SUPREME COURT PRACTICE

Russell & Woofter LLC specializes in representing clients at all stages before the U.S. Supreme Court. The firm’s partners have filed more than fifty merits briefs in the Court and argued a dozen cases. 

The firm has represented clients on a broad spectrum of issues, including constitutional law, intellectual property, securities fraud, class actions, criminal law and procedure, patents, civil rights, and international law.

The firm brings specialized expertise and experience to every stage of Supreme Court proceedings, including preparing and opposing petitions for certiorari, coordinating amicus strategy, advocating on behalf of clients to the United States Solicitor General’s Office in appropriate cases, and, of course, briefing and arguing cases on the merits. In addition, the firm regularly represents amici curiae filing briefs before the Court.

The firm also advises clients whether a petition for certiorari is worth pursuing in the first place, helping evaluate the likelihood of success and probable costs.

Because of the firm’s specialized practice, we are often brought into a case at the Supreme Court stage. We do not, however, seek to displace the lawyers who have worked on the case, often for years, in the lower courts. We recognize that our co-counsel bring extensive knowledge about the case and, often, specialized expertise in a particular area of the law. We therefore work closely with co-counsel to provide our clients the advantage of the best each lawyer on the team has to offer

APPELLATE PRACTICE

The firm also maintains an extensive appellate practice in the federal courts of appeals. Like its Supreme Court practice, the firm’s experience in the courts of appeals has covered a wide range of topics, focusing on difficult questions of federal law in consequential litigation. And as in its Supreme Court practice, the firm is committed to working closely with the lawyers who litigated the case in the trial court, forming collegial relationships that maximize clients’ prospects for success.

CASE ANALYSIS

In recent years, the firm has also been engaged by hedge funds and litigation funders to help analyze and handicap cases in the Supreme Court and elsewhere. The work draws on the firm’s years of experience with the Court and helps clients make informed investment decisions in what can often be complicated, high stakes litigation.

Representative Matters

  • Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980 (2024) (pending) - representing securities plaintiffs in case concerning standard for alleging that risk factor statements in SEC filings were misleading. [Brief]

    Slack Techs. v. Pirani, No. 22-200 (2023) – represented securities fraud plaintiffs in case concerning the scope of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. [Brief]

    Escobar v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) – successfully represented death row inmate who was convicted largely on the basis of false, misleading, and unreliable DNA evidence. [Petition] [Reply]

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys., 141 S. Ct. 1951 (2021) – successfully represented class of shareholders on class certification questions. [Brief]

    Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) – successfully defended Google against Oracle’s claim that Android violated its copyright in the Java programming language. [Opening Brief] [Reply][Supplemental Brief]

    Omnicare v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015) – successfully represented plaintiffs in securities fraud class action in case concerning standard for challenging misleading statements of opinion. [Brief]

    McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015) – successfully represented criminal defendant in challenging standard for proving intent element of the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    BG Group v. Argentina, 134 S. Ct. 1198 (2014) – successfully represented energy company seeking to enforce international arbitration award against Argentina. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    Jerman v. Carlisle, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2010) – successfully represented homeowner in arguing that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not provide debt collectors a mistake of law defense. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618 (2006) – represented plaintiff in case involving the application of Title VII's limitations provision to claims of pay discrimination in employment. When the Court ruled 5-4 against our client, we assisted the client in testifying before Congress, which subsequently overruled the Court’s decision. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) – co-counsel in successful challenge to constitutionality of special military tribunals established to try war crimes charges against terrorist suspects who are foreign nationals.

  • In re: MCP No. 185 Open Internet Rule, Lead Case No. 24-7000 (6th Cir.) (pending) - representing intervenors in support of the FCC’s authority to issue net neutrality rules, which require broadband internet access service providers to treat all internet traffic equally. [Brief]

    The Wonderful Company LLC v. Nut Cravings Inc., No. 23-7540 (2d Cir.) (pending) - representing The Wonderful Company in a trademark dispute alleging that Nut Cravings Inc.’s snack nut packaging infringers Wonderful’s trade dress. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    Largan Precision Co. v. Motorola Mobility, Nos. 24-1414, 24-1468, 24-1540 (Fed. Cir.) (pending) - representing maker of smartphone lenses in three appeals from IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. [Opening Brief] [Reply Brief]

    Apple v. Corellium, 2023 WL 3295671 (11th Cir.) – successfully represented technology company that creates virtualized iPhones for security researchers in copyright infringement suit brought by Apple. [Brief]

    In re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litig., 87 F.4th 934 (9th Cir. 2023) – successfully represented securities fraud plaintiffs in class action arising from Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    Rafay v. Jackson, 2023 WL 2707187 (9th Cir. 2023) – represented a habeas petitioner seeking relief from a state conviction who was featured in the inaugural episodes of Netflix’s documentary series “The Confession Tapes.” [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    United States v. Turner, 841 F. App’x 557 (4th Cir. 2021) – successfully represented federal habeas petitioner who challenged the factual basis for his guilty plea. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    U.S. Telecom Assoc. v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017) – successfully represented intervenors defending Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules. [Brief]

    Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., 896 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018) – successfully represented defendant LED manufacturers against claims of patent infringement and overturned $12 million jury verdict by convincing Federal Circuit that asserted patent was invalid as not enabled. [Opening Brief] [Reply]

    In re: World Trade Center Disaster Site, 521 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2008) – successfully represented 10,000 firefighters, law enforcement officers, and construction workers in resisting various assertions of immunity to claims for respiratory injuries arising from activities at the site of the World Trade Center disaster. Case subsequently settled for more than $800 million. [Brief]

    California v. Altus Finance S.A., 540 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2008) – successfully obtained retrial on $800 million punitive damages claim on behalf of California Insurance Commissioner. [Brief]

REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS

The firm’s partners have represented a diverse group of clients in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, including businesses, governments, and public interest groups, as well as criminal defendants and individuals. Below is a partial list of clients.

Businesses:

  • Google

  • Corellium

  • Epic Games

  • Qualcomm

  • Nike

  • Victoria’s Secret

  • POM Wonderful

  • Largan Precision Co.

  • Ethan Allen Furniture

  • Intellectual Ventures

Pension Plans:

  • Arkansas Teachers Retirement System

  • California Public Employee Retirement System

  • Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

  • Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System

State and Municipal Government Agencies:

  • Hawai‘i

  • Maryland

  • Mexico

  • Minnesota

  • South Dakota

  • University of Minnesota

  • California Public Utility Commission

  • California Insurance Commission

  • County of San Mateo, California

  • City of Columbus, Ohio

Public Interest Groups:

  • American Bar Association

  • American Civil Liberties Union

  • American Federation of Teachers

  • Earthrights

  • Free Press

  • Friends of the Earth

  • Innocence Network

  • Media Democracy Fund

  • National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys

  • New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute

  • Public Knowledge