US Supreme Court Debut Tops Advocate’s Packed Argument Calendar

Cooper & Kirk partner Pete Patterson thought he had a pretty good excuse for asking the Third Circuit to reschedule his en banc argument: He’s set to make his US Supreme Court debut the day before.

But the appellate court rejected his request, so Patterson will argue three gun appeals in the span of two weeks. That includes the high court challenge to the Biden administration’s ban on ghost guns on Oct. 8.

“Apparently they have a lot of confidence in me,” Patterson joked about the lower court judges.

Patterson is one of five attorneys making their first arguments in front of the justices during their first sitting of the new term starting Oct. 7. They join an insular group of attorneys that’s dominated by high court veterans.

Low Numbers

Veterans—those who have argued five or more cases in front of the justices—typically outnumber newcomers. Since the 2018 term, the percentage of veterans has fluctuated between 46% and 61%, while the number of first-timers has been between 22% and 31%, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis.

The numbers for the October sitting track that trend, with 10 veterans appearing before the justices out of 20 lawyers who’ll argue over nine cases.

Of the remaining five argument spots, three attorneys are set to make their second high court appearances. They include Orrick’s Melanie Bostwick, Latham Watkins’ Samir Deger-Sen, and Keller Postman founder Ashley Keller.

Family Affair

As for Patterson, all three of his consecutive arguments involve gun rights. His two-week appellate tour started Sept. 25 in the Tenth Circuit, with a challenge to New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) emergency gun ban.

On Oct 9, Patterson will argue in front of the full Third Circuit on the side of Bryan Range, who was barred from owning a gun due to his conviction for submitting a false food stamp application decades ago. The case is on remand after the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Rahimi, upholding a similar ban on an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

And sandwiched in between is Garland v. VanDerStok, the Supreme Court ghost-gun challenge involving kits that can be assembled into firearms.

Patterson says that unlike the other two cases, VanDerStok is a case more about “legislative authority and statutory interpretation, and not about policy.” The justices will consider whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives went too far beyond its statutory authority in regulating untraceable firearms.

Patterson’s wife and three children, ages 15, 12, and five, will join him on a family road trip to see his Supreme Court argument. The Cincinnati-based attorney says his kids have seen him argue in his home circuit, the Sixth. “So this won’t be their first experience.”

Though the former White House associate counsel in the George W. Bush administration has argued dozens of cases in federal appeals courts, Patterson said Supreme Court arguments involve “a different level of anticipation and preparation.”

For McGuireWoods’ Brian Schmalzbach, who will also make his high court debut in October, that means not only more moot courts, but also digging into what nine jurists—as opposed to three—have written about the issue. “There’s just a deeper pool of information,” Schmalzbach said.

New Faces

Also new to the high court lectern is Hogan Lovells’ Katie Wellington. She’ll appear on the first day of arguments in Royal Canin USA v. Wullschleger, a case about the ability of federal courts to hear state-law claims.

A former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Wellington has worked on high court cases before, including second-chairing the 2023 election law case Moore v. Harper.

Arguing on the same day as Patterson are Virginia Solicitor General Erika Maley and Schmalzbach. They’ll face off in Lackey v. Stinnie, over when civil rights plaintiffs can get attorneys’ fees. Maley clerked for Stephen Breyer, and Schmalzbach for Clarence Thomas.

Tara Steeley of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office will round out the October sitting, arguing for the city Oct. 16 in a Clean Water Act case, San Francisco v. EPA.