• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« NIH Stem Cell Injunction Vacated by D.C. Circuit | Main | D.C. Courts Rolling Out Credit Card Pilot Program »

April 29, 2011


Ciminal Solicitors

A lawyer or solicitor is not supposed to act like this for their profession is quite different than others.

Jeff Spangler

Transparently unconstitutional? No basis to defend DOMA? One can easily imagine a 5-4 decision along traditional lines and write a majority opinion. No matter if it makes sense, it's the law. Better to have defended with a straight face and settled the matter openly and finally.

Ehud Gavron

There is definitely a duty to represent the client. However, lawyers ROUTINELY request the Court to allow their removal from the case.

Instead of one case citation, see

Like normal cases, King & Spalding did not specify a reason for their removal.

It is Paul Clement who chose to provide this alleged reason. Whether true or not, it is not King & Spalding who violated any laws. It is questionable whether providing such a "reason" for his former employer's removal from the case is something for which a professional with a regard for privilege is to be commended or vilified.

I wouldn't hire Paul Clement. I'd hire King & Spalding.


Chuck Anziulewicz

Perhaps the law firm of King & Spalding simply came to the realization that there was no point in defending something as transparently unconstitutional as the Defense of Marriage Act.

WHY is DOMA unconstitutional? Consider: A Straight couple legally married in Iowa is automatically entitled to 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Many of those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance rights, child custody, and so on. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa is still unrecognized by the federal government for those benefits.

Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.

The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion; it is the FEDERAL government which, through its own actions, has made this a FEDERAL issue.


If I were a K&S associate, I'd be overjoyed at this news. What an unsavory client to have.


clement said he is defending an unpopular postion, which is not true.
First of all, same sex marriage is not supported by majority of the citizens, according to pill and vote result in almost every state.
Second, the law of most states does not support same sex marriage.
Third, his client is powerful government officials back up by public fund.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad