Overview 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.

Overview We successfully represented six plaintiffs, 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 voting rights to convicted fellons. The principal issue in this litigation was the scope of the Governor’s clemency power. After expedited briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed with us that the text and history of Virginia Constitution’s prohibited the Governor from restoring voting rights en masse.

Overview 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.

Overview We represented the State of Oklahoma in its successful defense of the constitutionality of Oklahoma laws holding employers criminally liable for prohibiting employees from storing firearms in locked vehicles on company property.

Overview We represented the State of Alabama in connection with its suit against Exxon Mobil for fraud in connection with the extraction of natural gas from Mobile Bay. Exxon was obligated to make royalty payments on the “gross proceeds” of all gas produced under the leases, but instead concealed its practice of paying royalties solely on the net proceeds of a portion of the gas produced. We secured a judgment of more than $100 million against Exxon for breach of contract.

Overview 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.

Overview 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.

Overview We represented 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. 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.

Overview We successfully represented the State of Michigan in defending an initiative whereby it seeks rebates from drug manufacturers in order to control the cost of prescription drugs under its Medicaid and non-Medicaid programs. 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.

Overview 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.