Maureen E. Mahoney (born August 28, 1954) is a former deputy solicitor general and an appellate lawyer at the law firm of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C.,[1] who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Notably, she argued on behalf of the University of Michigan and its affirmative action program in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), in which the Court decided in favor of Michigan by a 5–4 vote.

Maureen E. Mahoney
Mahoney in 2018
Born (1954-08-28) August 28, 1954 (age 70)
Alma materIndiana University Bloomington (BA)
University of Chicago (JD)
OccupationLawyer
SpouseWilliam H. Crispin

Early life and education

edit

Mahoney was born in South Bend, Indiana, while her father Martin was attending the University of Notre Dame Law School.[2] The family moved to Merrillville, Indiana in 1961, when she was in first grade.[2] Mahoney announced at age eight that she wanted to be a lawyer just like her father, who was a personal injury attorney.[3]

In 1972, Mahoney graduated from Merrillville High School, where she was on the school's swim team.[2][4] Mahoney earned her undergraduate degree in political science from Indiana University Bloomington in 1975 with Phi Beta Kappa honors, and her J.D. degree in 1978 from the University of Chicago Law School, where she served on the school's law review and was a member of Order of the Coif.[5]

Mahoney was a clerk for Judge Robert Sprecher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit before clerking for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist during the 1979–1980 Term.[6]

Professional career

edit

Mahoney joined Latham & Watkins in 1980 and remained at the firm for the next 11 years.[3] She then served as Deputy Solicitor General in the George H. W. Bush administration, where she was a colleague of future Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts.[7] In April 1992, President George H. W. Bush nominated her to serve as a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but her nomination was not acted upon by the Senate before Bush's presidency ended. "It was definitely the low point of my career," she has said. "I never had a hearing, and there was never any opposition that I knew of, so it wasn't ugly. It was just disappointing."[8]

In 1993, Mahoney rejoined Latham & Watkins.[3]

In 2003, Mahoney represented accounting firm Arthur Anderson on appeal.[3] In 2007, she was Joseph Nacchio's lead defense attorney in the proceedings surrounding his alleged insider trading.[9][10]

Mahoney is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[11] She was appointed to the governing committee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, and prior to 2012 served on the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules to the Judicial Conference of the United States.[12][13]

Supreme Court speculation

edit

Harriet Miers' withdrawal of her Supreme Court nomination made Mahoney a possible candidate for the Supreme Court in 2005.[14] However, her position in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases raised concerns among conservatives, and she ultimately was passed over in favor of Samuel Alito. "I already have a dream job, but it's extremely flattering to be considered," she told the Times of Northwest Indiana.[2]

Mahoney was also mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee in a John McCain presidency.[15]

Politics

edit

Mahoney supported former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential election.[1] In the 2012 presidential election, Mahoney supported Mitt Romney.

Personal

edit

Mahoney is married to Washington, D.C. lawyer William H. Crispin.[3] They live in Alexandria, Virginia and also have a vacation home on Nantucket, Massachusetts. They have two children,[2] Brad and Abigail.[16]

Mahoney also is known for her ritual of eating a donut before each oral argument.[4] "When I swam as a kid, my coach told me I needed sugar in me if I wanted to compete," Mahoney has explained.[8]

See also

edit

Footnotes

edit
  1. ^ a b Bazelon, Emily (November 26, 2007) On the Advice of Counsel, Slate.com
  2. ^ a b c d e Laverty, Deborah; Honig, Brandon (October 29, 2005). "Merrillville native might have shot at Supreme Court". NWI.com. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  3. ^ a b c d e Sachdev, Ameet (August 14, 2003). "New Andersen lawyer used to tough odds". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
  4. ^ a b Lattman, Peter (July 27, 2007). "Nacchio: All Hopes on Mahoney". The Wall Street Journal.
  5. ^ lathamwatkins Resources and Information.. lathamwatkins.com. Retrieved on August 15, 2013.
  6. ^ "About Alumni: Defending affirmative action and big business, Maureen Mahoney, JD'78, has a caseload that's supreme". University of Chicago Magazine. February 2004. Retrieved July 29, 2018.
  7. ^ Campbell, Linda P. (October 3, 1993). "Court Docket Features Sex Harassment Cases". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
  8. ^ a b Strange Bedfellows?. Law.com (March 24, 2003). Retrieved on 2013-08-15.
  9. ^ Griffin, Greg (July 22, 2007). "New Nacchio lawyer a master of the appeal". Denver Post. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  10. ^ "Court to Review Overturning Of Nacchio Conviction". Reuters. July 30, 2008. Retrieved August 1, 2018.
  11. ^ "Membership List" (PDF). American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  12. ^ "Statement of Maureen Mahoney Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hearing on Access to the Court: Televising the Supreme Court" (PDF). FederalEvidence.com. December 6, 2011. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  13. ^ "Draft Minutes of Spring 2012 Meeting of Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules" (PDF). United States Courts. April 12, 2012. Retrieved July 28, 2018. Noting Neal Katyal replaces former Committee member Maureen Mahoney.
  14. ^ Shaw, Gwyneth K. (November 1, 2005). "A diversity disappointment". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  15. ^ Biskupic, Joan (October 23, 2008). "For divided high court, two potential legacies". USA Today. Retrieved October 25, 2008.
  16. ^ "Merrillville native might have shot at Supreme Court". October 29, 2005.

References

edit
edit