Michael B. Kimberly is co-chair of the Firm’s Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group. An accomplished appellate lawyer, Michael has argued appeals in courts throughout the country, including six times in the US Supreme Court, three times before the en banc courts of appeals, and more than a dozen other times in the federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts. He has briefed hundreds of appellate matters overall, including more than two dozen Supreme Court merits cases. Michael has particularly deep experience with constitutional law relevant to the business community, and matters of statutory and regulatory interpretation under such diverse laws as the Social Security and Medicare Acts, ERISA, the Bankruptcy Code, and the antitrust laws.
Michael is a visiting lecturer in law at Yale Law School, where he co-directs the Yale Law School Supreme Court clinic.
Michael is widely recognized as an effective Supreme Court and appellate litigator. He was identified by The Legal 500 (2017-2019) as a “next generation” Supreme Court practitioner and by Law360 (2016) as a top appellate advocate under 40, with “a yearslong track record of effective advocacy before the nation’s highest court.” Michael has been described in the National Law Journal (2017) as a “veteran U.S. Supreme Court and appellate lawyer” and in the Washington Post (2015) as a “seasoned Supreme Court practitioner.” According to Reuters (2014), he is among “the top handful of lawyers in America” who “dominate” the docket of the US Supreme Court.
Michael’s notable US Supreme Court cases include unanimous victories in Smith v. Berryhill, concerning the scope of judicial review of final agency action under Section 405(g); and Shapiro v. McManus, concerning the availability of review before three-judge district courts. Michael represented the petitioner in France v. United States, a white-collar criminal case in which his briefing persuaded the solicitor general to confess error.
While in law school, Michael served as editor of The Yale Law Journal and executive editor of the Yale Law and Policy Review. Following law school, Michael clerked for Judge Michael Daly Hawkins on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In the Supreme Court, secured a 9-0 victory in an administrative law case establishing that agency dismissals on procedural grounds are “final decisions” for purposes of judicial review (Smith v. Berryhill)*
In the Supreme Court, obtained a unanimous victory in a partisan gerrymandering case, ensuring that plaintiffs receive review before a three-judge district court (Shapiro v. McManus)*
In the Supreme Court, represented the petitioner in a white-collar criminal case and successfully persuaded the solicitor general to confess error (France v. United States)*
In the Eighth Circuit, obtained a categorical victory in an important Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case concerning the privacy rights of family farmers and ranchers (American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. v. EPA)*
In the Fourth Circuit, won a unanimous victory in a False Claims Act case relating to the 2009 financial crisis (United States ex rel. Szymoniak v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.)*
In the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, obtained a victory for the defendant in a case seeking to compel arbitration (Ghadry v. Penson Financial Services, Inc.)*
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
US District Court for the District of Columbia
US District Court for the District of Maryland
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.