Tom Goldstein

For the historian of science, see Thomas Goldstein (historian of science).

Thomas C. Goldstein (Tom Goldstein) is an American attorney famous as an advocate before and blogger about the Supreme Court of the United States. He was a founding partner of Goldstein and Howe (now Goldstein & Russell), a Washington, D.C. firm specializing in Supreme Court litigation, and was, until the end of 2010, a partner at Akin Gump, where he was co-head of the litigation and Supreme Court practices. He has since returned to his previous firm. In 2003, he co-founded SCOTUSblog, the most widely read blog covering the Supreme Court, and remains the publisher and occasional contributor, providing analyses and summaries of Supreme Court decisions and cert petitions. He is a lecturer at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools, teaching Supreme Court Litigation clinics.

Education

He earned his J.D. from American University's Washington College of Law and his A.B. in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Supreme Court practice

Over the past fifteen years, Goldstein has served as one of the lawyers for one of the parties in just under 10% of the cases argued before the Supreme Court. He has argued 24 cases himself. He won 12, lost 11, and one is currently pending. For each the case citation, result, and party represented is as follows:

1. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (1999) (lost 9-0) (represented petitioner, an attorney who argued she had timely appealed a sanctions order).

2. L.A. Police Department v. United Reporting, 528 U.S. 32 (1999) (won 7-2) (represented petitioner, a municipality defending the constitutionality of a state statute against a First Amendment suit).

3. Norfolk Southern v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000) (lost 7-2) (represented respondent, a tort plaintiff alleging that she had the right to sue a railroad for negligence in maintaining a crossing).

4. Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) (lost 7-2) (represented respondents, ERISA plan claimants).

5. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (won 7-2) (represented respondent, a defendant challenging the constitutionality of the application of the federal wiretap laws to him).

6. Devlin v. Scardelietti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (won 6-3) (represented petitioner, a class action member alleging that he had the right to appeal a district court order).

7. United States. v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) (lost 9-0) (represented respondent, civil plaintiff seeking gun permit).

8. Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 552 (2003) (won 9-0) (represented petitioner, a habeas petitioner alleging that he had timely filed a habeas corpus petitioner).

9. Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (lost 9-0) (represented petitioner, a bankruptcy attorney denied fees).

10. Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739 (2003) (lost 9-0) (represented petitioner, a pension fund and ERISA defendant).

11. F. Hoffman-La Roche v. Empagran, 542 U.S. 155 (2004) (lost 9-0) (represented respondents, vitamin manufacturers and antitrust defendants alleging that they had the right to sue over foreign anticompetitive activity).

12. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2004) (won 5-3) (represented petitioners, age-discrimination plaintiffs alleging the right to pursue “disparate impact” age discrimination claims; although the Court ruled for the plaintiffs on the question presented, it nonetheless held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the facts).

13. Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005) (won 6-3) (represented petitioners, ADA plaintiffs alleging that the statute applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships; the Court did not hold that the ADA applies in all respects, however).

14. National Cable and Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (lost 6-3) (represented respondents, telecommunications companies alleging that internet service must be regulated as a “telecommunications service”).

15. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005) (won 9-0) (represented meat-processing employees seeking overtime pay for walking and waiting time under the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Court held that some waiting time was non-compensable, however).

16. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2005) (won 5-3) (represented respondent criminal defendant alleging that his objection to his wife’s consent to search the family home rendered the warrantless search unconstitutional).

17. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (lost 9-0) (represented respondent patent owner arguing that its invention was “non-obvious").

18. Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (lost 9-0) (represented respondent criminal defendant alleging that violation of state law rendered a search unconstitutional).

19. Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (won 9-0) (represented petitioner, a habeas petitioner alleging that his habeas petition was timely filed).

20. Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769 (2008) (won 6-3) (represented petitioner, death penalty petitioner alleging that he had not defaulted his federal constitutional claims).

21. Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 129 S. Ct. 2183 (2009) (lost 9-0) (represented respondents, torture victims and tort plaintiffs alleging that federal legislation did not eliminate their right to sue the government of Iraq).

22. Hamilton v. Lanning, 130 S. Ct. 2464 (2010) (won 8-1) (represented respondent, a bankruptcy debtor challenging the bankruptcy trustee’s calculation of her “projected disposable income”).

23. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) (won 6-3) (represented respondent, a data mining corporation challenging state’s restriction on use of prescription-history information in pharmaceutical marketing).

24. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, (decision pending) (represented petitioner alleging that a suspicionless strip search conducted while in custody following an arrest for a minor offense, violated 4th Amendment rights).

In a 25th case, Goldstein secured a summary reversal (i.e., a victory on the merits without the Court requiring oral argument): Sao Paulo v. American Tobacco, 535 U.S. 229 (2002) (represented petitioner, a plaintiff in a suit brought against tobacco manufacturers alleging that the trial judge was erroneously ordered to recuse himself from the case).

Notably, Goldstein served as second chair for Laurence Tribe and David Boies on behalf of Vice President Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. He also served as second chair for Laurence Tribe on New York Times Co. v. Tasini (decided in 2001).^{[citation needed]}

"The Hustler," an April 2006 article by Noam Scheiber in The New Republic, asserts that Goldstein has had an out-sized impact on the Supreme Court - going so far as to suggest the Court was the "Goldstein Court", a phraseology usually reserved for the Chief Justice of the United States during a particular period (e.g. "Roberts Court", "Rehnquist Court", "Taft Court") – but there is no empirical data to support that claim.

The article focuses on the practice pioneered by Goldstein of identifying and pursuing cases that are likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. At the time, the practice was extremely controversial and analogized to ambulance chasing by established members of the bar, including by now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who quipped about contacting the lawyers in cases that if you needed a heart-surgeon, you would not pick the one who called you out of the blue. The practice has since become commonplace among almost all law firm Supreme Court practices and the several Supreme Court litigation clinics in law schools.

Teaching appointments

Goldstein is a visiting lecturer of both the Stanford and Harvard law schools, co-teaching Supreme Court litigation clinics.

Blog

Goldstein founded the most widely read blog covering the Supreme Court, the SCOTUSblog. It serves as a constantly-updated site for information and news about the Supreme Court — the submissions of new petitions, decisions concerning certiorari, decisions concerning stays of lower court decisions — particularly executions, oral arguments, and final decisions in all cases. In 2010, SCOTUSblog became the only weblog to receive the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award for fostering public understanding of the law. While generally regarded as objective, the blog (and Goldstein) on occasion is the subject of criticism from commentators on both the left (such as Glenn Greenwald) and the right (such as Ed Whelan).

Media and professional recognition

Among Goldstein’s recognitions are: one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the nation (National Law Journal); one of the 40 most influential lawyers of the decade (National Law Journal); and one of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years (Legal Times).

Personal life, hobbies

Goldstein is married to Amy Howe, with whom he co-founded the firm now named Goldstein & Russell, P.C. Goldstein lives in Washington, D.C.

External links

• Golstein previews the 2008 Supreme Court docket in the Harvard Law Record