In addition to providing regulatory and legal counseling outside the context of specific cases, selected litigation matters we have worked on include:
- Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498 (S. Ct.): As lead counsel, filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents on behalf of a group of federal courts and federal Indian law scholars, arguing that an act taking a particular parcel into trust and withdrawing jurisdiction over certain claims related to that parcel does not violate Article III and is an example of a common type of tribe-specific legislation.
- Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 (S. Ct.): As lead counsel, filed an amicus brief in support of neither party on behalf of 3M Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Cargill Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto Company, the Procter & Gamble Company, Raytheon Company, and Shell International, arguing that patents are private rights and the patent system will not be disrupted if inter partes review is held unconstitutional.
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499 (S. Ct.): As lead counsel, filed an amicus brief on behalf of former U.S. counterterrorism and national security officials, arguing in support of Petitioner that corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute is essential to effective efforts to combat terrorist financing.
- Class v. United States, No. 16-424 (S. Ct.): Research and briefing as co-counsel for amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union in support of Petitioner, arguing that an unconditional plea does not waive the right to raise a constitutional challenge to statute of conviction on appeal.
- California Public Employees' Retirement Sys. v. ANZ Securities Inc., No. 16-373 (S. Ct. 2017): Lead counsel for an amicus brief on behalf of Current and Former Directors of Publicly Traded Companies in support of Petitioner, arguing that the filing of a putative class action should satisfy the three-year time limit for putative class members in certain securities class actions, because otherwise the result would be a multiplicity of actions and more litigation that increases complexity for defendants.
- Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Board, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017): As lead counsel, filed an amicus brief on behalf of AASA, the School Superintendents Association; CASE, the Council of Administrators of Special Education; and six other educational organizations in support of Respondent.
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016): As second chair, drafted amicus brief on behalf of the National School Boards Association and six other educational organizations, arguing in support of Respondent that university-level diversity supports and reinforces school districts’ efforts to achieve diversity.
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015): As second chair, drafted an amicus brief supporting Respondent on behalf of a group of small business organizations, arguing that the health insurance exchanges have improved job mobility, entrepreneurial opportunity, and small-business competitiveness.
- Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014): Contributed to amicus briefing at both certiorari and merits stages in support of the ultimately prevailing position that a defendant is not liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no one has directly infringed a patent under Section 217(a) or any other statutory provision.
- United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013): Research, briefing, and argument support as co-counsel to court-appointed amica curiae, to present arguments against Article III jurisdiction given the party agreement between the United States and respondent.
- Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013): Principal drafter of amicus brief supporting petitioner in the ultimately prevailing position that state regulatory proceedings to resolve legal questions under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not require Younger abstention.
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013): Lead counsel and principal brief drafter of amicus brief submitted by Former Commissioners and General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, and the Minority Media Telecommunications Counsel, arguing that greater diversity in higher education is essential to a robust public dialogue, and that the University of Texas’s faithful adherence to Grutter’s core holding be affirmed.
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761 (2013): Principal brief drafter of amicus brief on behalf of a trade association arguing in favor of the ultimately-prevailing position that patent exhaustion did not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission.
- Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013): Co-counsel and principal drafter of Respondent's merits brief in case determining that the 180-day time limit for filing appeals to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board was not jurisdictional, yet also not subject to traditional equitable tolling.
Courts of Appeals
- Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Ins. Co. v. United States, No. 17-1224 (Fed. Cir.): As co-counsel, drafted amicus brief on behalf of America's Health Insurance Plans, arguing in support of Appellant in an appeal addressing the Affordable Care Act's risk corridors program.
- Allina Health Servs. v. Price, No. 16-5255 (D.C. Cir.): Briefing and argument support as co-counsel, arguing on behalf of a group of non-profit hospitals that a Medicare rule was not validly adopted.
- Johnson v. Interstate Management LLC, No. 14-7164 (D.C. Cir. 2017): Supervised briefing and presented oral argument for Georgetown University Appellate Litigation Program, appointed as amicus to argue that § 11(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 contains an implied right of action for persons retaliated against for filing OSHA complaints, and (after grant of a motion for reconsideration of a partial summary affirmance) that genuine issues defeat summary judgment on the plaintiff’s EEOC retaliation claim.
- Putney v. Likin, No. 14-6882 (4th Cir. 2016): Supervised briefing and presented oral argument for Georgetown University Appellate Litigation Program, and successfully obtained vacatur of the district court’s summary judgment dismissal, allowing Mr. Putney to further pursue his § 1983 action alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by prison officials’ intentional and malicious deprivation of a mattress for more than four months with no legitimate explanation.
- Kelsey v. Pope, 809 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2016): Lead counsel for amicus brief submitted by National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in support of respondent in a habeas corpus case brought under 25 U.S.C. § 1303, arguing that the Indian Tribal Court’s rewriting of its criminal code to justify its assertion of jurisdiction violated the Indian Civil Rights Act and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- EEOC v. Freeman, 778 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2015): As second chair, briefed a successful appeal defeating claims by the EEOC that an employer violated the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA by requiring a release in exchange for certain post-termination benefits; argued motion for attorney's fees resulting in nearly $1 million fee award.
- Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2015): Supervising attorney for Georgetown University Appellate Litigation Program, which on appointment by the court, obtained reversal of a summary judgment dismissal of a procedural due process claim brought by a prisoner who had been housed in solitary confinement for twenty years. After this successful appeal, the case settled, and Mr. Incumaa was released to the general population.
- Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius, 746 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2014): Initial drafter of briefing on behalf of non-profit hospitals in a challenge to a Medicare reimbursement rule that resulted in vacatur of the rule.
State Appellate Courts
- Centex/Worthgroup, LLC v. Worthgroup Architects, L.P., 365 P.3d 37 (N.M. App. 2015): Argued a successful appeal in the New Mexico Court of Appeals in a contract dispute raising an issue of first impression under state law related to the interpretation of “flow-down” clauses in construction contracts.
- Antonio v. SSA, Security, Inc., 110 A.2d 654 (Md. 2014): As lead counsel, briefed and argued statutory question of first impression certified by the Fourth Circuit about whether § 9-501 of the Maryland Security Guards Act codified the common law doctrine of respondeat superior or contemplated broader liability, in a case where homebuyers sued the security agency who employed security guards responsible for arson.
Note: Some of the above matters were undertaken while Ruthanne and Hyland were at other firms or organizations.