From the NYTs:
umberto Fernandez-Vargas, deported to Mexico, had run out of options. A federal appeals court said he could not return to the United States to live with his American wife and son. And his lawyer did not have the expertise or money to pursue the case further.
Then the cavalry arrived. Leading lawyers from around the country, sensing that the case was one of the rare ones that might reach the Supreme Court, called to offer free help. Mr. Fernandez-Vargas’s immigration lawyer was delighted, and he chose a lawyer from a prominent firm here.
But there was a catch, and then a controversy. The catch was that the Washington lawyer, David M. Gossett, would take the case only if he could argue before the Supreme Court himself.
The controversy was that groups representing immigrants were furious, suspicious of the new lawyer’s interest in the case and fearful of a Supreme Court ruling that would curtail the rights of immigrants nationwide.
Indeed, Mr. Gossett faced a barrage of hostile questions from the justices, and in June 2006 the court ruled against his client, 8 to 1. The ruling wiped out decisions in much of the nation — notably from the federal appeals court in California — that had favored immigrants.
Mr. Gossett is among an increasingly influential cadre of lawyers specializing in Supreme Court cases, attracted to the importance and intellectual challenge of the work. Many are willing to serve without charge to draw prestige and paying clients to their firms.
Thirty years ago, 6 percent of cases accepted by the court were brought by lawyers specializing in Supreme Court advocacy, according to data compiled by Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and faculty director of its Supreme Court Institute.
[Read the rest of the article here.]
Turtle Talk 