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 270 appellate matters, including 23 merits cases at the US Supreme Court.
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 unanimous victory—with divided reasoning—in Kisor v. Wilkie (2019), a landmark administrative law case that confirms limitations on the scope of agency deference. In 2018, Paul secured a 9-0 win 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.
Paul works across substantive areas of law. He frequently litigates challenges to administrative agency action. This includes regulations impacting high-skilled immigration, the life sciences industry, and taxation. In 2018, Law360 named Paul an “MVP” with respect to his work in intellectual property. Paul also has deep experience with the False Claims Act, bankruptcy, and securities law.
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.
In the Supreme Court, obtained a nontraditional order granting, vacating and remanding an Oklahoma state court decision regarding personal jurisdiction (Murco Wall Products v. Galier, 2018)*
In the Supreme Court, obtained an atypical order granting, vacating and remanding in a malicious prosecution case, and then prevailed on remand in the Sixth Circuit (Sanders v. Jones, 2018)*
In the Federal Circuit, won a summary affirmance of a complex, multi-week patent trial (Zhejiang Med. Co. v. Kaneka Corp., 2019)*
In the Federal Circuit, successfully reversed the adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (In re Tropp, 2018)*
In the Federal Circuit, won appeal regarding patent invalidity for reasons of indefiniteness (Capital Security Systems v. NCR, 2018)*
In 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, 2017)*
In the Fifth Circuit, won reversal of the district court’s statutory construction regarding the reach of the fraud exception to bankruptcy discharge (Matter of Haler, 2017)*
In the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, 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, 2019)*
In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, prevailed on summary judgment against the Department of Homeland Security, invalidating its delay of the International Entrepreneur Rule (Nat’l Venture Capital Ass’n v. Duke, 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.