Oklahoma hires Latham team for US Supreme Court religious rights case
April 3 (Reuters) - (Billable Hours is Reuters' weekly report on lawyers and money. Please send tips or suggestions to D.Thomas@thomsonreuters.com, opens new tab)
Oklahoma has hired one of Washington's top appellate lawyers for a coming clash over First Amendment religious rights and charter schools at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The state turned to Latham's Gregory Garre, a former Republican-appointed U.S. solicitor general, to lead the team for Oklahoma's Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond.
Latham will bill up to $250,000 for the work at the high court, according to a contract obtained by Reuters through a public records request.
Drummond in 2023 sued to block St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School from becoming the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the country. Drummond argued his office was bound to "prevent the type of state-funded religion that Oklahoma's constitutional framers and the founders of our country sought to prevent."
Garre is facing off against conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Oklahoma's Statewide Charter School Board. Dechert represents St. Isidore. The state's high court in June ruled against the board and organizers of the proposed school.
Garre, who is asking the justices to uphold restrictions on funding for religious education, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement, the Oklahoma attorney general's office called Garre a "brilliant legal mind."
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on April 30.
In 2008, Garre served as the Senate-confirmed U.S. solicitor general, the nation's highest government appellate lawyer. He has argued 49 cases at the Supreme Court.
Five Latham associates appeared with Garre on the Supreme Court brief he filed, opens new tab on Monday for Drummond. They said a ruling for the board would cause "chaos and confusion for thousands of charter schools and millions of schoolchildren nationwide."
Latham's flat fee includes $100,000 for consulting with the U.S. Justice Department to encourage it to file an amicus brief, and another $100,000 for filing the state's brief. The firm will be paid $50,000 after oral arguments.
Garre has billed corporate clients at least $2,035 an hour, according to a Reuters review of U.S. bankruptcy records, but he is likely not charging that amount to Oklahoma, which said the firm had provided a discount.
Oklahoma in other cases has brought on U.S. Supreme Court veterans, including Paul Clement, who also was a U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, and Kannon Shanmugam, who leads the Washington, D.C. office of law firm Paul Weiss.
-- New U.S. ethics disclosures from some of President Donald Trump's top legal nominees offered a glimpse at compensation at some of the country's most prestigious law firms.
Jay Clayton of Sullivan & Cromwell, nominated as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, reported receiving more than $6.7 million from the law firm since the start of 2024, according to his disclosure.
Other financial disclosures showed attorney pay at law firms Jones Day, Sidley Austin and Skadden Arps.
-- A lawyer who is suing Northwestern University's law school over its hiring practices is fighting the school's request for attorney fees after his client dropped its lawsuit and refiled a new one minutes later.
Jonathan Mitchell, a lawyer for Faculty, Alumni, & Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), said in a Tuesday filing, opens new tab that Northwestern's misconduct allegations, including that they dismissed and refiled their lawsuit to "gain a tactical advantage," are false and defamatory.
"It is neither 'bad faith' nor 'vexatious' for a lawyer to dismiss and refile if he sincerely believes that this is the least expensive and least burdensome way of effectuating an amendment to his pleading — even if that belief turns out to be mistaken," Mitchell wrote.
FASORP sued Northwestern in July, claiming its law school discriminates against white men in faculty hiring and other practices. FASORP dismissed its own lawsuit on January 31, and then refiled it minutes later, according to Northwestern.
Northwestern accused FASORP of trying to dodge a potentially adverse ruling on its bid to add a Title VII claim to its original lawsuit. Mitchell denied the allegations.
A spokesperson for Northwestern declined to comment. Mitchell and FASORP's other attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Read more:
Latham, Northwestern seek fees from conservative group in bias case
Purdue Pharma fees surpass $250 million for Davis Polk amid new bankruptcy plan
Oracle lawyers' $58 million fee award on the line in Rimini Street appeal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out 'in order for those members to do their work.' Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to 'carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.' Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency 'will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.' Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. 'This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,' said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. 'This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data,' they said, while vowing to 'use every legal tool at our disposal' to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. Millions of Americans' sensitive data at stake The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had 'abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy' of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the 'most sensitive' personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: driver's license and identification information bank and credit cards birth and marriage certificates pension information home and work addresses school records immigration and naturalization records family court records employment and employer records psychological and psychiatric health records hospitalization records addiction treatment records records for HIV/AIDS tests The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show 'DOGE received far broader data access' than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. 'The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful,' Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. 'But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention,' Justice Jackson wrote.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
School loses Supreme Court bid over Christian staff member sacked for LGBT posts
Kristie Higgs, a Christian mother of two, was sacked from her role at Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire, in 2019 for sharing Facebook posts criticising teaching about LGBT+ relationships in schools. In February, she won a Court of Appeal battle related to her dismissal, with three senior judges finding that the decision to sack her for gross misconduct was 'unlawfully discriminatory' and 'unquestionably a disproportionate response'. The school sought to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court in March, but three justices refused to give the school the green light to challenge the decision in the UK's highest court. In a decision on Thursday, which was published on Monday, Lord Reed, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Simler said that the school had asked for the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling on four grounds. But they said that the Supreme Court 'does not have jurisdiction' to hear three of the grounds, and the fourth 'does not raise an arguable question of law'. In response to the decision, Mrs Higgs said: 'I am relieved and grateful to the Supreme Court for this common-sense decision. 'Christians have the right to express their beliefs on social media and at other non-work-related settings without fear of being punished by their employer.' Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre – which supported Mrs Higgs' case, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision, which brings a decisive closure to this extraordinary case.' She continued: 'The Court of Appeal confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace, particularly against sincerely held Christian convictions, is illegal. 'This latest decision from the Supreme Court is further proof that our tireless work at the Christian Legal Centre, in defending so many Christian freedoms cases, has not been in vain.' Mrs Higgs, who worked as a pastoral administrator and work experience manager at the school, shared two posts on a private page under her maiden name in October 2018 to about 100 friends, which raised concerns about relationship education at her son's Church of England primary school. She either copied and pasted from another source or reposted the content, adding her own reference in one post to 'brainwashing our children'. BREAKING: The Supreme Court has today refused to hear the appeal of Farmor's School in Fairford, Gloucestershire of the landmark Kristie Higgs Court of Appeal ruling. In February 2025, in a seminal judgment for Christian freedom and free speech, the Court of Appeal had reversed… — Christian Concern (@CConcern) June 9, 2025 Pupils were to learn about the No Outsiders In Our School programme, a series of books that teach the Equality Act in primary schools. An employment tribunal found in 2020 that while Mrs Higgs' religion was a protected characteristic, her dismissal was lawful, but this decision was overturned by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in 2023. But the EAT ruled the case should be sent back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, which Mrs Higgs' lawyers challenged in the Court of Appeal as 'unnecessary'. In a judgment, Lord Justice Underhill, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk, ruled in Mrs Higgs' favour in February, stating: 'The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Democratic senators call on private firm to reveal how it will profit from Trump's Medicaid cuts
Two Democratic senators are demanding to know how a company that administers government benefits could profit from Republican-led cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for people who are low-income, elderly and disabled. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden sent the letter to Maximus, Inc on Monday. The company is the largest private contractor to states who seek to outsource their administration of government assistance, including health insurance and food aid. 'Maximus's long history of kicking Americans off of Medicaid to boost their profits should be a warning of what's to come if Republicans pass their 'big beautiful bill,'' Warren told the Guardian in an exclusive comment. 'We need to hold Maximus accountable for padding their bottom line by making Americans suffer.' Maximus is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of $3.9bn. It is the largest company in an industry that helps states privatize administrative obligations in programs that serve the poorest residents – a phenomenon one media outlet described as the 'welfare-to-work industrial complex'. Warren and Wyden wrote that the company, 'has an abysmal track record, with reports of egregious backlogs and service delays and several reported instances of fraud'. In states where it's hired, Maximus determines whether needy Americans qualify for a wide range of public assistance – from Medicaid to 'food stamps', formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) to 'welfare', or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), according to the letter. Warren and Wyden's letter comes as congressional Republicans seek to add red tape to government-run health insurance programs, including proposed historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program that covers roughly 71 million Americans who are low-income, disabled and elderly. In addition to Trump administration-led rule changes to other government health insurance programs, the non-partisan congressional budget office estimates Republican-led efforts could lead 16 million Americans to lose insurance by 2034. In a statement, Maximus told the Guardian: 'The accusations contained in the letter Maximus received this morning are baseless. The truth is Maximus has been recognized for its high quality service connecting individuals with critical health coverage.' 'Maximus prides itself on being a conflict-free and accountable partner to government,' the statement continued. 'We do not set policy, rather we deliver on policies enacted by members of both political parties by developing and deploying technology to rapidly fix problems in legacy government systems and deliver the right services to the right people at the right time.' Maximus has spent more than $2m lobbying the federal government since 2024, and said in an investor update that its objectives 'align' with the cost-cutting by billionaire Elon Musk's unofficial 'department of government efficiency' (Doge). 'Our teams are well prepared for this moment as the DOGE objectives align with many of our recent Maximus Forward initiatives,' the Maximus CEO Bruce Caswell told investors on the call, according to a transcript. He later added: 'A reduction in Medicaid recipients may not necessarily decrease consumer engagement, especially if eligibility verification or activity reporting requirements become more frequent than today. Additionally, in many of our largest states, we also manage state-based exchanges' – referring to individual insurance marketplaces colloquially called Obamacare exchanges – 'where customers can enroll if they no longer are eligible for Medicaid. This helps maintain our ongoing engagement with those consumers.' The senators also noted that in late 2022 and 2023, when states were going through a post-pandemic Medicaid 'determination' process – or reexamining whether beneficiaries were still eligible for the program – 'your company's stock price jumped almost 50% on the news'. 'With millions of dollars spent on lobbyists in Washington and around the nation, you have worked to enact the largest Medicaid cuts in the program's history – and ensure that your company and you personally will financially benefit,' Warren and Wyden wrote. A central tenet of Republican's plan to cut Medicaid is to force states to add more bureaucracy to the program, including 'work requirements' in the form of documentation from beneficiaries. The overwhelming majority of Medicaid beneficiaries either already work or would be eligible for exemptions to the requirement, but would be at-risk of losing insurance because of the added red tape. All those added documentation requirements need to be administered by states. Already, Warren and Wyden said, Republicans have set aside $100m in their proposed bill, the 'one big, beautiful bill'. However, they said that is likely an 'undercount' of what is necessary to administer the new programs, and that states would need hundreds of millions more dollars to implement new work requirements and changes to food assistance programs.
