Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation

Williams & Connolly has been widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading firms for Supreme Court and appellate litigation. In the most recent editions of their guides to law firms, Vault ranked the firm second in the nation for appellate litigation, and Chambers USA cited the firm for having one of the top appellate practices in the country. In addition, The National Law Journal has repeatedly selected the firm for its “Appellate Hot List,” a list of law firms with significant achievements in the area of appellate litigation.

Williams & Connolly’s track record in the Supreme Court is excellent. We are lead counsel in two cases scheduled to be heard during the 2022 Term: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith and Bartenwerfer v. Buckley.  We were lead counsel in five merits cases during the 2021 Term, two of which resolved prior to argument.  Of the three cases the firm argued, we prevailed in two: Egbert v. Boule and Concepcion v. United States. During the 2020 Term, we prevailed on the merits in Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board and Carr v. Saul, and were lead counsel in two additional cases: Sanchez v. Mayorkas and Mahanoy Area School District v. B.LMahanoy represented one of the most important First Amendment cases in recent years. Although the Court affirmed the Third Circuit’s judgment that a Pennsylvania public school district violated a cheerleader’s First Amendment rights by disciplining her for off-campus social media posts, the Court agreed with our client’s position that schools have authority to discipline students for off-campus speech in a wide variety of situations. In the 2019 Term, Williams & Connolly was counsel on five successful certiorari petitions and was lead counsel in three merits cases argued in the Court: Atlantic Richfield Co. v. ChristianRomag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v., Inc. The firm prevailed in all three.

Williams & Connolly lawyers regularly represent clients before the Supreme Court of the United States. Lisa Blatt, who leads the Firm’s appellate and Supreme Court practice, served for 13 years in the Solicitor General’s Office. Lisa has argued 44 cases before the United States Supreme Court, prevailing in 37, more than any other woman in U.S. history. The National Law Journal has called her a “visionary” and one of “the 100 most influential lawyers in America.” Bloomberg has described her as a “legendary high court litigator,” while The National Journal likewise has referred to her as a “SCOTUS legend.” In 2021, The American Lawyer named Lisa “Litigator of the Year.” The 2020 and 2021 Terms also saw the Supreme Court debuts of partners Amy Saharia, Sarah Harris, and Luke McCloud.

Williams & Connolly lawyers also regularly appear in federal and state appellate courts across the nation. Our appellate experience spans all areas of our litigation practice, with notable victories in the areas of antitrust, criminal, environmental, intellectual property, product liability, and securities law. 

Currently, the firm’s ranks include 20 former Supreme Court clerks and approximately 190 former clerks from all 13 federal courts of appeals. The American Lawyer has described Williams & Connolly as a “feeder firm” for Supreme Court clerkships; in the last ten years, more than 40 of the firm’s former associates or summer associates have clerked at the Court.

Pro Bono

Williams & Connolly has an active pro bono practice at all levels of the appellate system. Most recently, Williams & Connolly attorneys filed successful petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court in Concepcion v. United States (whether a district court may consider intervening legal and factual developments when deciding whether to “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018) and Egbert v. Boule (whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for First Amendment retaliation claims or claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights). Partner Luke McCloud presented oral argument in Concepcion in early 2021; partner Sarah Harris presented oral argument in Egbert in March 2022.

Firm lawyers provide pro bono representation to organizations such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and the National Veterans Legal Services Program in the Supreme Court and other appellate courts. The firm also actively represents religious groups and nonprofits in the Supreme Court on religious liberty issues. Associates from the firm routinely present oral arguments in pro bono cases in the federal courts of appeal and also in the Maryland appellate courts through the firm’s longstanding relationship with the Maryland Public Defender’s Office.

Representative Experience

U.S. Supreme Court

  • Concepcion v. United States, No. 20-1650 (2022) – Secured holding that a district court may consider intervening legal and factual developments when deciding whether to “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018.
  • Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147 (2022) – Secured holding on behalf of Erik Egbert, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, in a case involving whether to recognize constitutional damages actions against individual federal officers for First Amendment retaliation claims or for Fourth Amendment claims involving border-security-related functions. The decision was 9-0 as to the First Amendment claim and 6-3 as to the Fourth Amendment claim.  
  • Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. __ (2022) – Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act when the basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
  • Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 593 U.S. __ (2021) – Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of temporary protected status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
  • Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. __ (2021) – Whether, consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, public school officials may regulate off-campus student speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.
  • Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. __ (2021) – Secured ruling that principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.
  • United States Patent & Trademark Office v., 591 U.S. __ (2020) – Secured significant ruling in favor of client that the addition of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark. 
  • Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 592 U.S. __ (2021) – Secured holding that courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review Railroad Retirement Board decisions denying requests to reopen prior benefits determinations.
  • Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) – Secured ruling holding that Superfund site landowners cannot sue defendants to implement an alternative cleanup plan that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not approved.
  • Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020) – Secured unanimous ruling holding that plaintiffs in trademark infringement suits are not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to a profits award. 
  • Google v. Oracle, No. 18-956 – Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface and whether Google’s use of Java interfaces in creating Google’s Android system constitutes fair use.
  • Michigan Senate v. League of Women Voters, 139 S. Ct. 2635 (2019) – In April 2019, a district court invalidated Michigan’s congressional maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.  The Michigan Senate retained Williams & Connolly to oversee the stay briefing.  On May 24, the Court took the highly unusual step of granting the stay, and on October 21, 2019, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S.  ___ (2019).
  • Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, 140 S. Ct. 768 (2020) – Whether plan participants have “actual knowledge” of a breach of fiduciary duty to trigger the statute of limitations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
  • Carpenter v. Murphy, 591 U.S. __ (2020) – Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).
  • BNSF Railway Company v. Loos, 586 U.S. __ (2019) – Secured ruling that client’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. *
  • Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales, 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) – Secured a significant win for the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the first opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
  • Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019) – Secured a unanimous ruling in favor of Williams & Connolly’s law firm client in limiting application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.
  • Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 137 S. Ct. 1652 (2017) – Favorable decision regarding ERISA’s church plan exemption for religious employers. *
  • Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) – Favorable decision in a child custody dispute involving the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. The case marked only the second time the Supreme Court had considered the scope of ICWA, and “Baby Girl” was reunited with her adoptive parents. *
  • Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. ___ (2013) – Favorable decision under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case. *
  • Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) – Favorable decision protecting the State of Oklahoma under water compacts. *
  • Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 563 U.S. 110 (2011) – Favorable decision under 340B drug rebate program. *
  • Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) – Favorable decision in favor of war veteran client regarding veteran disability benefits. *
  • WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical, 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) – Whether the award of lost-profit damages for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(f) constitutes an invalid extraterritorial application of the Patent Act.
  • Dahda v. United States, 138 S. Ct .1491 (2018) – Whether wiretap orders that authorized interception outside the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court were legally insufficient under the Wiretap Act.
  • Digital Realty v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018) – Secured ruling that whistleblowers are required to report alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission before bringing suit for retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act.
  • Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) – Whether a financial institution that purchases debt from another financial institution and then attempts to collect that debt qualifies as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
  • Midland Funding v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017) – Whether the filing of a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy proceeding violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
  • Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) – Whether, after a judge has discharged a jury from service in a case and the jurors have left the judge’s presence, the judge may recall the jurors for further service in the same case.
  • Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) – Whether, under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a strike before it becomes final on appeal.
  • Omnicare v. Laborers District Council, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015) – What a plaintiff must prove in order to establish that a statement of opinion is actionable under the federal securities laws.

Federal Courts of Appeal and State Appellate Courts

  • Edward Jones, Jr. v. Slade, et al., No. 20-15642 (9th Cir. 2021) – Secured ruling in favor of client in an important case involving freedom of expression and religious liberty.
  • The Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, 992 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2021) – Secured ruling that an iconic series of works by Andy Warhol were not a fair use of our client’s copyright to her photograph of the musician Prince.
  • Irving Firemen’s Relief & Retirement Fund v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., 998 F.3d 397 (9th Cir. 2021) – Secured affirmance of dismissal of complaint alleging securities fraud against Uber co-founder and former CEO Travis Kalanick.
  • Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Ltd., No. 20-1016 (2d Cir. 2020) – Secured affirmance of dismissal of claims alleging various tort claims and accompanying damages theories.
  • JTH Tax v. Aime, Nos. 19-1746 & 19-1792 (4th Cir. 2021) – Secured ruling in favor of our client that franchisee had not met the standard for relief based on newly discovered evidence, and rejecting the franchisee’s cross-appeal.  
  • CBE Grp v. Lexington Law Firm, No. 20-10166 (5th Cir. 2021) – Secured affirmance of judgment as a matter of law in favor of firm clients in fraud action.
  • In re: Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel, No. 19-2155 (2nd Cir. 2020) – Secured affirmance of the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Bayer Pharmaceuticals in multidistrict litigation asserting products liability claims related to Bayer’s Mirena birth control device.  
  • Nowell v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 19-2073 (10th Cir. 2021) – Secured affirmance of trial court’s decision granting the company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that the applicable statutes of limitations barred all of the plaintiff’s state law claims.  
  • Glaxo Group Ltd. v. DRIT, No. N16C-07-2018 (Del. Supreme Court 2021) – In a landmark implied-covenant contractual case before the Delaware Supreme Court, won reversal of a jury verdict against GSK awarding approximately $100 million in royalty payments.
  • Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline, 951 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2020) – Successfully represented drug manufacturer in connection with plaintiff’s bid to vacate the Seventh Circuit’s earlier decision that plaintiff’s inadequate labeling claims were preempted.  In one of the first appellate decisions after the Supreme Court’s preemption decision in Merck v. Albrecht, the Seventh Circuit held that it would have reached the same preemption holding even after Albrecht
  • Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. 19-1234 (Fed. Cir. 2019) – Secured ruling overturning an earlier decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that had upheld a patent owned by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV in inter partes review proceedings instituted by Google.  In a unanimous decision, the Federal Circuit held that Google had shown the Philips patent was invalid as obvious. 
  • Eli Lilly v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, 933 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) – The firm secured two successive victories before the Federal Circuit on behalf of its client Eli Lilly in matters against several generic drug manufacturers who challenged a patent protecting Lilly’s blockbuster anti-cancer drug Alimta®; subsequently defeated the challengers’ petitions for certiorari in the Supreme Court. 
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. HSBC Bank USA NA, 34 N.Y.3d 327 (2019) – Secured a precedent-setting ruling from New York’s highest court that affirmed dismissal of claims seeking more than half a billion dollars against the bank.  
  • BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. v. Claimant ID 100281817, 919 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2019) – Secured reversal of a lower court decision holding that NBA player David West was entitled to damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 
  • Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018) – Successfully defended copyright verdict in favor of Marvin Gaye’s heirs in copyright dispute. *
  • Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline, 901 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2018) – Successfully represented drug manufacturer asserting federal preemption defense against failure to warn claim.*
  • Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance, 909 F.3d 219 (8th Cir. 2018) – Secured affirmance of bankruptcy court decision refusing to avoid loan payments as fraudulent transfers.
  • Conard v. Pennsylvania State Police, 902 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2018) – Secured reversal of district court’s decision to dismissa former state police officer’s retaliation claim for giving negative references to her prospective employers.
  • JTH Tax v. Aime, 744 Fed. App’x 787 (4th Cir. 2018) – Secured ruling that the district court erred in determining that the plaintiff was entitled to lost profits when an alleged contractual modification was unsupported by independent consideration.
  • Ricketts v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2018) – Secured ruling that an appeal from a nationality determination following an intercircuit transfer must be taken to the appellate court that typically hears appeals from the district court making the determination.
  • PGS Geophysical v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) – Whether the Board of Patent Appeals correctly invalidated a dependent claim in a patent based on its construction of an associated limitation in that claim.
  • Hodsdon v. Mars, 891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) – Secured affirmance of lower court’s dismissal of claims against a food manufacturer under the California consumer protection laws for the alleged failure to make certain disclosures.
  • Blattman v. Scaramellino, 891 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) – Obtained reversal of lower court ruling that certain documents concerning a corporate merger were protected by the work-product privilege.
  • United States v. Litvak, 889 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2018) - Successfully obtained reversal of conviction for securities fraud in light of the erroneous admission ofevidence that the MBS buyer representing the counterparty in the transaction for which our client was convicted mistakenly believed our client was an agent acting on the counterparty’s behalf.
  • Document Technologies v. LDiscovery, 731 Fed. App’x 31 (2d Cir. 2018) – Successfully obtained affirmance of dismissal of trade-secrets claim for hiring employees from a competitor.
  • Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, 183 A.3d 717 (Del. 2018) – Successfully obtained affirmance of summary judgment on plaintiff’s trade-secrets claim on ground that it had failed to show use or disclosure of the alleged trade secrets.
  • AbbVie v. MedImmune, 881 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2018) – Successfully obtained affirmance of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment action seeking a declaration of patent invalidity absent a corresponding contract claim.
  • Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, 880 F.3d 668 (4th Cir. 2018) – Successfully argued that remand decision should be vacated when ruling against removal was based on a forum-selection clause to which defendants were not signatories.
  • Guilbeau v. Pfizer, 880 F.3d 304 (7th Cir. 2018) – Successfully obtained affirmance of dismissal of product-liability claims against the manufacturer of a generic drug on grounds of preemption where the drug is a reference listed drug.
  • United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Solutions, 880 F.3d 89 (3d Cir. 2018) – Successfully obtained affirmance of summary judgment under False Claims Act based on finding that relator failed to provide evidence that a claim for payment was linked to a violation of federal law.
  • E.F. Transit v. Cook, 878 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2018) – Secured ruling that our client’s claim that federal law preempted an agency’s enforcement of a state’s liquor-distribution laws was ripe for adjudication.
  • Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse et al., No. 15-1874 (4th Cir. 2017) – Successfully represented the Washington Redskins in its appeal of the government’s decision to cancel the Team’s trademarks. *
  • Knapp Medical Center v. Hargan, 875 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2017) – Successfully obtained affirmance of lower court’s decision that the Stark Law prohibited judicial review of an agency’s decision to permit expansion of a physician-owned hospital.
  • United States ex rel. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corp., 875 F.3d 746 (3d Cir. 2017) – In an important precedential decision, obtained affirmance of dismissal of claims brought under the False Claims Act when alleged misrepresentations were not material to the government’s decision to pay the underlying claims.
  • Olde Homestead Golf Club v. Electronic Transaction Systems, 714 Fed. App’x 186 (3d Cir. 2017) – Successfully obtained affirmance of dismissal of claim against an electronic-payments processor based on requirements of forum-selection clause.
  • Roberts v. Weight Watchers, 712 Fed. App’x 57 (2d Cir. 2017) – Secured affirmance of dismissal of claim for breach of contract based on plaintiff’s alleged inability to access a company’s website and use its mobile application.
  • NLRB v. CNN America, 865 F.3d 740 (D.C. Cir. 2017) – Whether a broadcaster’s termination of an outside contractor gave rise to liability as a “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act.
  • Prather v. Sprint Communications, Inc., 855 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2017) – Secured affirmance of decision holding that qui tam relator whose suit is dismissed for failure to prove he was an original source of publicly disclosed information cannot then intervene as of right in the government’s False Claims Act action against the same defendant. 
  • Haar v. Allen, 687 Fed. App’x 93 (2d Cir. 2017) – Secured affirmance of district court decision approving a class settlement and rejecting challenges to the settlement’s procedural fairness.
  • People v. Sprint Communications, 148 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) – Secured favorable ruling on whether the State of New York was required to disclose certain communications to a defendant in a tax controversy brought by the State.
  • Eli Lilly v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) – Secured affirmance of favorable rulings after bench trial that generic drug manufacturers induced divided infringement of a patented method for administering a leading chemotherapy drug.
  • In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation, 845 F.3d 470 (1st Cir. 2017) – Secured affirmance of jury verdict in favor of manufacturers in an antitrust case challenging pharmaceutical patent settlements on a “reverse payments” theory.
  • AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, LLC, 812 F.3d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – Successfully overturned $20 million trial verdict against medical device manufacturer.*
  • Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading v. Coventry First, 673 Fed. App’x 57 (2d Cir. 2016) –Secured ruling affirming that the district court correctly entered judgment for a life-settlement company on the ground that an investor had failed to provide contractually required notice.
  • United States ex rel. Ruscher v. Omnicare, 663 Fed App’x 368 (5th Cir. 2016) – Secured affirmance of summary judgment in favor of defendant when False Claims Act relator failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the defendant falsely certified compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute.
  • Scenic America v. DOT, 836 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2016) – Secured ruling affirming the district court’s decision that the Federal Highway Association’s guidance permitting digital billboards was valid.
  • Akina v. Hawaii, 835 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2016) – Secured affirmance of dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim that a now-canceled election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian self-organizing convention is unconstitutional.
  • Apotex v. Wyeth, 657 Fed. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – Secured affirmance of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision upholding claims to a composition against an obviousness challenge.
  • United States ex rel. O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, 822 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 2016) – Successfully obtained reversal of lower court decision imposing civil penalties exceeding $1.2 billion against defendants, holding that the trial evidence failed to demonstrate the contemporaneous fraudulent intent necessary to prove a scheme to defraud through contractual promises.
  • Boston Scientific v. Mirowski Family Ventures, 133 A.3d 1176 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) – Successfully represented Mirowski Family Ventures in the appeal of a $309.3 million verdict in a complex breach of contract and patent licensing trial against Boston Scientific Corporation. 
  • MM Steel, L.P. v. JSW Steel (USA) Inc., 806 F.3d 835 (5th Cir. 2015) – Overturned $156 million trial antitrust verdict against steel manufacturer.*
  • Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 43 N.E.3d 53 (Ill. S. Ct. 2015) – Successfully represented Philip Morris before the Illinois Supreme Court in an appeal from a $10 billion judgment concerning light cigarettes. The high Court held that the lower state court lacked authority to vacate its prior judgment and dismissed the case.*
  • Certain Funds v. KPMG, 798 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2015) – Secured ruling affirming district court judgment denying application for discovery in foreign proceedings.
  • Peterson v. McGladrey, 792 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2015) – Secured ruling affirming district court’s application of the in pari delicto doctrine to bar a trustee’s claims.
  • Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, 352 P.3d 465 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) – Secured affirmance of dismissal and rejecting invitation to adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling of limitations periods in class actions.
  • Howard Town Center Developer v. Howard University, 788 F.3d 321 (D.C. Cir. 2015) – Secured reversal of summary judgment in favor of defendant when there was a genuine dispute about the due date for a rental payment in a real-estate development.
  • Carlyle Investment Management v. Moonmouth Co., 779 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2015) – Secured affirmance of decision remanding the case to state court pursuant to a forum-selection clause in an agreement between affiliated parties.
  • United States ex rel. Morgan v. Express Scripts, 602 Fed. App’x 880 (3d Cir. 2015) – Secured affirmance of dismissal of claims under the False Claims Act when those claims were based on publicly disclosed allegations and the relator was not the original source.
  • SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2013) – Successfully represented GlaxoSmithKline in landmark case finding that the Equal Protection Clause bars peremptory challenges of jurors based on sexual orientation. *

*Representation occurred prior to Lisa’s return to Williams & Connolly.

Amy Saharia Named “Next Generation Lawyer” by The Legal 500

Amy Saharia Named “Next Generation Lawyer” by The Legal 500

Sarah Harris Nationally Recognized in Chambers USA and The Legal 500 for Appellate Law

Sarah Harris Nationally Recognized in Chambers USA and The Legal 500 for Appellate Law

Paul Mogin Presents Supreme Court Update to Iowa Association of Justice

Paul Mogin Presents Supreme Court Update to Iowa Association of Justice
back to top