Peter Bruland particularly enjoys zeroing in on the most persuasive way to frame an argument. As a senior managing associate in Sidley’s Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice, Bruland has written dozens of briefs, grappling with the challenges and rewards of working through the most complex legal matters. He even jokes, “You can write a 50-page brief about two words in a statute — I’m only kind of exaggerating there.”
Bruland, who is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, will take his legal skills to the highest level this spring when he becomes the first Sidley associate ever to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States. “Not many firms give their associates that opportunity. Sidley is special,” Bruland shared.
Over and above his usual caseload of Supreme Court matters, appellate briefing, and strategic advising at the trial and agency level, Bruland is also an active participant in Sidley’s pro bono practice, dedicating well over 700 hours to pro bono appellate matters in 2024. “Sidley has put a lot of time and resources into pro bono endeavors. I think the saying ‘it takes a village’ is true here — I’ve had a village working with me on this case.”
He and a team of lawyers from the firm’s Washington, D.C. and Miami offices recently filed their opening brief, which Bruland describes as “trying to solve a procedural puzzle. It’s exciting to jump in and try and find the right answer.”
That SCOTUS agreed to hear the pro bono case, Rivers v. Lumpkin, is a testament to Bruland’s advocacy. At issue is a Fifth Circuit ruling that would prohibit Sidley’s client Danny Richard Rivers, a Texas state prisoner, from proceeding with a federal challenge to his state conviction — effectively forcing him to start from scratch with a second or successive habeas petition. Historically, courts have differed over when an initial petition ends and a second petition begins.
For Bruland, nothing about the case is open-and-shut. “It’s by no means an easy question, and ten courts of appeals have splintered four ways over this issue. But when Congress amended the habeas statute in 1996, they were focused on efficiency and avoiding piecemeal litigation. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling would frustrate both aims.”
Notably, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rivers neglects to cite a prior SCOTUS decision that Bruland described as the “most recent, most important Supreme Court opinion in this area.” In Banister v. Davis, another Fifth Circuit case, SCOTUS held that prisoners are entitled to ask the district court to reconsider a recently issued decision rather than having to file a second or successive petition.
“Banister focused on the first few days after the district court enters final judgment. We’re talking about the next time window: what happens when you discover new evidence after the district court has entered final judgment, but before the appellate court has weighed in?”
Rivers is currently serving a 38-year sentence for allegations leveled against him in the midst of a bitter divorce. In 2014, he began to represent himself pro se and filed a Texas post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He also spent years trying to get his trial lawyers’ records. When Rivers finally received them, he discovered a Texas state investigator’s report suggesting that he was wrongly convicted — evidence that his lawyers had apparently overlooked.
The day the Fifth Circuit issued its ruling in Rivers, Bruland reached out to the client: “He was very concerned because he had just lost, and he didn’t want to have to seek Supreme Court review while simultaneously continuing to fight in the lower courts.” Sidley was not the only firm to contact Rivers, Bruland said, but “he went with us because he could tell that we cared about him.”
In May 2024, Bruland visited Rivers at the Texas state prison. “It’s important to have a personal connection with the client. It helped me to meet him and hear his story. He’s spent years fighting to prove his innocence, and I admire his efforts to try and figure out the procedural rules along the way.”
Thinking back to cases that helped him hone his experience, Bruland recalled leading the cert-stage and merits briefing in a pro bono Supreme Court case involving the Armed Career Criminal Act. Although they lost, Bruland was proud of Sidley’s work and its long-standing partnership with the Carter G. Phillips Center for Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, which pairs Sidley lawyers and law students to work on pro bono SCOTUS cases.
Bruland cites several Sidley mentors as inspirations, including partners Carter Phillips, Kwaku Akowuah, and Eric McArthur, senior counsel Virginia Seitz, and retired Sidley partner Peter Keisler. A dedicated SCOTUS enthusiast, Bruland admits he even listens to oral argument recordings while relieving stress at the gym: “You stay in shape, and you keep up with what’s happening at the Court.”
While Bruland describes winning federal habeas relief as “a bit like Mission Impossible,” he is nevertheless confident in the Sidley team and their dedication to providing the highest-quality pro bono representation.
“One of my favorite Texans was Lyndon Johnson,” Bruland said, reflecting on the state where Rivers’ case began. “Johnson would always say, ‘If you do everything, you’ll win.’ Of course that’s never guaranteed — but it’s still a good mindset when you’re writing a brief or preparing for oral argument. That’s the approach we’ve taken here, and it’s what got us to the Supreme Court.”
