Former Solicitor General Neal Katyal didn’t disclose his conflicts when he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times.
Minutes after Donald Trump nominated Neil M. Gorsuch to the the next Supreme Court Justice, a surprising headline appeared in the New York Times: “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch.”
The article was written by Neal Katyal, who served as a solicitor general in the Obama administration. He wrote that liberals should support Gorsuch because he “brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job” and has a good “temperament.”
While Katyal mentioned in the essay his work for the Obama administration, he failed to disclose his current line of work: representing large corporate interests in front of the Supreme Court. Katyal has at least two cases pending before the Supreme Court that would likely benefit from the confirmation of Gorsuch, whose rulings have consistently favored corporations over individuals.
Katyal represents Bristol-Myers Squibb in the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court. On January 19, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (a decision known as granting cert). In the underlying case, the plaintiffs suffered severe side effects from the drug Plavix, which is intended to prevent blood clots. Katyal is representing Bristol-Myers Squibb in their efforts to limit the plaintiffs’ ability to sue in California and limit the company’s liability.