Back in 2011, I noted here that Judge Bryson argued many times at the Supreme Court, before he was appointed to the Federal Circuit. I believe that his first argument in front of the Supreme Court was PC Pfeiffer Co. v. Ford, 444 U.S. 69, 100 S. Ct. 328, 62 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1979). You can listen to his argument here:
One thing that I thought was interesting about the argument was the questioning by the Justices as to whether the “Director”* and the “Board”** were separate entities for appellate review. Here is part of the transcript relating to that exchange with then-attorney Bryson:
William H. Rehnquist:
Mr. Bryson, are those two separate entities or one entity for purposes of appellate review, the Director and the Board?
William C. Bryson:
For the purpose — well, they are clearly two different entities. The Director is the delegee of the Secretary of Labor who is charged with administering the Act and appears as a party seeking to in this case support the Board’s order.
Now, perhaps I didn’t understand your question–
William H. Rehnquist:
Where is the Director authorized to be a party in these proceedings? As I read Section 921 (c), application can be had at the Court of Appeals to set aside an award of the Benefits Review Board and copies are to be served on the Board and other parties. I can certainly see why the Board would be a party. Why is the Director a party?
William C. Bryson:
Well, the Director is designated to defend the Board’s orders and I do not know —
William H. Rehnquist:
By whom?
William C. Bryson:
I believe in the statute, there is a provision which provides —
William H. Rehnquist:
In the statute?
William C. Bryson:
In the statute there’s a provision which provides that the Secretary of Labor shall assign attorneys to administer the Act and to — I believe it says to defend the Board’s orders as well.
Now the —
William H. Rehnquist:
Why wouldn’t the Board nonetheless be the party, albeit defended by attorneys assigned by the —
William C. Bryson:
Well, there have been some cases in which the Board has been named as a party. Some of the cases — it’s come to be the fashion to characterize the Director as the party, but it could well be the Board as in the National Labor Relations Act cases.
William H. Rehnquist:
And you feel that’s immaterial?
William C. Bryson:
Here, because what happened here although there is some dispute as to whether the Board has the power — excuse me, the Director has the power — to seek review of a Board order which is contrary to the Director’s position — in this case, it was the Director’s position and the private party’s position that was sustained in the Court of Appeals and sustained in the Board, so that the Director’s standing is —
William H. Rehnquist:
There was no internal inconsistency?
William C. Bryson:
That’s right, no, not here. There have been cases in which there is internal inconsistency, but not here. In fact, the Board and the Director from the beginning have taken the same position with respect to the definition of the terms longshoring operation and maritime employment ….
You can listen to that excerpt here:
*Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs of the United States Department of Labor (the Director)
**Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor (the Board)