[EL] Denial of withdrawal of DoJ counsel

[Mark Scarberry]

Should it be sufficient for the AG to say that in his opinion the new attorneys would more effectively present the position of the administration?

 Inquiry as to reasons would seem to call for privileged information. Even if not, it would seem to be sufficient for the AG to explain that there is a difference between the strategy favored by the current lawyers and the strategy favored by the AG, such that the AG has more confidence that the new lawyers would indeed present the government's position more effectively.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law

________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 12:05 PM
To: Levitt, Justin
Cc: Election Law Listserv
Subject: Re: [EL] Denial of withdrawal of DoJ counsel

That ruling is unsurprising, as courts like to maintain final authority, and especially to lay down markers when not exercising that authority. Still, the census case court should have addressed the issue.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 10, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu> wrote:
>
> discretion
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190710/b22b94ca/attachment.html>