TRIAL AND APPELLATE VICTORIES

We have won significant trial and appellate victories for our clients in a wide range of cases. Our successful representations include the following:

  • In re Kemp, 894 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018).
    We represented an Arkansas Supreme Court justice who, along with her colleagues, was sued by a state trial judge for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights by permanently forbidding him from presiding over death penalty cases. The District Court denied our motion to dismiss, and we successfully obtained a writ of mandamus from the Eighth Circuit ordering the dismissal of the case.
  • Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, et al. v. Michael Ertel, in his official capacity as Florida Secretary of State, et al., No. 18-526 (N.D. Fla.).
    On behalf of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Florida Senator Rick Scott, we successfully defended challenges to several Florida election regulations that create standards for election canvassing boards to attempt to determine voter intent when the voter has not properly filled out their ballot. As a result of these victories, the Florida’s Elections Canvassing Commission certified Senator Scott as the winner of the state’s 2018 Senate race.
  • Reyes v. Sessions, 342 F. Supp. 3d 141 (D.D.C. 2018).
    Our client had previously been convicted of white-collar offenses, and we argued that he fell into a statutory exemption from federal laws that forbid felons from possessing firearms. The District Court agreed with our argument, and the Government chose not to appeal.
  • Susquehanna Int’l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
    We represented petitioners challenging the SEC’s approval of the Options Clearing Corporation’s capitalization plan pursuant to the APA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the SEC abused its discretion, and on remand, the SEC vacated its order and disapproved the rule.
  • Grace v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
    We represented a resident of the District of Columbia and the Pink Pistols, an LGBT firearm rights group, in a Second Amendment challenge to the District of Columbia’s firearm carriage laws. We successfully urged the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction against the District’s carriage laws. On appeal, we convinced the D.C. Circuit to affirm the lower court’s ruling and convert its order into a permanent injunction striking down the District’s law.
  • Shell Oil Company, et al. v. United States, No. 2017-1695 (Fed. Cir.)
    We represented Shell, Unocal, Atlantic Richfield Co., and Chevron-Texaco in a major contract dispute with the United States government. Our clients sought compensation for environmental remediation costs that they have incurred as a result of their performance of World War II contracts for the federal government. In 2017, the Court of Federal Claims awarded our clients $99.5 million in damages, and in July 2018, the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed.
  • Berger v. HHS, No. 17-0025 (E.D.N.C.).
    We represented members of the North Carolina state legislature and successfully obtained a TRO preventing expansion of the state’s Medicaid program. It was estimated that the expansion would have cost North Carolina hundreds of millions of dollars, and following the TRO expansion efforts were abandoned.
  • Howell v. McAuliffe, 788 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2016).
    We successfully represented six voters, including the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Majority Leader of the Virginia Senate, in a challenge to the Governor of Virginia’s en masse restoration of certain civil rights, including the right to vote. After expedited briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed with us that the text and history of Virginia’s clemency power prohibited the Governor from restoring civil rights en masse.
  • Shank v. Health Care Services, Inc., 16-2992 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
    We represented a class of individuals afflicted with Hepatitis C whose healthcare insurer denied them access to a miracle cure for their disease. We obtained a settlement seeking to facilitate the ability of every member of the class to access this cure.
  • Illinois Ass’n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, 961 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
    We represented residents of Chicago and an association of firearms retailers in their challenge to that city’s ban on sales and transfers of firearms. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to our clients, holding that the law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
  • TennCare Litigation
    In a series of a lengthy trials and appeals in several different cases, we successfully represented Tennessee’s efforts to reform its Medicaid system. As a result of these victories, the state has saved billions of dollars.
  • Shepard v. Madigan, (7th Cir. 2012).
    We represented a resident of Illinois in her challenge to that state’s ban on the carriage of a firearm outside the home. The Seventh Circuit held that the law was unconstitutional.
  • Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. United States, No. 09-1298 (U.S. 2011).
    We represented Boeing in a dispute with the Department of Defense over the government’s default termination of a $4.8 billion contract to build a carrier-based stealth attack plane for the Navy. We successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to throw out a ruling sustaining the default termination that could have forced Boeing and General Dynamics to pay nearly $3 billion to the Government.
  • Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1482 (4th Cir. 2011).
    We represented Novell in a multi-billion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Novell alleges that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive behavior which prevented its WordPerfect and Quattro Pro software from being compatible with Windows 95 and thus inflicted billions of dollars of harm on Novell. We appealed the district court’s dismissal of the suit, and the Fourth Circuit reversed.
  • Boeing v. United States
    Assisting co-counsel, we successfully challenged the Department of Defense’s award of a contract to replace the United States’ aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers to a competing bidder. On rebid, Boeing won the contract which was worth tens of billions of dollars to our client.
  • Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, (10th Cir. 2009).
    We represented the State of Oklahoma in a successful defense of the constitutionality of Oklahoma laws holding employers criminally liable for prohibiting employees from storing firearms in locked vehicles on company property.
  • 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co., (6th Cir. 2008).
    We successfully represented a commercial property owner in a landmark case involving the enforcement of gold clauses in long-term commercial leases. Gold clauses were a common feature of early twentieth century contacts and allowed landlords to index rental payments to the value of gold. We convinced the Sixth Circuit that transfer of a lessee’s interest constituted a novation and revived gold clauses from the original lease contract. After a favorable ruling from the Sixth Circuit, the case settled.
  • Johnson v. Bush, 405 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005).
    We represented Governor Jeb Bush and the other members of Florida’s clemency board in their defense of Florida’s felon disenfranchisement laws against a class action filed on behalf of 400,000 convicted felons. The plaintiffs brought suit under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc ordered the dismissal of the suit.
  • American Capital v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 315 (2005).
    After a three-week trial involving significant expert testimony, we won a $109 million verdict against the United States. The case involved complex damages issues relating to the cost of performance of a contract that the government breached.
  • Citizens Federal v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 179 (2005).
    After a two-week trial involving significant expert testimony, we won an $18 million verdict against the United States. The case involved quantification of mitigation costs resulting from the government’s breach of contract.
  • Rossello, et al. v. Calderon, et al., 398 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004).
    We successfully represented the Governor-Elect of Puerto Rico in a recount dispute in connection with the 2004 elections. The opposing candidate for governor challenged the validity of several thousand ballots. After a three-week trial and appeal, our client prevailed and served as the Commonwealth’s governor.
  • Ford Motor Company v. United States, (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    We successfully represented Ford Motor Company in a breach of contract suit against the United States arising from a World War II contract for the manufacture of B-24 Liberation Bombers. Ford sought to recover the environmental cleanup costs it has incurred in connection with Ford’s performance of the cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract. After a favorable ruling from the Federal Circuit, the case settled.
  • Rockford Board of Education v. People Who Care, 246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 2001).
    We represented the Rockford, Illinois Board of Education in this school desegregation case. After a lengthy and trial appeal, the court of appeals awarded all the relief sought by our client.
  • AmBase. v. United States
    We represented AmBase Corporation in a claim against the United States. The case arose out a governmental breach of contract that caused AmBase to lose its entire property interest in its wholly-owned subsidiary, Carteret Bancorp. After a two-month trial, the Court of Federal Claims awarded $205 million, and the case subsequently settled for $180 million.
  • United States ex rel. Thompson v. Columbia Healthcare, Inc., et al
    We represented a relator and who secured a settlement of $225 million from Columbia HCA for falsely seeking and obtaining Medicare reimbursements. Of the total settlement, our client received $47 million.
  • City of New York v. Clinton, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
    We represented New York City and several health care providers and associations in their challenge to the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. The Supreme Court held that the Act violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution and reinstated the appropriation that was worth approximately $2.1 billion.
  • Statesman v. United States, (Fed. Cl. 1998).
    This case culminated in a five-week trial arising from the government’s breach of contract. We sought lost profits that would have been generated by our client, absent the breach. At the conclusion of trial, the case settled on very favorable terms.
  • United States v. Winstar Corporation, 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
    We represented the Winstar Corporation and the Statesman Savings Holding Corporation in claims against the United States for breach of its contractual obligations to our clients arising out of their acquisition of failed savings and loan institutions from government regulators. We represented these clients in the Court of Federal Claims (where the United States was found liable), in the Federal Circuit (affirming the findings of liability after rehearing the case en banc), and in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of liability and remanded the cases for determination of damages by the lower court.
  • Federal Election Commission v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88 (1994).
    We represented the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund in an action brought by the FEC alleging violation of campaign contribution regulations. The court of appeals agreed with our position that the composition of the FEC violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal after argument, agreeing with our argument that the FEC did not have independent litigating authority to challenge the decision of the court of appeals.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page