No. 21-620
Michael D. J. Eisenberg v. West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al.
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
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
West Virginia Office of Disciplinary Counsel, et al.
Amy M. Smith — Steptoe & Johnson, Respondent
Amy M. Smith — Steptoe & Johnson, Respondent