U.S. Supreme Court
Vinson & Elkins represents a broad range of companies and individuals before the Supreme Court, with innovative strategy, compelling advocacy, and a relentless determination to win. We leverage deep experience gained in government service and private practice to create efficient and effective appellate solutions.
The Legal 500 US: Dispute Resolution – Appellate – Appellate – Supreme Courts: States & Federal, 2018-2019
Relevant Experience
V&E partners have argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, virtually every federal court of appeals, and many state appellate courts. With lawyers who served as law clerks at the Supreme Court and numerous federal courts of appeals, as well as several current advisers to the University of Virginia Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, our team represents clients on a broad range of issues, focusing particularly on cases involving energy, environmental, and administrative law; the First Amendment, separation of powers, and other areas of constitutional law; government contracts; and white collar criminal defense.
Comprehensive Services
V&E can step in to an existing appeal at a moment’s notice, or shepherd a case from the complaint all the way to the Supreme Court, providing seamless integration with trial teams and bringing our senior attorneys’ decades of experience to bear on every matter. In addition to party litigation, our lawyers author amicus briefs, engage the White House and federal agencies, and provide constitutional and regulatory counseling. Our lawyers closely monitor new rules issued by executive agencies and matters pending before U.S. Supreme Court. The team’s broad situational awareness yields a fresh perspective, providing clients with innovative and informed legal advice on matters of critical importance to business.
Experience Highlights
(U.S.); (5th Cir.); (W.D. Tex.) – Obtained summary judgment defending the State Bar of Texas against a First Amendment mandatory bar challenge; on appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated and granted partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction to the three plaintiffs, but upheld the vast majority of the Bar’s challenged initiatives as constitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court denied our opponents’ cert petition
(U.S.) — Successfully argued that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act does not toll the statute of limitations in civil False Claims Act cases; persuaded Supreme Court to grant review on issue despite the absence of a circuit split and after the United States, in a Court-invited amicus brief, argued that certiorari should be denied
(U.S.) — Successfully argued that aiding and abetting liability requires proof defendant had advance notice of alleged confederate’s plans
(U.S.) — Successfully argued that conflict of interest rules governing state officials do not infringe First Amendment speech rights; Justice Scalia authored the opinion gaining a vote of 9-0 issued in our client’s favor
(U.S.) — Persuaded the Supreme Court to grant review in a case involving restrictions the on the transfer of firearms by persons convicted of criminal offense; co-authored brief that won unanimous ruling that court-ordered transfer of firearms did not constituted possession prohibited by statute
(U.S.) — Authored brief that successfully argued that a government employer’s allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee do not give rise to liability under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, unless the employee’s petition relates to a matter of public concern
(U.S.) — Represented legal and economic professors in connection with an amicus briefing arguing that market movement should be required to demonstrate fraud on the market in securities class actions; the United States Supreme Court cited and adopted portions of arguments
(U.S.) — Successfully argued that a government contracting case brought under the Contract Disputes Act was not ripe for judicial resolution
Related People
Related Insights
- Event RecapNovember 19, 2024Video
- Event RecapJuly 11, 2024Video