Remington Arms et al v. Soto et al is at the US Supreme Court on appeal from the Connecticut Supreme Court. Remington is asking for a writ of certiorari and is in search of to overturn the horrendous ruling out of Connecticut. That four-three ruling stretched state law to cover acts that really should have been precluded from suit by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
This previous Friday the respondents (aka the anti-PLCAA side) filed their reply short. The short itself is not the story right here. Rather it is who the ambulance chasing Joshua Koskoff with his novel legal theories corralled to be the counsel of record and to argue the case just before the Supreme Court.
The counsel of record is Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. who served as Obama’s Solicitor Common from 2011 till 2016. He is now a companion is the higher powered California-DC law firm of Munger, Tolles, and Olson. That firm was co-founded by Warren Buffet’s investment companion Charlie Munger.
The National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Short has this to say about his appointment.
The households of victims of the Sandy Hook college shooting have retained former U.S. Solicitor Common Donald Verrilli Jr. to represent them in their U.S. Supreme Court fight with gunmaker Remington Arms Co. LLC.
Verrilli, now a companion at Munger, Tolles & Olson, was counsel of record for the plaintiffs, according to new filings in the U.S. Supreme Court. He filed a short on their behalf Friday to oppose Remington’s try to have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that a federal law shields it from liability in the Sandy Hook case….
“The Sandy Hook victims had been slain in a commando-style assault on the college. Their killer’s weapon of option was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, manufactured and marketed by petitioners,” the Munger Tolles group stated in their opposition short. “The XM15-E2S was developed for military combat, especially to inflict maximum lethal harm on the enemy. Petitioners’ promoting emphasized precisely these qualities of the firearm. In words and photos, petitioners touted the XM15-E2S as a combat-tested weapon that would bestow the energy to ‘perform beneath pressure’ and ‘single-handedly’ conquer ‘forces of opposition.’”
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say Verrilli and the rest of the Munger, Tolles group are carrying out this case pro bono. The firm requires terrific pride in their pro bono activities.
This case is all about the supremacy of Federal law. As a result, it requires a bit of chutzpah (or hypocrisy) for Verrilli to argue against PLCAA when one particular of his self-identified landmark wins (Arizona v. US) was all about the supremacy of Federal law.