Paul W. Hughes

Overview

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 eight times at the US Supreme Court, including in February, March, October, and December 2019, and March 2020. He has argued more than 40 cases, including before en banc sittings of the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, and before panels of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, DC, and Federal Circuits.

Paul is also a visiting clinical lecturer in law at the Yale Law School, where he co-directs Yale’s Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic.

In listing Paul in its nationwide rating of appellate lawyers, Chambers USA (2020) notes that he “has a flourishing reputation for his appellate work, acting for clients on a diverse range of appeals across state and federal courts.” The Legal 500 (2019) calls Paul “diligent, well-prepared, and thoughtful.” Law360 twice named Paul a top appellate advocate under 40 (2017 & 2018), noting that Paul “made a splash” at the Supreme Court.

Recent successes at the Supreme Court include Nasrallah v. Barr, where, in June 2020, Paul won a 7-2 decision extending sweeping new judicial review to administrative agency actions in the context of Convention Against Torture claims. Crucial to victory was Paul’s advancement of a statutory interpretation argument that had been overlooked by all ten courts of appeals to have previously addressed the issue. In March 2020, Paul secured victory in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Ovalles v. Barr, a pair of cases addressing the scope of judicial review over a different aspect of administrative agency determinations in the immigration context.

In June 2019, Paul won a unanimous victory—with divided reasoning—in Kisor v. Wilkie, a landmark administrative law case that imposes significant limitations on the scope of agency deference. In 2018, Paul secured a 9-0 win in the bankruptcy case Lamar, Archer & Confrin, LLP v. Appling, which presented a technical question of statutory interpretation. And in Ross v. Blake (2016), Paul achieved a 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, especially with respect to immigration, the life sciences industry, and taxation. In 2018, Law360 named Paul an “MVP” for his intellectual property work before the Federal Circuit. Paul also has deep experience with the False Claims Act, bankruptcy, civil rights, 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 a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Show Less

Results

In the Supreme Court, won a decision extending judicial review to all aspects of administrative agency decision-making over Convention Against Torture Claims. (Nasrallah v. Barr, 2020)
In the Supreme Court, won a sweeping victory providing broad judicial review over administrative agency action in the immigration context. (Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr & Ovalles v. Barr, 2020)
In the Supreme Court, secured a unanimous victory, with divided reasoning, confirming sharp limitations on the scope of agency authority (Kisor v. Wilkie, 2019)
In the Supreme Court, unanimously won a statutory interpretation question involving the Bankruptcy Act (Lamar, Archer & Confrin, LLP v. Appling, 2018)*