State Representation

We have a long history of representing state governments in cases that affect their vital financial, political, and environmental interests. These engagements have included:

  • Health Care
    We successfully represented Tennessee in its efforts to modify and vacate a variety of consent decrees so that it could reform its state-sponsored health care program. Our victories allowed the state to implement reforms that have generated billions of dollars of savings. Previously, we successfully represent Michigan and Florida in their efforts to reform their Medicaid programs, and we successfully represented North Carolina state legislators by obtaining a TRO to halt the expansion of Medicaid in their state.
  • Government Contracts
    We represent the Arkansas State Auditor in Lea v. United States, No. 18-1510 (Fed. Cir.), 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, and the case is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit.
  • Commercial Disputes
    We represented the State of Alabama in a suit against Exxon for defrauding the state out of royalties on natural gas owned by the State. The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling resulted in the state receiving more than $100 million.
  • Consumer Protection
    We are assisting the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in its investigation of potential Arizona Consumer Fraud Act violations arising from recently disclosed actions relating to an entity’s storage of consumer location data, tracking of consumer location, and other consumer tracking through smartphone operating systems.
  • Dormant Commerce Clause
    We successfully represented Puerto Rico’s defense of a beer excise tax that was challenged under the Dormant Commerce Clause by Coors.
  • Educational Reform
    We successfully represented Delaware in its effort to end federal judicial supervision of its school system. We have also successfully represented several local school boards in similar efforts.
  • Environmental and Energy
    We represented the State of Nevada 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.
  • Prison Reform
    We successfully represented Arizona in its effort to end federal judicial supervision of its juvenile detention facilities.
  • Sovereign Immunity
    We have represented states in a wide range of cases implicating important federalism concerns under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. For example, we defended Hawaii against a series of suits brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
  • Voting Rights
    We successfully represented the Speaker of the House of Virginia in challenging a mass clemency order by the governor to enfranchise all ex-felons. The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled the order unconstitutional. We also represented Florida in a suit challenging its prohibition on felon disenfranchisement. The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the law against challenges under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act. We also filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 States urging the en banc Second Circuit to uphold New York’s prohibition on voting by currently incarcerated felons. We currently represent members of the North Carolina General Assembly defending North Carolina’s voter-identification law against challenges under state and federal law.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page