Olson Remcho LLP is proud to join more than 800 other law firms nationwide in signing amicus briefs in Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-00916, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-00917 challenging Executive Orders issued by the White House targeting these law firms. 

“The White House Executive Orders against these two law firms are clearly unconstitutional and it is our responsibility as lawyers to stand up for the rule of law,” said Richard Rios, Managing Partner of Olson Remcho.

The briefs were authored by former U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.  The unconstitutional Executive Orders —like the four other similar ones targeting other law firms in recent weeks—impose severe penalties on the firms due to their past work, including revoking security clearances and denial of access to federal buildings and facilities.  A copy of the Jenner & Block brief can be found here and a copy of the Wilmer Hale brief can be found here.

As explained in the amicus briefs:

“The looming threat posed by the Executive Order at issue in this case and the others like it is not lost on anyone practicing law in this country today: any controversial representation challenging actions of the current administration (or even causes it disfavors) now brings with it the risk of devastating retaliation. Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create. Our adversarial system depends upon zealous advocates litigating each side of a case with equal vigor; that is how impartial judges arrive at just, informed decisions that vindicate the rule of law.”

Today’s briefs ask the Court to grant the two law firms’ motions for a permanent injunction enjoining the March 6 Executive Order, noting that it and other recent ones “pose a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”

Olson Remcho is very pleased and proud to report that partner Karen Getman has been named to Capitol Weekly’s Top 100 for 2024.  Olson Remcho’s Robin Johansen and Lance Olson were previously named to the Top 100 list.  Getman also made the Top 100 list in 2022 and 2023. 

According to Capitol Weekly, “Attorney Karen Getman is the founding partner of the powerhouse political and governmental law firm Olson Remcho, based in Oakland. She is also a major player in education funding through her work for the California Teachers Association. That was on full display this year as the organization had a near knife fight with Gov. Newsom over education dollars in the woefully hurting state budget.  The CTA ultimately won out.” 

Karen notes that Senior Associate Ben Gevercer played an important role in securing funding for education on behalf of CTA:  “Ben worked hard on this issue and helped us get an outstanding result for the client, avoiding what could have been a permanent decrease in the education budget of billions of dollars.”

Olson Remcho’s Lance Olson and Karen Getman will be panelists on a program sponsored by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and McGeorge School of Law commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Political Reform Act on September 11, 2024.  More information about the program here.

According to the program description: 

“McGeorge School of Law and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) will commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Political Reform Act with an event on Wednesday, September 11 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the McGeorge School of Law campus in Sacramento.

Passed in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, California’s Political Reform Act has been a model of campaign finance disclosure and governmental ethics laws for decades.  

The program will feature panel discussions centered on the theme: “The Political Reform Act: Past, Present, and Future.” Panelists will include public officials, experts from academia, and distinguished members of the regulated community. It will also feature a keynote address from a prominent elected official. MCLE credit will be available.”

On June 20, 2024 the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an initiative from the November 2024 state ballot requiring voter approval for any increase in state or local fees was unconstitutional. On September 26, 2023 attorneys from Olson Remcho filed an emergency writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Legislature, and former Senator John Burton asking the Court to invalidate the initiative. Olson Remcho attorneys on the writ include Robin Johansen, Richard Rios, Margaret Prinzing, and Inez Kaminski, with Prinzing arguing the case before the court on May 5.

The Court’s opinion states: “The only question before us is whether the measure may be validly enacted by initiative. After considering the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae as well as the parties’ oral arguments, we conclude that Petitioners have clearly established that the challenged measure would revise the Constitution without complying with the appropriate procedure . . . We therefore issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Secretary to refrain from taking any steps to place the TPA on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

“We are very pleased to have been able to represent the Governor and Legislature in this important matter,” said Richard Rios, Managing Partner of Olson Remcho. A spokesperson for Governor Newsom noted that “the Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”

On May 8, 2024, the California Supreme Court heard the case brought by Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature that asks the court to remove an initiative from the November 2024 state ballot that would require voter approval for any increase in state or local taxes or fees.  On September 26, 2023 attorneys from Olson Remcho filed an emergency writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Legislature, and former Senator John Burton asking the Court to invalidate the initiative.  The writ is here.  

Although the Supreme Court’s hearing was unusual because most challenges to California initiatives are reserved for post-election review, the justices unanimously agreed that given the important issues raised in the petition, pre-election review was warranted.  Olson Remcho attorneys on the writ include Robin Johansen, Richard Rios, Margaret Prinzing, and Inez Kaminski. 

According to an article in Politico:  “The measure’s opponents warn it would undermine public services, create massive uncertainty for local budgets and prevent governments from responding nimbly to crises. Newsom and leading Democrats have also made a more sweeping argument: that the initiative would fundamentally and unlawfully change how California is governed by stripping elected officials of their authority to raise revenue. ‘From the founding of the state, the Legislature has had the supreme power of taxation and this measure would revoke that power for the first time in the history of California,’ attorney Margaret Prinzing told the high court.”

After the writ was filed, former Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) issued a statement: “This ballot initiative is an unlawful effort to revise our state constitution, and is attempting to fundamentally restructure the roles of California’s legislative and executive branches, as well as the role of local governments. The measure seeks to eliminate the state’s ability to swiftly respond to emergencies and provide resources for critical services that Californians and communities rely upon. We can’t underscore enough the amount of harm this initiative would cause Californians. We are calling on the California Supreme Court to determine that this far-reaching and disruptive proposal is a constitutional revision.”

Mayors of eight of the largest cities in California had also filed an amicus letter with the Court asking that the justices take up the matter for immediate review, saying in part, “the Mayors of the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, San José, San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Irvine respectfully urge this Court to grant review in Legislature v. Weber, No. S281977. Petitioners have asked the Court for emergency relief to prevent the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (the “Measure”) from being placed on the November 2024 ballot. Not only does the Measure impermissibly use the voters’ initiative power to revise the California Constitution by making fundamental changes to the structure and foundational powers of government, it also includes a retroactivity provision that poses an immediate threat to vital state and local services that are so important to our cities’ residents.”  The Mayors’ letter is here.

On April 24, 2024, the California Court of Appeal denied review of a Court of Appeal decision upholding Alameda County’s Measure C, a voter initiative passed in 2020 that will provide approximately $150 million annually to fund childcare and preschool for low income children in the county. The funds will be administered by First 5 Alameda County (“First 5”). Olson Remcho’s James Harrison and Tom Willis drafted Measure C and Harrison serves as general counsel to First 5.

“The court’s decision frees up over $400 million in tax funds that have been held in escrow pending resolution of the litigation,” said Harrison. “With these funds and the promise of $150 million annually on an ongoing basis, Alameda County may be the best-funded jurisdiction in the U.S. when in comes to early childhood health care and education.”

In arguing for the passage of Measure C in 2020 First 5 estimated that 4,000 to 5,000 more children would be able to enroll in subsidized child care or preschool if the measure passed; 12,000 children receiving preschool subsidies from the state would receive additional money to cover more of their enrollment costs; and 3,300 teachers would benefit from training and higher compensation.

Kristin Spanos, CEO of First 5, commented on the impact of the measure in July 2022 after the lower court had upheld Measure C: “As a society, we have failed to fully fund early care and education (ECE) for decades to the detriment of providers, the workforce, and families. The pandemic has made the challenges even more acute and worsened inequities that have harmed low-income and families of color for too long. These public resources are needed now more than ever to support and strengthen our county’s early childhood system, particularly with an equity lens. First 5 is proud to partner with the early care and education field and community in support of children and families.”

Olson Remcho’s Lance Olson was a panelist in a program presented by the Unity Bar on October 24, 2023, “Defending Your Seat in a Contested Judicial Election.”  Other panelists included Justice Hernaldo Baltodano, Associate Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, and Judge Monique Langhorne, Napa County Superior Court.  The panel was moderated by Brian Lopez, Board Chair, Cruz Reynoso Bar Association.

On November 29, 2023, the California Supreme Court granted a hearing in a case brought by Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature that asks the court to remove an initiative from the November 2024 state ballot that would require voter approval for any increase in state or local taxes or fees.  Although the Supreme Court’s action is rare because most challenges to California initiatives are reserved for post-election review, the justices unanimously agreed that given the nature of the changes proposed by the measure, pre-election adjudication is warranted.

On September 26, 2023 attorneys from Olson Remcho filed an emergency writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature asking the Court to invalidate the initiative.  The writ is here. 

Olson Remcho attorneys on the writ include Robin Johansen, Richard Rios, Margaret Prinzing, and Inez Kaminski. 

According to Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister): “This ballot initiative is an unlawful effort to revise our state constitution, and is attempting to fundamentally restructure the roles of California’s legislative and executive branches, as well as the role of local governments. The measure seeks to eliminate the state’s ability to swiftly respond to emergencies and provide resources for critical services that Californians and communities rely upon. We can’t underscore enough the amount of harm this initiative would cause Californians. We are calling on the California Supreme Court to determine that this far-reaching and disruptive proposal is a constitutional revision.”

Mayors of eight of the largest cities in California filed an amicus brief with the Court asking that the justices take up the matter for immediate review, saying in part, “the Mayors of the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, San José, San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Irvine respectfully urge this Court to grant review in Legislature v. Weber, No. S281977. Petitioners have asked the Court for emergency relief to prevent the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (the “Measure”) from being placed on the November 2024 ballot. Not only does the Measure impermissibly use the voters’ initiative power to revise the California Constitution by making fundamental changes to the structure and foundational powers of government, it also includes a retroactivity provision that poses an immediate threat to vital state and local services that are so important to our cities’ residents.”  The Mayors’ brief is here.

On September 26, 2023 attorneys from Olson Remcho filed an emergency writ with the California Supreme Court on behalf of Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Legislature asking the Court to invalidate a November 2024 ballot initiative restricting taxation.  Plaintiffs emergency petition for writ of mandate is here. 

Olson Remcho attorneys on the writ include Robin Johansen, Richard Rios, Margaret Prinzing, and Inez Kaminski. 

According to Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister): “This ballot initiative is an unlawful effort to revise our state constitution, and is attempting to fundamentally restructure the roles of California’s legislative and executive branches, as well as the role of local governments. The measure seeks to eliminate the state’s ability to swiftly respond to emergencies and provide resources for critical services that Californians and communities rely upon. We can’t underscore enough the amount of harm this initiative would cause Californians. We are calling on the California Supreme Court to determine that this far-reaching and disruptive proposal is a constitutional revision.”

Mayors of eight of the largest cities in California filed an amicus brief with the Court asking that the justices take up the matter for immediate review, saying in part, “the Mayors of the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, San José, San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Irvine respectfully urge this Court to grant review in Legislature v. Weber, No. S281977. Petitioners have asked the Court for emergency relief to prevent the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (the “Measure”) from being placed on the November 2024 ballot. Not only does the Measure impermissibly use the voters’ initiative power to revise the California Constitution by making fundamental changes to the structure and foundational powers of government, it also includes a retroactivity provision that poses an immediate threat to vital state and local services that are so important to our cities’ residents.”  The Mayors’ brief is here.