e how its R:::ports shoul;.,1 Oe cited, :;,c.rt..’.i.ctt.l[!.:!”lJ’ ·,-,her. in. c1.cing :so it is :nerely conforr.i.ing t:J f�.ct and to a long, honvrabla t=ndition. P..ll of vihic!l is ��cspect.M.ly s·-�bmittzJ..1 Miss Harriet S4 Shapiro. 4a ,/ 5a �upreme @oud of tqe �nited �fates OATH OF ADMISSION I, _ _____ H__ a_r_ri_· e_ t_S_t __ u–r_te_v-‘-a–n_t_S_h_a,___p_i r_o _______ , do solemnly swear ( or affirm) that as an attorney and as a counselor of this Court, I will conduct myself uprightly, and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States. So help me God. , ,Subse,it,ed and Sworn .. to. before me this� day of -&p,..,;g ,19�. �J.�� (lhis oath shall be sworn to before a Notary Public, or any other person authorized to administer oaths, and the seal affixed). * ******* **