Media Mentions
2011
“Chamber Asks High Court to Nix Fraud Suit Against Deloitte”
Law360, December 2, 2011
Eugene Goldman and M. Miller Baker represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging reversal of a lower court ruling that affirmed fraud claims against Deloitte & Touche. The brief contends that the claims are precluded by federal securities law.
M. Miller Baker, Eugene I. Goldman, Trial, White-Collar & Securities Defense
“Obamacare Hits the Supreme Court”
Fox Business News “The Willis Report,” November 14, 2011
M.Miller Baker, commenting on how the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court might rule regarding the constitutionality of the health reform law, noted that “politics is not law and there’s a difference between what somebody might think as a judge and what they might think if they were a member of Congress.” Mr. Baker added that “the question for the Supreme Court is whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. As a constitutional matter that’s a close question [and] one can see this coming down in any number of different directions.” Click here to view the full segment.
“False Marking Statute is Unconstitutional: Wham-O”
Law360, July 7, 2011
M. Miller Baker represented the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in an amicus filing with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals over the qui tam provision of the false marking statute. The filing argued that the statute violates the apportionments clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, because in allowing whistleblower false marking claims it privatizes the executive branch’s law enforcement function.
“Pittsburgh Corning Asks Court to Reconsider”
The Deal Pipeline, July 5, 2011
M. Miller Baker were listed among co-counsel to Continental Casualty, one of several insurers seeking an amendment to U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s latest ruling on the reorganization plan for Pittsburgh Corning Corp. The insurers want the court to note that there has been no final decision about affiliates’ insurance in the asbestos-related bankruptcy filing.
“6th Circ. Asked to Resurrect Ink Antitrust Claims”
Law360, January 13, 2011
M. Miller Baker and Stefan Meisner were noted as co-authors, with other counsel, of a brief on behalf of a client urging the Sixth Circuit Court to overturn a district court’s dismissal of antitrust counterclaims in a printer cartridge patent infringement suit. McDermott is one of four firms representing the appellant, which makes and distributes laser toner parts and supplies.
M. Miller Baker, Stefan M. Meisner, Antitrust & Competition, Antitrust - IP, Trial
2010
“Wham-O Hurls Constitutional Challenge to Patent Marking Statute”
The National Law Journal, November 16, 2010
M. Miller Baker commented on a constitutional challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to a statute that allows whistleblowers to sue companies for falsely labeling their products as covered by patents, noting the implications will transcend patent law. Mr. Baker participated in the CIBA amicus brief and told The National Law Journal, “Patent law happens to be the venue in which this issue is being fought out…. If this statute is sustained, the implication is that Congress can outsource essentially all civil and criminal law enforcement to private bounty hunters."
M. Miller Baker, Appellate, Trial
2009
M. Miller Baker was featured on November 17 by Law360 concerning his appellate practice and recent developments in appellate law. He described his approach to a typical case by saying, "After reading and rereading the briefs and cases, I reduce my case to a handful of key points.… My benchmark for successful preparation is to walk out of an argument with the feeling that I was over-prepared for it." Mr. Baker also expressed unhappiness over "the practice of some courts of appeals to simply affirm decisions below without either providing any reasoning or expressly adopting the decision of the district court as its own," and stated that the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court hearing of McDonald v. City of Chicago to determine whether the Second Amendment applies to the states is "a historic opportunity." Click here to read the full article.
M. Miller Baker, Appellate, Trial
M. Miller Baker was named Litigator of the Week by the Am Law Litigation Daily (May 7) for McDermott's victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen v. Carlisle. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirmed that litigants not party to an arbitration agreement can invoke federal law to seek and obtain a stay pending arbitration, if state law allows for non signatories to have access to arbitration. The decision reversed an earlier appeals court ruling and remanded the case, brought by the former Arthur Andersen accounting firm, for review. Mr. Baker said, "The court clarified and gave a very clean and crisp test for appellate jurisdiction, eliminating widespread confusion in the courts of appeals." To view the entire Litigator of the Week article click here.
M. Miller Baker, Appellate, Trial
M. Miller Baker was cited in a May 4 Law360 story on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which affirmed that litigants not party to an arbitration agreement can invoke federal law to seek and obtain a stay pending arbitration, if state law allows for non signatories to have access to arbitration. The decision reversed an earlier appeals court ruling and remanded the case, brought by the former Arthur Andersen accounting firm, for review. "We are obviously very pleased," declared Mr. Baker, who had argued the case on behalf of Arthur Andersen.
M. Miller Baker, Appellate, Trial
M. Miller Baker was quoted on March 3 in Law360 regarding the Arthur Anderson LLP et al. v. Wayne Carlisle et al., 08-146, in the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal was brought by Arthur Anderson LLP and others on the issue of whether a litigant not party to an arbitration agreement can appeal a federal court decision refusing to stay the litigation pending arbitration. Mr. Baker, who represented Arthur Anderson in the appeal, "said the courts have long recognized that litigants who are not party to an arbitration agreement but are 'otherwise entitled to enforce the agreement' are able to seek and obtain stays under Section 3. Under that section, litigation must be stayed if the issue in suit is 'referable to arbitration under such an agreement.'"
M. Miller Baker, Appellate, Trial
2007
M. Miller Baker, David E. Rogers, Michael S. Nadel, Jeffrey W. Mikoni and Michael T. Graham were mentioned in the June 13 issue of Mealey's ERISA Report for representing Crown Vantage’s bankruptcy trustee in Jeffrey H. Beck v. PACE International Union.
M. Miller Baker, Michael T. Graham, Jeffrey W. Mikoni, Michael S. Nadel, David E. Rogers, Employee Benefits, Trial
M. Miller Baker was quoted in a June 11 article published by Financial Week regarding the Supreme Court's decision to overrule an ERISA claim filed against trustees of bankrupt paper company Crown Vantage. Mr. Baker served as lead counsel for Crown's trustee and saluted the decision, which reversed three lower court rulings. "The decision prevents the union from raiding the company's pension plan," Mr. Baker said.
M. Miller Baker, Employee Benefits, Trial
2005
M. Miller Baker was quoted by United Press International on December 2 regarding Research in Motion's "Work-Around" for Blackberry.
M. Miller Baker was quoted in the September 5 issue of Legal Times regarding the District of Columbia Circuit's sua sponte decision to initially hear en banc two cases involving the scope of congressional immunity under the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. Mr. Baker commented that it was very, very rare for the D.C. Circuit to undertake en banc review as an initial matter.
M. Miller Baker, Elections & Political Law, Trial
M. Miller Baker was quoted in the May 2 issue of Roll Call in an article entitled "Full Circuit to Hear CAA Cases Jointly." The article discusses a surprise move that could lay the groundwork for review by the Supreme Court. The federal appeals court, which is now hearing two lawsuits against Members of Congress has decided to hear both cases together in front of the entire circuit, rather than in separate hearings. Mr. Baker said in regard to the Supreme Court hearing the two lawsuits together that "it's highly, highly unusual. Put another way, it's extraordinary." He continued to say that perhaps the last time a full circuit court took a case "as an original matter" was in Bush v. Gore in 2000, when the full 11th Circuit decided to hear the lawsuit directly from the trial court.
M. Miller Baker, Elections & Political Law, Government Strategies, Trial
2004
On October 6, 2004, Miller Baker testified before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary - Subcommittee on the Constitution at an Oversight Hearing regarding "The Presidential Succession Act of 1947" and the future considerations for changes to presidential succession. Mr. Baker's testimony was quoted in Roll Call on October 7, 2004, which reported his statement that "Suffice it to say here that the 1947 act is almost certainly the most dangerous statute to be found in the United States Code." Roll Call agreed with Mr. Baker's testimony that the current succession law "threatens to deprive the United States of clear executive authority at the precise moment" when the need for it would be most urgent was echoed by the other panelists. To view the entire testimony, visit http://www.house.gov/judiciary/baker100604.pdf.
M. Miller Baker, Elections & Political Law, Government Strategies, Trial
In an article in the July 2004 issue of Chicago Lawyer, Bill Boies and M. Miller Baker were mentioned in regard to successfully overturning legislation passed in 2003 to force the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation to contribute $125 million to state coffers.
M. Miller Baker, Wilber H. Boies PC, Government Strategies, Trial
Miller Baker's recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was quoted in the February 9 issue of Fortune magazine on various flaws in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 that are of concern in the wake of 9/11. Norman Ornstein said, "Constitutional scholar Miller Baker calls the 1947 act 'perhaps the most poorly designed statute in the entire United States Code.'" Ornstein presents several proposals for revamping the 1947 act, including suggestions made by Miller last year in testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Many of these proposals for reform were incorporated in legislation introduced by Senator John Cornyn on Thursday, February 12, 2004.
2002
Miller Baker was quoted in the April 16 issue of The Washington Times regarding his representation of four opponents to postal voting/elections. Mr. Baker argued that Oregon's vote-by-mail system violates the 19th century law requiring all states to elect congressional and presidential candidates on the same day. The Supreme Court recently refused to review Oregon's vote-by-mail system.
M. Miller Baker, Elections & Political Law, Trial
Miller Baker’s recent Congressional testimony was cited in an op-ed piece published in the March 11 issue of The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Baker urged Congress to re-examine the presidential succession amendment during his testimony regarding a H.J. Res. 67, which would allow state governors to make necessary appointments to fill House vacancies in the event that catastrophe caused widespread vacancies in the House of Representatives. Since Mr. Baker's testimony, the Washington Post and CNN reported that Representative Brian Baird (D-WA), the sponsor of H.J. Res. 67, has asked the congressional leadership to establish a joint House-Senate task force to examine presidential succession issues, and that House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) has agreed with Rep. Baird's suggestion.
M. Miller Baker, Elections & Political Law, Trial
2001
Miller Baker was interviewed by Fox News television on August 20 for a story regarding Oregon's voting by mail.
