Attorney General Eric Holder will throw the ceremonial first pitch when the Washington Nationals take on the New York Mets in Washington, D.C. on Friday night. But figuring out which team he’ll be routing for can prove a bit difficult.

Holder is a longtime New York Mets fan, having played hooky to see one of the team’s first games at Shea Stadium near his childhood home in New York City. But later in life, he was a member in an investment group that placed an unsuccessful bid for the Washington Nationals baseball team.

A Justice Department spokeswoman didn’t know which, if any, team uniform Holder will wear on the mound. But it’s fair to say a Mets uniform wouldn’t help his relatively low poll numbers, at least in the D.C. area. It might, however, score him some points in his native New York, where his original decision to try those behind the Sept. 11 attacks proved unpopular.

Earlier this year, Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General from June 2005 through June 2008 and now a partner at King & Spalding, joked at an awards ceremony that Holder’s ill-fated attempt to buy the Nationals was a demonstration of his commitment to the D.C. area.

“I’ve never heard an introduction that included my ill-fated attempt to buy the Nationals,” Holder responded. “This is why this man was Solicitor General of the United States. That’s impressive research.”

Attorney General Eric Holder receives an award from former Solicitor General Paul Clement (photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).

Attorney General Eric Holder received the Chesterfield Smith Award at the Street Law Awards Dinner on Wednesday night.

The award, named for Chesterfield Smith, the founding partner of Holland & Knight LLP, is presented to a recipient each year for his or her contributions to the law and public service.

The 2009 recipient Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General from June 2005 through June 2008 and now a partner at King & Spalding, presented Holder with the award. Past recipients include former Attorney General Janet Reno and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Eric Holder speaks at the Street Law Awards Dinner on Wednesday (photo by Ryan J. Reilly / Main Justice).

Clement said Holder had one of the most important and most difficult jobs in Washington, particularly on national security issues. Clement pointed to the recently announced Access to Justice program, which seeks to provide legal representation to the poor, as one of the noteworthy initiatives of the Justice Department since Holder took over.

Holder’s commitment to the D.C. area, especially during his time at U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia was also an important factor in his selection for the award, said Clement.

“General Holder’s dedication to the District of Columbia is so extreme that at one point he even tried to buy the Nationals,” joked Clement, referring to Holder’s membership in an investment group that placed an unsuccessful bid for the Washington, D.C. baseball team.

“I’ve never heard an introduction that included my ill-fated attempt to buy the Nationals,” Holder responded. “This is why this man was Solicitor General of the United States, that’s impressive research.”

In his speech, Holder touted the Access to Justice program, which the department recruited Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe to run.

“Just as many of you have pro bono programs at your firms and corporations, I wanted to be sure that in our house, too, there was a permanent effort to provide access to justice and to work to continuously enhance the fairness and integrity of our legal system,” said Holder.

Street Law is a nonprofit that supports education about law, democracy and human rights. It is the recipient of a Justice Department grant for educating students about intellectual property.

Holder’s remarks are available on the Justice Department website.

Paul Clement (King & Spalding)

Supreme Court justices seemed to struggle on Wednesday with the question of when, if ever, prosecutors should be held personally liable for their officials acts, reports The National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro.

Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, who served 25 years in prison, sued prosecutors for violating their civil rights by allegedly coercing and coaching witnesses to falsely accuse them of killing a retired Iowa policeman. The suit, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington, targets County Attorney David Richter and an Assistant County Attorney Joseph Hrvol.

Police who manipulate evidence have qualified immunity, but prosecutors have absolute immunity. The issue before the court is whether prosecutors performing police-like duties before trial, and then either participate or do not participate at trial, enjoy protection from liability.

Mauro reports:

Several justices appeared disturbed by the facts of the case and unwilling to let prosecutors completely off the hook. But the long tradition of strong prosecutorial immunity also seemed to tug at the Court.

“We’re worried about the chilling effect on the prosecutors,” said Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. at one point.

The former Iowa inmates were represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who made 49 appearances before the court as the government’s chief advocate during the Bush administration. Clement, now at King & Spalding, took the case pro bono, according to Mauro.

Clement said even prosecutorial immunity has its limits.

“The police officer that engages in this misconduct has committed a grave, grave constitutional violation and ought to be liable,” Clement told the Court. “I think the prosecutor who engages in the pretrial misconduct and then doesn’t participate in the trial is just as liable as that police officer, and I can’t think of a single reason why the only reason a prosecutor would get absolute immunity is if they not only participated in the pretrial misconduct but completed the scheme by committing further misconduct at trial.”

But where to draw the line? Lawyers arguing for the county — Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal and Stephen Sanders, an associate at Mayer Brown – said any erosion of immunity would be seized on by every disgruntled defendant and hinder prosecutors in the performance of their official duties.

“If prosecutors have to worry at trial that every act they undertake will somehow open the door to liability, then they will flinch in the performance of their duties and not introduce that evidence,” Katyal said.

International law firm King & Spalding hired Former Deputy Principal Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer as a litigation partner at its Washington office, according to a news release today.

Daryl Joseffer (DOJ)

Joseffner served directly under then Solicitor General Paul Clement, who left his post last year to return to King & Spalding where he worked before becoming Solicitor General in 2001. Joseffner also served four years as Assistant to the Solicitor General before becoming Deputy Principal Solicitor General. He filed more than 100 briefs and argued almost a dozen cases in the Supreme Court on patent, energy, pharmaceutical and environmental issues during his time in the Office of the Solicitor General, the news release said.

“Daryl is a highly regarded appellate advocate with substantial oral argument experience before the U.S. Supreme Court, where he gained a reputation for handling difficult intellectual property and other business cases,” Clement said in a statement. “His high court and federal appeals background adds increased dimension to our ability to assist clients in developing a comprehensive approach to their litigation needs from trial through appeal.”

Clement and Joseffner aren’t the only members of the Bush Justice Department hired recently by King & Spalding. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, joined the firm in March.

Yesterday, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote a post on the paper’s PostPartisan blog about how “logic pointed to choosing [Solicitor General] Elena Kagan” for the Supreme Court and that Kagan was “the obvious choice.”  His argument starts off based on the premise that Obama’s next pick is likely to be a non-latina woman, meaning that Kagan is best-fit for the job because she has already been confirmed with 61 votes for the position of Solicitor General.  Dionne concluded his post:

Courtesy: Washington Post

We will soon learn how good my logic is.

Well, why wait until the nomination?  While we don’t dispute the fact that Kagan would be a great nominee, she won’t help President Obama in “avoiding a major battle,” as Dionne claims.  Almost two weeks ago, we wrote about why she isn’t guaranteed a smooth confirmation:

The former Harvard Law School dean received only six Republican votes for her March 19 confirmation as Solicitor General, from Sens. Judd Gregg (NH), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine),Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Thirty one Republicans voted against her – including Sen. Arlen Specter, who is now a Democrat. Conservative groups have alreadycirculated a memo against Kagan and other potential Obama nominees. If she goes before the Senate as a nominee for the Supreme Court, she could lose at least one GOP vote – Kyl’s.

The Arizona Republican said on the Senate floor he supported her nomination because of the written recommendations from promiment conservatives including former Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, attorney Miguel Estrada and former Solicitors General Ted Olson, Paul Clement and Greg Garre. Kyl emphasized that his vote for Kagan as Solicitor General was for that position only, however, and that he wouldn’t automatically support her for the Supreme Court.

“My decision whether to support or oppose her would be strongly influenced by the decisions made by her as Solicitor General,” Kyl said on the floor. He added, “If she approaches her job as Solicitor General ideologically or argues inappropriate positions, I will not hesitate to oppose her nomination.”

Coburn, a staunch conservative, did not speak about Kagan’s nomination on the floor. He gave few hints behind his decision to support her nomination when he told the Ada Evening News: “I voted for her because she was qualified.”

Kagan could also have difficulty picking up now-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who opposed her nomination for Solicitor General. When he was a Republican, he said he was unable to learn enough about Kagan during the discussions he had with her.

“I’ve gone to some length to try to find out more about Dean Kagan,” Specter said on the floor. “But in the absence of being able to do so and really have a judgment on her qualifications, I’m constrained to vote no.”

Specter also complained that Kagan wasn’t familiar with a lawsuit by victims of the 9/11 attacks against Saudi Arabian officials and business people who were alleged to have helped finance terrorism. Said Specter on the Senate floor: “There has been a lot of information in the public domain that Saudi charities were involved. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. People were murdered. There are claims pending in court. The question is whether the Supreme Court is going to take the case. Well, I wish to know what the nominee for the position of Solicitor General thinks about it.”

Conservatives were upset by Kagan’s opposition to the Solomon Amendment, which required universities receiving federal funds to allow military recruiters on campus. Kagan opposed the amendment because of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gay service members. Kagan’s position on the amendment was the chief reason Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) voted against her. “I believe her record shows a lack of judgment and experience,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said on the Senate floor during debate on her nomination to be Solicitor General.

Here’s the vote tally on Kagan’s March 19 confirmation:

YEAs —61
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coburn (R-OK) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)	Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)	Mikulski (D-MD) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs —31
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK)	Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting – 7
Boxer (D-CA) Cochran (R-MS) Ensign (R-NV)	Graham (R-SC) Kennedy (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN)	Murray (D-WA)

Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s name is in the mix for the Supreme Court nomination to replace retiring Justice David Souter. She enjoys great respect from conservatives in the legal establishment. But politically, her nomination wouldn’t be without controversy.

The former Harvard Law School dean received only six Republican votes for her March 19 confirmation as Solicitor General, from Sens. Judd Gregg (NH), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Thirty one Republicans voted against her – including Sen. Arlen Specter, who is now a Democrat. Conservative groups have already circulated a memo against Kagan and other potential Obama nominees. If she goes before the Senate as a nominee for the Supreme Court, she could lose at least one GOP vote – Kyl’s.

The Arizona Republican said on the Senate floor he supported her nomination because of the written recommendations from promiment conservatives including former Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler, attorney Miguel Estrada and former Solicitors General Ted Olson, Paul Clement and Greg Garre. Kyl emphasized that his vote for Kagan as Solicitor General was for that position only, however, and that he wouldn’t automatically support her for the Supreme Court.

“My decision whether to support or oppose her would be strongly influenced by the decisions made by her as Solicitor General,” Kyl said on the floor. He added, “If she approaches her job as Solicitor General ideologically or argues inappropriate positions, I will not hesitate to oppose her nomination.”

Coburn, a staunch conservative, did not speak about Kagan’s nomination on the floor. He gave few hints behind his decision to support her nomination when he told the Ada Evening News: “I voted for her because she was qualified.”

Kagan could also have difficulty picking up now-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who opposed her nomination for Solicitor General. When he was a Republican, he said he was unable to learn enough about Kagan during the discussions he had with her.

“I’ve gone to some length to try to find out more about Dean Kagan,” Specter said on the floor. “But in the absence of being able to do so and really have a judgment on her qualifications, I’m constrained to vote no.”

Specter also complained that Kagan wasn’t familiar with a lawsuit by victims of the 9/11 attacks against Saudi Arabian officials and business people who were alleged to have helped finance terrorism. Said Specter on the Senate floor: “There has been a lot of information in the public domain that Saudi charities were involved. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. People were murdered. There are claims pending in court. The question is whether the Supreme Court is going to take the case. Well, I wish to know what the nominee for the position of Solicitor General thinks about it.”

Conservatives were upset by Kagan’s opposition to the Solomon Amendment, which required universities receiving federal funds to allow military recruiters on campus. Kagan opposed the amendment because of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gay service members. Kagan’s position on the amendment was the chief reason Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) voted against her. “I believe her record shows a lack of judgment and experience,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said on the Senate floor during debate on her nomination to be Solicitor General.

Here’s the vote tally on Kagan’s March 19 confirmation: