Other Appellate Practice
  • Lea v. United States, No. 18-1510 (Fed. Cir.).
    We represent the Arkansas State Auditor in an attempt to redeem numerous United States Savings Bonds that were last held by residents of Arkansas and that have matured long ago but have never been redeemed. Arkansas obtained title to these abandoned bonds under a state statute and has attempted to redeem them with the U.S. Treasury Department, but Treasury has refused to redeem them. We challenged Treasury’s refusal to redeem Arkansas’s bonds as a breach of the United States’ duties under the contract and as an unconstitutional taking of private property rights. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims entered partial summary judgment in our favor declaring Arkansas the valid owner of the bonds, but the Federal Circuit reversed.
  • In re U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, Nos. 17-5217, 17-5232 (D.C. Cir.).
    We represent victims of the 2013 and 2014 breaches of OPM’s data network, a catastrophic network security failure that exposed the private information of more than 21 million federal workers. We brought suit against the Government and its contractor on behalf of a putative class of injured federal workers, alleging claims under the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state consumer protection laws, and theories of negligence, breach of contract, and invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. We argued the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and persuaded the Court to reverse the district court’s decision dismissing the case.
  • Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659 (1st Cir. 2018).
    We represent several citizens of Massachusetts in a challenge to the Commonwealth’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public, as well as Boston and Brookline’s local policies implementing them, under the Second Amendment. The First Circuit upheld the challenged laws and policies, but we are currently petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
  • Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Grewal, 910 F.3d 106 (3d Cir. 2018).
    We represented New Jersey citizens challenging their state’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds under the Second Amendment, the Takings Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction over the dissent of Judge Bibas.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • ODonnell v. Goodhart, 900 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018).
    We represented county judges in Harris County, TX, against a challenge to the County’s system for imposing bail for misdemeanor offenses. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, we challenged two iterations of a preliminary injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The first panel vacated the injunction and remanded for a revision, and the second panel stayed the revised injunction pending appeal.
  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d. Cir. 2015).
    We represented several citizens who challenged New York’s ban of certain semi-automatic rifles that possess certain cosmetic and safety-enhancing features under the Second Amendment.
  • National Rifle Association, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (5th Cir. 2013).
    We represented the NRA and residents of the State of Texas in a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law banning licensed sale of handguns or handgun ammunition to law-abiding adults aged 18-20. Following the panel’s decision, we petitioned for rehearing en banc. In an 8-7 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided not to rehear the case, but only over a vigorous dissent that agreed that 18- to 20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment and that the federal sales ban fails any level of heightened scrutiny.
  • 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.
  • Durham v. Carrington, (4th Cir. 2012).
    We represented 39 members of the Duke lacrosse team in connection with the rape hoax scandal. The court of appeals held that Durham’s conduct had not violated the federal constitution but remanded the case for consideration of claims under the North Carolina constitution.
  • Perry v. Brown, (9th Cir. 2012).
    We represented the official proponents of Proposition 8, which restored the traditional definition of marriage in California. The court of appeals held Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court held that the proponents lacked standing to defend the law.
  • Novell v. Microsoft Corporation, (4th Cir. 2011).
    We have 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 successfully represented Novell in two separate appeals before the Fourth Circuit.
  • 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.
  • Citizens Federal v. United States, (Fed. Cir. 2007).
    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. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment.
  • American Capital v. United States, (Fed. Cir. 2006).
    After a three-week trial involving significant expert testimony, we won a multimillion verdict against the United States. The case involved complex damages issues relating to the cost of performance of a contract that the government breached. On appeal, the Federal Circuit awarded $33 million to our client.
  • Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2005).
    We have successfully represented the State of Tennessee in a number of cases challenging the State’s broad-based reform of its Medicaid program. The State is a signatory to several consent decrees that arguably limit its ability to reform its medical programs. In one such case, the district court ruled that the consent decree barred implementation of changes to the eligibility requirements for the State’s Medicaid program. We convinced the Sixth Circuit to reverse two of the lower court’s orders within a span of three months. Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2005); Rosen v. Goetz, 129 Fed. Appx. 167, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6444 (April 12, 2005). In a second case, Grier v. Goetz, No. 79-3107 (M.D. Tenn.), we successfully convinced the district court, following a three-week trial, to substantially modify a consent decree that placed onerous restrictions on the State’s ability to reform its Medicaid program. As a result of these victories, the State has saved hundreds of millions of dollars.
  • Johnson v. Governor of Florida, 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.
  • Rossello-Gonzalez v. Calderon-Serra, 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. Although the district court ruled in favor of the opposition candidate, the First Circuit reversed and ruled in favor of our client who served as the Commonwealth’s governor.
  • Ford Motor Company v. United States, 286 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
    We successfully represented Ford Motor Company in connection with its challenge to the United States Customs Service’s attempt to collect $10 million in import duties. The Federal Circuit held that the trial court’s verdict was clearly erroneous and that Ford was entitled to judgment.
  • Ford Motor Company v. United States, 378 F.3d 1314 (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 seeks to recover the environmental cleanup costs it has incurred in connection with Ford’s performance of the cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract. The Federal Circuit reversed the trial court and ruled in Ford’s favor.
  • Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Thompson, 362 F.3d 817 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
    We successfully represented the State of Michigan in defending a recent initiative whereby it seeks rebates from drug manufacturers in order to control the cost of prescription drugs under its Medicaid and non-Medicaid programs. In June 2002, PhRMA brought suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services in federal court, challenging his decision to approve the State’s initiative and requesting a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of it. We intervened and the district court granted our motion for summary judgment. The D.C. Circuit affirmed.
  • Coors Brewing Company v. Calderon, No. 02-1483 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
    We successfully represented Sila M. Calderon, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, in an action filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. by Coors. Coors’ lawsuit challenged Puerto Rico’s graduated beer tax regime as an alleged violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, We successfully defended the Governor in the district court action. After full briefing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Coors dismissed its appeal.
  • Nevada v. United States Department of Energy, 400 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
    We represented the State of Nevada, Clark County, Nevada, and the City of Las Vegas in several related lawsuits challenging the constitutional and statutory validity of actions of the federal government that seek to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the site for the Nation’s repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These lawsuits raised issues concerning the government’s compliance with the Constitution’s federalism protections and with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Atomic Energy Act, and related statutes and regulations.
  • Coast Federal Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    We represented Coast Federal Savings Bank in a Winstar breach of contract suit against the United States arising from a 1989 Act of Congress that abrogated regulatory capital contracts between the Government and a number of thrifts, including Coast. In a 2-1 decision, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims awarding no damages to Coast. The en banc court subsequently reinstated the judgment of the trial court.
  • Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002).
    We represented the State of Hawaii in connection with its assertion of sovereign immunity, arising from the Eleventh Amendment and related constitutional doctrines, against suits brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In a 2-1 decision, the court of appeals rejected Hawaii’s assertion of sovereign immunity on the basis of a decision reached by another Ninth Circuit panel after oral argument.
  • United States Telecommunications Association v. Federal Communications Commission, Nos. 00-1012, 00-1015, 00-1025, 01-1075, 01-1102 & 01-1103.(D.C. Cir.).
    We represented Covad Communications Company (“Covad”) as an intervenor-defendant seeking to defend the validity of FCC rulings challenged by the nation’s largest local telephone companies and their trade association. We were engaged shortly after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ challenge. The decision raises a number of important questions regarding the FCC’s discretion to issue rules implementing the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  • Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 275 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We represented the SBCA and member companies Echostar Communications Corp. and DirecTV, Inc. in a First Amendment challenge to the must-carry provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, requiring satellite television carriers to carry all television stations in a local market if they choose to carry one station in that market. The Court of Appeals rejected the challenge and upheld the law.
  • Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 110 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 963 (1997).
    We represented the intervenor Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, Inc., in a case involving the constitutionality of Proposition 209 which prohibited the State of California from utilizing racial and gender preferences in education, employment and contracting. The court of appeals vacated the preliminary injunction entered by the district court and held that Proposition 209 was constitutional.
  • Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 260 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001).
    We successfully represented the former Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and three of his deputies in a lawsuit brought by a Mexican citizen who had previously been prosecuted for the 1985 murder of DEA Agent Enrique Camarena. The plaintiff, Mr. Machain, alleged that his 1990 abduction from Mexico and arrest in the United States had violated international law because it occurred without the consent of Mexico. On appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the Firm successfully argued that the individual defendants were immune from the claim that they had violated international law.
  • People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 2001).
    We represented the Rockford, Illinois Board of Education in this school desegregation case. We had asked the district court to declare the school district unitary, vacate the desegregation decree, and dismiss the case. The trial court held that the school district was not unitary, and ruled that the busing order must remain in place at least until 2006. The court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions that the district court grant all of the relief sought by our client.
  • A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
    We served as co-counsel to the Recording Industry Association of America in its copyright infringement suit against Napster. The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction based on our clients’ claims of vicarious and contributory copyright infringement.
  • Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2000).
    We represented a group of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Sears, challenging Sears’ bankruptcy collection procedures as contrary to numerous federal laws. Upon remand, the case settled.
  • Eli Lilly and Company v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    We represented Eli Lilly in its effort to retain its patent on the drug Prozac, one of the largest-selling drugs in the nation. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that patent invalid. We were retained to assist in seeking rehearing before the full en banc court and to prepare a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.
  • New York Life Insurance Company v. United States, 190 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    We represented New York Life Insurance Company in its challenge to the Health Care Finance Administration’s application of the Medicare as Secondary Payer Statute to require New York Life to provide primary health care coverage for $15 million in claims of its independent agents that New York Life contends should have been paid by Medicare. The court of appeals vacated the Court of Federal Claims ruling in favor of the agency’s interpretation, and held that the statute did not apply to independent contractors during the relevant period.
  • Sheet Metal Contractors Association of Northern New Jersey v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, 157 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1998).
    We represented the International Association of Sheet Metal Workers in connection with its efforts to reaffiliate with a local union. The court of appeals held that the district court had no authority to prevent the reaffiliation in the absence of any evidence of a racially-discriminatory motive.
  • Air Canada v. Department of Transportation, 148 F.3d 1142 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
    We assisted in representing American Airlines in connection with its defense of a Department of Transportation regulation that allocated the cost of building American’s new terminal at Miami International Airport among all of the carriers operating. The court of appeals held that this method of funding the new construction was reasonable.
  • Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999).
    We prepared an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Southeastern Legal Foundation arguing that the First Amendment does not preclude the imposition of tort liability and punitive damages for conduct by the media in violation of generally applicable laws.
  • Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education of Delaware, 90 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996).
    On behalf of the Delaware House of Representatives Committee on Desegregation, we successfully urged the district court to declare the four school districts in the Wilmington, Delaware metropolitan area unitary, dissolve a busing order that had been in place since 1978, and finally dismiss a school desegregation case originally brought in 1956. On appeal, we successfully argued that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed in its entirety.
  • Hook v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 865 (1997).
    We represented the State of Arizona and various state officials in their appeal of the district court’s decision striking down an Arizona statute which prohibited use of state funds for payment of special masters in prison reform litigation.
  • United Technologies Corporation v. Federal Aviation Administration, 102 F.3d 688 (2d Cir. 1996).
    We represented United Technology’s Pratt & Whitney division in appealing the district court’s decision to uphold the FAA’s determination to withhold records requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638, 81 F.3d 1162 (2d Cir. 1996).
    We represented Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers International in an appeal from a finding of contempt resulting from the union’s failure to meet a court-ordered minority membership goal and its failure to ensure a racially proportional distribution of hours worked among its members. We successfully argued that the district court’s substantial back pay award should be vacated.
  • Smith v. Virginia Commonwealth University, 84 F.3d 672 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
    On appeal before the en banc Fourth Circuit, we represented five male professors who charged Virginia Commonwealth University with engaging in impermissible gender discrimination in its salary structure. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant university.
  • Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 51 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    We represented Delta Airlines in contesting a decision by the Department of Transportation to award two international airline routes to American Airlines.
  • Transcapital Financial Corporation v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 44 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
    We successfully represented Transcapital Financial Corporation and American Capital Corporation in an appeal of a decision regarding jurisdiction of the district court over takings claims after our clients’ wholly-owned thrift subsidiary was placed in receivership.
  • Dowell by Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, 8 F.3d 1501 (10th Cir. 1993).
    We represented the Oklahoma City Board of Education in proceedings following remand from the United States Supreme Court in this school desegregation case that originally was filed over forty years ago. The district court granted our motion for summary judgment, declared the school district unitary, terminated court supervision over the Oklahoma City public schools, and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit accepted our argument that the Oklahoma City schools had satisfied the standard established by the Supreme Court and affirmed the trial court’s decision to end the case.
  • Transohio Savings Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
    We represented Transohio Savings Bank and other appellants in a suit seeking to prevent the Office of Thrift Supervision from calculating Transohio Savings Bank’s regulatory capital in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ rights under a contract executed with federal regulators when Transohio acquired two failed savings and loans.
  • Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. v. Legal Services Corporation, 940 F.2d 685 (D.C. Cir. 1991), opinion on remand, 783 F. Supp. 1426 (D.D.C. 1992).
    We successfully represented the Legal Services Corporation (“LSC”) against a statutory and constitutional challenge to a LSC regulation limiting the involvement of LSC grantees in specified political redistricting activities.
    Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page