Paul Hughes is co-chair of the Firm’s Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group. He briefs and argues complex appeals, and he develops legal strategy for trial litigation. An experienced appellate lawyer, Paul has argued more than 30 cases in courts throughout the country, including five times in the US Supreme Court, before en banc sittings of the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and several arguments before panels of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, DC and Federal Circuits. He has handled more than 250 appellate matters, including 21 merits cases at the US Supreme Court. Paul litigates in a wide variety of substantive areas, including administrative law, intellectual property, False Claims Act, bankruptcy, securities and high-skilled immigration.
Paul is also a visiting clinical lecturer in law at the Yale Law School, where he co-directs Yale’s Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic.
Paul’s notable US Supreme Court experience includes a 9-0 victory in Lamar, Archer & Confrin, LLP v. Appling (2018), a bankruptcy matter involving debts obtained by fraud. In Ross v. Blake (2016), Paul secured unanimous victory for the respondent by fundamentally reframing the issues presented for decision. In 2019, Paul argued Kisor v. Wilkie (an administrative law case regarding Auer deference) and Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck (a case considering the reach of the First Amendment to public access television).
Paul served as a law clerk to the Honorable Diana Gribbon Motz of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was also a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Obtained a nationwide preliminary injunction on behalf of a consortium of leading colleges and universities, blocking an immigration policy detrimental to the interests of international students (Guilford College v. McAleenan, M.D.N.C. 2019)*
Won a summary affirmance in the Federal Circuit of the appeal of a complex, multi-week patent trial (Zhejiang Med. Co. v. Kaneka Corp., Fed. Cir. 2019)*
Successfully reversed the adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (In re Tropp, Fed. Cir. 2018)*
Obtained a nontraditional order from the US Supreme Court granting, vacating and remanding an Oklahoma state court decision for lack of personal jurisdiction (Murco Wall Products v. Galier, 2018)*
Obtained an additional, atypical order from the US Supreme Court granting, vacating and remanding in a malicious prosecution case, and then prevailed on remand to the Sixth Circuit (Sanders v. Jones, 2018)*
Won appeal regarding patent invalidity for reasons of indefiniteness (Capital Security Systems v. NCR, Fed. Cir. 2018)*
Obtained summary judgment against the Department of Homeland Security, invalidating its delay of the International Entrepreneur Rule (Nat’l Venture Capital Ass’n v. Duke, D.D.C. 2017)*
Secured reversal for a client in a bankruptcy matter regarding the reach of the fraud exception to bankruptcy discharge (Matter of Haler, 5th Cir. 2017)*
At the Federal Circuit, obtained reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a patent matter, winning an important decision addressing divided infringement (Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, Fed. Cir. 2017)*
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.