In the Supreme Court of the United States: Lisa Madigan, et al., Petitioners, v. Harvey N. Levin, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -- Brief for Respondent

N.p.: Counsel Press, n.y.. Paperback. Small 4to. Stiff red wrappers. xii, 54pp. Near fine. Rear wrappers and last leaf (only) mildly warped. Bright, tight copy of this legal pamphlet (No. 12-872), part of an age discrimination suit filed by an Illinois state's attorney who argued he was dismissed because of his age (61) to make room for a younger, female attorney. Remarked one commentator, "He won a major victory in the Seventh Circuit Court, allowing him to go forward with a claim that his constitutional right not to be discriminated against because of his age had been violated. The state took the case on to the Supreme Court, claiming that his right to sue under the Fourteenth Amendment had been displaced by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.... The problem, in brief, was that the Seventh Circuit decided the case before it was due to go to trial, and the professors had questioned its authority to do that. If that was right, Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Anthony M. Kennedy commented, why did the Supreme Court have any business stepping in?" The Illinois Solicitor General got spanked by the justices during his questioning. Then "Levin's lawyer, Edward R. Theobald III, took to the podium. His appearance began on an unfortunate note, as Justice Alito tried unsuccessfully to get him to take a firm position on whether or not Levin was an employee under the ADEA. For reasons that were not clear, Theobald contented himself with simply reciting what the Seventh Circuit had said in ruling for his client." It goes on: "Chief Justice Roberts promptly took on Theobald, saying that he had gotten what he had sought from the court of appeals, and now was trying to insulate that result from any review. The Chief Justice was referring mainly to Theobald's merits brief, in which he had put heavy emphasis on whether the ADEA issue was involved at all in the case, since Levin, he said, got no protection under that law. The argument, it was clear, was getting far out of Theobald's opportunity to control it in his client's favor. Finally, Justice Scalia had had enough. He noted that many of Theobald's arguments had not been made in his brief opposing the Court's review. 'We don't like to dismiss a case as improvidently granted,' the Justice said impatiently. 'We depend upon counsel' to make arguments in a way that puts them before the Court. 'You should have told us' earlier, Scalia said." This pamphlet is the aforementioned brief opposing the Court's review -- and the front wrapper is inscribed and signed large and bold by Levin's attorney: "To [ -- ], / My Good Friend, / Ed Theobald / 10-8-15." These briefs are produced in small quantities for distrbution to those parties involved and are therefore rather scarce. This unusual item is accompanied by five large glossy Christmas cards, each imprinted with Theobald's full name and each signed on inside panel with a holiday greeting. For good measure, also included is a copy of Lyle Denniston's 2013 legal analysis of Levin v. Madigan, "Argument recap: A bad way to open a Term," which includes a court artist's rendering showing Theobald presenting the case before Ruth Bader Ginsburg.