No. 21-620

Michael D. J. Eisenberg v. West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2021-10-27
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-interpretation due-process federal-agency free-speech legal-representation standing state-regulation supremacy-clause younger-abstention
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-12-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Younger abstention doctrine applies

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented is whether the Younger abstention doctrine applies when a state has indicated it will disregard the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and this Court's dicta in Sperry, when it attempts to regulate a non-state party who has no significant ties to a state, other than representing a resident of that state before a federal agency based in D.C., given the clear federal objectives that Congress wants no state lawyer's bar regulation over those representing federal employees before a federal agency.

Docket Entries

2021-12-06
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-11-01
Waiver of right of respondent West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al. to respond filed.
2021-10-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 26, 2021)

Attorneys

Michael Eisenberg
Michael D.J. EisenbergLaw Office of Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Attorney and, Petitioner
Michael D.J. EisenbergLaw Office of Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Attorney and, Petitioner
West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al.
Amy M. SmithSteptoe & Johnson, Respondent
Amy M. SmithSteptoe & Johnson, Respondent