Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation
- Learn More
Led by one of the country's premier Supreme Court advocates, the Paul, Weiss Supreme Court and Appellate Practice regularly handles high-profile cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts. Our lawyers have secured victories in some of the most important business and public interest cases of our time.
- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System et al, No. 20-222, (U.S. June 21, 2021) – secured a 8-1 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court for the Goldman Sachs Group in connection with a $13 billion private securities action in which plaintiffs alleged that Goldman Sachs violated securities laws by making a series of generic and aspirational statements, which impacted Goldman Sach’s stock price. The decision may have significant implications for plaintiffs’ ability to achieve class certification in putative securities class actions.
- Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – secured a victory for Seila Law LLC in the Supreme Court, which held in a 5-4 decision that the president has the authority to fire at will the director of the CFPB. The Court remedied that constitutional violation by striking the provision barring the president from removing the sole director except for cause, while leaving intact the rest of the statute that created the agency.
- Firefighters’ Retirement System v. Citco Group – won an appeal affirming the dismissal of all claims against The Citco Group Limited and several affiliates in a dispute with three Louisiana public pension funds. In a unanimous decision, a panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment to Citco.
- Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration – secured a victory for Spirit Airlines under the Administrative Procedure Act in an appeal regarding how the Federal Aviation Administration allocates flight authorizations at Newark Liberty International Airport. In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the FAA erred in refusing to reallocate flight authorizations at Newark Airport without considering the decision’s effect on competition.
- Borden v. United States – secured a 5-4 Supreme Court victory narrowing the scope of a key part of the primary statute imposing mandatory-minimum sentences. The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates 15-year minimum sentences for defendants convicted of certain federal offenses who have three prior violent felony convictions. In Borden, the Court determined that a criminal offense committed with a reckless, rather than purposeful or knowing, state of mind doesn’t qualify as a “violent felony” under the Act. With many predicate offenses involving reckless conduct, the decision impacts many criminal defendants.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019) — Secured unanimous Supreme Court victory in favor of client McCarthy & Holthus LLP in a decision holding that entities that engage in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings in accordance with state law are not subject to the general provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 919 F.3d 869 (5th Cir. 2019) — Secured affirmance of district court’s decision to award the plaintiff neither injunctive relief nor disgorgement of profits under the Lanham Act in a long-running lawsuit against client Becton Dickinson & Co. related to its marketing of syringes.
- Sea Breeze Salt, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 899 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2018) — Secured affirmance of the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit against client Mitsubishi Corp. in a decision holding that the “act of state” doctrine precluded antitrust claims stemming from the conduct of a Mexican company owned and controlled by the Mexican Government.
- Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, 198 A.3d 724 (Del. 2018) —Secured approval of client Fresenius SE’s cancellation of a $4.8 billion agreement to acquire Akorn, Inc., in a decision affirming the first-ever finding by the Delaware Chancery Court of a “material adverse effect,” justifying the cancellation of a corporate merger, based on the post-agreement financial decline of the target firm.
- Garmin International Inc. v. ITC, 697 Fed. Appx. 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2017) — Obtained reversal of findings by the International Trade Commission that client Garmin International Inc. infringed three patents held by Navico Inc. related to sonar-imaging technology.
- Shawe v. Elting, 157 A.3d 142, 144 (Del. 2017) — Secured affirmance of $7.1 million sanctions award in favor of client Elizabeth Elting, co-founder of Transperfect Global, Inc., in corporate-control litigation in which Elting’s adversary had accessed Elting’s lawyer-client communications and attempted to delete electronic files to prevent their discovery.
- Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 842 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 2016) — Secured the vacatur of an antitrust verdict against client Becton Dickinson & Co. in a long-running lawsuit related to its marketing of syringes, on the ground that no actionable anticompetitive conduct occurred.
- United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014) — Obtained reversal of client Anthony Chiasson’s conviction and dismissal of his indictment in a landmark insider-trading decision holding that a tippee is not guilty of insider trading absent knowledge that the tipper received a personal benefit in connection with his or her disclosure of non-public information.
- SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 752 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 2014) — Obtained reversal of the district court’s refusal to approve a consent decree between client Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and the Securities & Exchange Commission in a significant decision that clarified the standard for judicial review of a proposed regulatory consent decree and precluded judicial inquiry into the decree’s “adequacy.”