|
Kannon Shanmugam is a partner focusing on Supreme Court and appellate litigation.
Mr. Shanmugam has argued 11 cases before the Supreme Court—more than any other lawyer in the firm’s history except its legendary founder, Edward Bennett Williams. In a recent profile, The National Law Journal praised Mr. Shanmugam for his “confident manner and elegant elocution” before the Court. The Legal 500 described him as “very capable and very quick on his feet in front of the justices” and “the total package: very smart, very personable, and very intuitive.”
Most recently, Mr. Shanmugam successfully represented a Louisiana death-row inmate in Smith v. Cain, arguing that the New Orleans district attorney’s office had violated the inmate’s right to due process by failing to disclose favorable statements made by the key eyewitness before trial. Although the Louisiana state courts had summarily rejected the inmate’s claim, the Supreme Court ruled by an 8-1 vote that the district attorney’s office had engaged in misconduct. A veteran Supreme Court reporter described Mr. Shanmugam’s argument as “disciplined, legally and factually,” and praised him as a “talented advocate with a good command of even the finest detail of the evidence.”
Mr. Shanmugam has handled significant matters before the Supreme Court in a number of areas, including securities, antitrust, and criminal litigation. Among those matters, he argued Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, which concerned the statute of limitations for private securities-fraud actions. While representing the United States, he successfully argued Tellabs v. Makor Rights, which involved the standard for pleading state of mind in securities-fraud actions, and Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons, which concerned the standard for claims of predatory bidding under the federal antitrust laws.
Mr. Shanmugam has also argued numerous cases in federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts across the country. In listing him as a notable practitioner in the area of appellate litigation, Chambers USA stated that he “is recommended by clients for his fresh perspective and energetic approach” and that “peers report there’s an elegance to his arguments and poise and sophistication in his presentation that is extremely impressive.” Mr. Shanmugam recently persuaded the Eleventh Circuit to order the dismissal of claims against former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada under the Alien Tort Statute. He also represented a former AIG executive in his successful appeal to the Second Circuit from his conviction for securities fraud arising out of a reinsurance transaction.
Mr. Shanmugam joined Williams & Connolly in 2008 after serving as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice. He was the first lawyer to join the firm directly as a partner for 22 years. The son of Indian immigrants, Mr. Shanmugam was born and raised in Lawrence, Kansas, and went to Harvard at age 16. He received an A.B. summa cum laude in classics from Harvard; an M. Litt. in classics from the University of Oxford, where he was a Marshall Scholar; and a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was executive editor of the law review and argued for the winning side in the moot-court competition. After graduation, he served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court and Judge J. Michael Luttig on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Before joining the Office of the Solicitor General, he worked as an associate at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis.
Lawdragon magazine recently named Mr. Shanmugam one of the 500 leading lawyers in America, and Washingtonian selected him as one of the top lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court. The Associated Press featured him in a story on “The Supreme Court of Tomorrow.” In addition, The National Law Journal listed Mr. Shanmugam as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40 in Washington and one of the top 40 minority lawyers under 40 in the country. Washingtonian also listed him as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40 in Washington and as one of 20 people in Washington to watch. In 2006, The Topeka Capital-Journal named him one of its “Distinguished Kansans of the Year” for his work at the Justice Department.
Mr. Shanmugam has spoken extensively on the Supreme Court and legal issues. He is a member of the executive committee of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers and is director of Supreme Court programming for the ABA’s Appellate Practice Committee. He is currently program chair of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court in Washington. He also serves on the boards of trustees of the Supreme Court Historical Society and the Association of Marshall Scholars and has previously served on the board of the American Inns of Court. He is a member of the firm’s pro bono committee and previously worked as a volunteer teacher at Anacostia High School in Southeast Washington.
Cases argued by Kannon Shanmugam in the Supreme Court (click on the case name to listen to the oral argument):
Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145 (Jan. 10, 2012)
Whether the prosecution violated the defendant’s right to due process by failing to disclose favorable statements made by several eyewitnesses before trial.
What a plaintiff must know in order to trigger the running of the statute of limitations for federal securities-fraud claims.
Whether a state court validly enjoined the State of Hawaii from selling public lands held in trust for Native Hawaiians.
Whether a change precipitated by a state-court decision must be precleared under the Voting Rights Act.
Whether, in determining whether a prior offense qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, a court should take into account the fact that the defendant was subject to a higher sentence as a repeat offender.
Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act permits a federal prisoner to sue for damages for lost personal property.
What a plaintiff must plead in a federal securities-fraud action in order to satisfy the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s requirement of a “strong inference” of the necessary state of mind.
What a plaintiff must prove in order to establish a claim of predatory bidding under the federal antitrust laws.
Whether a constitutional challenge to a method of execution must be brought in a petition for habeas corpus.
Whether a defendant who has been convicted of capital murder has a constitutional right to present alibi evidence at sentencing.
Whether officers conducting a search of a house may detain an occupant of the house in handcuffs and question her about her immigration status.
|
Print PDF
