Contacts:
Catherine E. Stetson, Washington, D.C.
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Washington, D.C.

Hogan & Hartson’s Supreme Court and appellate practice consistently ranks among the nation’s elite — as most recently noted by The American Lawyer, which hailed the firm’s “appellate prowess” in its biennial survey of the country’s top litigation departments. The practice includes a former Appellate Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, as well as former law clerks on the Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. Our attorneys regularly appear before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal and state courts of appeals on behalf of firm clients.

We have a strong tradition of the highest appellate advocacy built on the model established by our former partner John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, and E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., who helped pioneer the specialized practice of appellate litigation. We recognize that an appeal is much different than a trial, demanding unique skills in written and oral advocacy. Recognizing our experience in this arena, state governments, corporations, associations, and individuals have turned to us to handle their appeals — in many cases even after using other firms in the lower courts.

The depth and proficiency of our Supreme Court and appellate practice is exceptional. Our attorneys have extensive experience in handling Supreme Court merits briefs and oral arguments, petitions for certiorari, briefs in oppositions to certiorari, and amicus briefs, as well as complex civil and criminal appeals before all federal circuit courts of appeals and many state appellate tribunals on a wide variety of complex legal issues. In addition, we often are retained to consult on complex constitutional and legal issues both at the initial stages of litigation and outside of litigation.

We are one of the few firms in the country that maintains a consistent presence before the Supreme Court. During the past three terms, our lawyers argued six cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of firm clients, and during the past 13 Supreme Court terms, members of the group argued 35 cases before the Court. Nine of our attorneys have argued before the Supreme Court — several of them multiple times. Our attorneys also have extensive experience in arguing cases in federal circuit courts and state courts of appeals across the country.

Our appellate practice has excelled in the most complex areas of law. A recent Intellectual Property Today survey found that Hogan & Hartson’s appellate attorneys handled more of the most important intellectual property litigation cases since 1998 than any other U.S.-based law firm. Three of those cases were argued before the Supreme Court and resulted in victories for our clients.

Utilizing the numerous diverse practice areas in which firm attorneys are involved, we offer a full array of appellate services to our clients.

Related Experience

• In March 2006, the firm presented argument in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving whether a particular patent claim is invalid because it seeks, in essence, to patent a natural scientific correlation. The patent claim at issue was held to be infringed whenever any doctor looks at a test result for a patient's level of homocsyteine (a naturally occurring amino acid) and merely thinks about the natural scientific correlation between homocysteine levels and vitamin deficiencies. The firm's client was held liable for allegedly inducing the doctors' infringement by informing them of the scientific correlation, and the firm is challenging the validity of the patent claim.
• On November 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of our clients, Jerry Weast, the Superintendent of the Montgomery County Public Schools, and the Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland, holding that school districts do not bear the burden of proof in administrative proceedings brought against them under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Our attorneys briefed and argued the case, which had attracted significant interest throughout the country and resulted in a major precedent interpreting the IDEA.
• The Fourth Circuit issued a ruling in favor of firm client College Loan Corporation (CLC), a student loan provider, that filed suit against another student loan company for, among other things, breach of contract and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations. Following appeal, the case was successfully resolved with a payment to CLC of $14 million plus an additional confidential amount from the opposing party's insurers.
• We successfully represented one of the lead parties, a state cattlemen’s association, in a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court involving a First Amendment challenge to the imposition of mandatory assessments on the sale of cattle to pay for generic advertising promoting beef, including the well-known “Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner” advertising campaign. Our attorneys briefed and argued the case in the Supreme Court on behalf of the cattlemen intervenors and helped secure a major constitutional decision upholding the program.
• We were retained by firm client, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, to file a brief and present oral argument on behalf of the Bahamas in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case testing the application of U.S. law to foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. waters. A divided Supreme Court largely adopted the middle ground position that we advanced on behalf of the Bahamas.
• We were retained by a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators to file a brief on their behalf in the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines. The brief was singled out and quoted by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling in this case.
• In a major “takings” ruling testing the right of local governments to enact temporary moratoria on development, we obtained a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld a regional planning agency’s moratorium on development designed to preserve the water quality of Lake Tahoe.
• When Toyota Motor Manufacturing Company received an adverse judgment in a case alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Toyota retained us to handle the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. We secured Supreme Court review and then obtained a decision that overturned the judgment against Toyota and clarified the reach of the ADA.
• When a manufacturer of traffic-control products received an adverse judgment on a claim of trade dress infringement, we persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and hand down a decision in our client’s favor establishing that trade dress protection is presumptively unavailable for functional features covered by an expired utility patent.
• When a federal court of appeals held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is covered by Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 because it accepts dues from its member schools, we secured U.S. Supreme Court review of that decision and a favorable ruling for the NCAA clarifying the scope of Title IX.
• We represent the engagement partner in a major accounting case pending in the California Court of Appeal that arises out of the bankruptcy of Orange County in 1994 and involves a challenge to the largest cost-recovery award entered by the California Board of Accountancy against an accounting firm.
• When our client, a large managed care provider, and several other managed care companies were sued for ERISA violations by the Attorney General of the state of Connecticut, the district court dismissed the case, concluding that the state could not sue on ERISA violations either as an assignee or in a parens patriae capacity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in a decision upholding the dismissal of the claims against our client.
• We successfully represented a large energy company before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a challenge to a federal agency's decision placing onerous conditions on a proposed merger. The court of appeals concluded that the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
• On behalf of a national trade association, our lawyers secured a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, striking down federal regulations that exceeded the statutory authority of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
• After a district court ordered the recall of more than 90,000 vehicles of a major motor vehicle manufacturer based on alleged noncompliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard, we were retained by the manufacturer to appeal the recall order and obtained a constitutional ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversing the order.
• On behalf of firm client The Hartford, we obtained a significant ruling from the California Supreme Court in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company holding that insurance rights do not transfer by operation of law in an assets acquisition by a third-party entity.