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

Representative Matters

  • Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980 (2024) - successfully represented securities plaintiffs in case concerning standard for alleging that risk factor statements in SEC filings are 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.