In an unusual but not unprecedented move, the U.S. Supreme Court has appointed two outside attorneys to argue in two high-profile cases for the 2024-25 term. This decision comes after the federal government declined to defend lower court rulings in these cases.
The Court selected Michael Huston and Christopher Mills to step in as “friends of the court”—a rare but critical role where independent attorneys argue in favor of a lower court decision when the federal government chooses not to do so.
This appointment affects two major cases:
🔹 Parrish v. United States – A procedural case concerning the appellate process.
🔹 Martin v. United States – A case involving a mistaken FBI SWAT raid and whether the victims can sue for false imprisonment and assault.
With oral arguments expected in April 2024, these cases could significantly impact appellate procedures and law enforcement accountability.
The Cases & Why They Matter
1. Parrish v. United States: A Technical but Important Appellate Rule
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Parrish v. United States, a case dealing with the rules of appellate procedure—specifically, whether a litigant who files a late appeal must file a second notice if the time to appeal is later reopened.
🛑 Why This Matters: The government had argued that this issue is rarely relevant, but the Fourth Circuit’s ruling was still “incorrect.” A Supreme Court ruling could clarify procedural requirements for appeals, potentially affecting future litigation strategy and judicial efficiency.
🔹 Michael Huston, a former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, has been appointed to argue in favor of the lower court’s decision. Huston is an appellate law expert, previously serving as an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
2. Martin v. United States: The Fallout of a Wrongful SWAT Raid
This case, Martin v. United States, centers on a terrifying mistaken FBI SWAT raid in Georgia. A family’s home was wrongly invaded by heavily armed agents due to a mix-up in addresses. The victims sued the government for false imprisonment and assault and battery under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, citing legal technicalities. While the federal government agrees the lower court’s reasoning conflicts with other circuits, it still urged the Supreme Court not to review the case—a move that likely prompted the justices to appoint an outside lawyer to defend the ruling.
🔹 Christopher Mills, a Charleston-based attorney and former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, will argue in favor of the lower court’s decision.
🛑 Why This Matters: This case could set a landmark precedent on law enforcement accountability and determine whether victims of wrongful federal police actions can sue. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could reshape sovereign immunity protections under the FTCA.
What’s Next?
🔹 Oral arguments are expected in April 2024.
🔹 Decisions likely by late June or early July 2024.
🔹 Implications for federal litigation, appellate processes, and law enforcement liability.
While the appointment of outside attorneys is rare, it signals that the justices want a thorough and adversarial examination of the legal issues before making their rulings.
#SupremeCourt #LegalNews #LawyerLife #AppellateLaw #PoliceAccountability #FBI #FalseImprisonment #SWATRaid #FederalImmunity
Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/outside-attorneys-appointed-to-argue-in-two-cases/
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment