No details yet, just this from the ACLU's LGBT Twitter feed:
BREAKING: King & Spaulding [sic] - firm hired by House to defend #DOMA against ACLU/Edie Windsor lawsuit - withdraws! More soon… #LGBT #SSM
It isn't clear whether this means they won't participate at all in Speaker Boehner's defense project, or if they're only withdrawing from one of the several cases that are currently pending relative to DOMA and its constitutionality.
Updated by musing85 at Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 10:09 AM CDT
Via cooper888, Politico reports that K&S has withdrawn from participating at all in the DOMA defense:
King and Spalding Chairman Robert D. Hays, Jr., whose partner Paul Clement was to lead the defense, said in a statement through a spokesman, Les Zuke:
Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.
Wonder what this will mean for Speaker Spray-Tan's attempt to resuscitate this moribund horse, since we're after the filing deadline?
Updated by musing85 at Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 10:15 AM CDT
Via Philpm, Think Progress weighs in.
Updated by musing85 at Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 10:39 AM CDT
Via Adam B and Politico again, Paul Clement has resigned from King & Spalding after the firm refused to participate in defending DOMA. He will continue to represent the BLAG in the DOMA case, but as a member of Bancroft PLLC, a small Washington-based firm that is home to former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh.
Via Towleroad, Clement's resignation letter is available on Scribd. The essential paragraphs are here, corrected from the version originally posted by Politico, which contained numerous typographical errors:
To be clear, I take this step not because of strongly held views about this statute. My thoughts about the merits of DOMA are as irrelevant as my views about the dozens of federal statutes that I defended as Solicitor General.
Instead, I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. Much has been said about being on the wrong side of history. But being on the right or wrong side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.
I would have never undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.
Updated by musing85 at Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM CDT
According to a story in The Advocate (predictable, really), NOM's president is whining that King & Spalding's decision to withdraw from the case was the result of teh ebil gays "harassing and punishing and intimidating to stop a debate."
Updated by musing85 at Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 11:27 AM CDT
Per DrSpalding in the comments, updated to fix misspelling of the law firm's name. I'm leaving it in the ACLU tweet, however, as that's the way they sent it out.
Updated by musing85 at Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 12:27 PM CDT
From Joan McCarter's front-page story, Speaker Spray-Tan's flack has finally emerged from his burrow to squawk:
The Speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter. At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House. This move will ensure the constitutionality of this law is appropriately determined by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.
Speaking of callous disregard for one's responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Update 7: Corrected transcript of Clement's resignation letter.