Appealing a trial court decision is a high-stakes and often precedent-setting scenario—with the potential for profound business ramifications. With the time and cost involved and the risk of unfavorable outcomes, “double or nothing” can often feel like your reality.
That’s where we come in.
Whether we’re drafting and arguing critical motions, or presenting arguments before the Supreme Court, our leading team of appellate lawyers can engage on your behalf at every level of the judicial system. Equipped to handle the highest stakes appeals in forums across the country, we provide clients the agile counsel necessary to tackle substantial, multilayered challenges. And we’re always thinking ahead on your behalf by ensuring all trial issues are properly preserved for appeal.
Members of our team have presented arguments before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times, including in each of the Court’s last five Terms. We have argued on behalf of our clients in all 13 federal courts of appeals, as well as state appellate courts throughout the country. These appeals have involved a wide array of constitutional, statutory and regulatory issues affecting antitrust, intellectual property, bankruptcy, employment matters, tax disputes and more.
To us, collaboration is key to success. To meet your goals, we work cooperatively alongside trial counsel and subject matter experts to ensure seamless representation.
Regardless of forum or industry, our goal is singular: to provide our clients the highest quality briefing and oral advocacy through the appellate process, which we strive to make as easy as possible.
We regularly litigate challenges to actions by administrative agencies that impact our clients. Lawsuits under the Administrative Procedure Act and related statutes are, in form and function, appeals from agency proceedings. We have broad experience handling administrative matters on diverse topics relating to manufacturing, energy, health care, high-skilled immigration, pharmaceuticals, technology and more.
Working collaboratively with our clients, we tell a persuasive, fact-based story that integrates legal theory with practical realities.
When a government regulates our clients’ interests at the local, state or federal level, it is essential to consider innovative constitutional remedies. The First Amendment provides powerful protections for commercial speech. The Commerce Clause limits Congress’s authority, and it likewise restrains state and local government power to regulate outside their borders. The Fifth Amendment preserves essential property interests. Constitutional protections—sometimes familiar, sometimes arcane—can provide a path to victory.
We bring our unrivaled experience and creativity to bear on the most difficult legal challenges our clients face.
"McDermott lawyers are brilliant long-term strategists; really understand the national perspective on tough thorny issues."
Ranked in DISPUTE RESOLUTION: APPELLATE: COURTS OF APPEALS / APPELLATE: SUPREME COURTS. "The lawyers have the capacity and commitment to work with diverse clients and ease their concerns about legal matters and filing a lawsuit."
Named to the Appellate Hot List in 2021, marking the third straight year that McDermott’s Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Practice has been recognized.
US Supreme Court:
Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020): Achieved a crucial victory for our client in a case that held that courts may review the immigration agencies’ orders denying CAT relief for factual errors, as well as legal ones
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020): Achieved a sweeping victory providing broad judicial review over administrative agency action in the immigration context
Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group, 140 S. Ct. 1589 (2020): Persuaded the Supreme Court to confirm our core argument that a party may not raise new defenses in a subsequent lawsuit between the same parties concerning later examples of identical continuing conduct held in a prior lawsuit to be unlawful
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019): Secured a win for our client in a case that significantly narrowed the circumstances in which courts must defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations*
Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765 (2019): Secured a unanimous victory for our client, persuading the Supreme Court that agency dismissals on procedural grounds are “final decisions” for purposes of judicial review under Section 405(g)*
Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 138 S. Ct. 1752 (2018): Won a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court construing a complex provision of the Bankruptcy Code*
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016): Achieved unanimous success by fundamentally reframing the issues presented in this Prison Litigation Reform Act case*
Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015): This 9-0 victory made it easier for individuals challenging congressional redistricting maps to have their day in court*
Courts of Appeals:
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Tufte (8th Cir. 2020): Secured victory for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in multi-year litigation concerning ERISA and Medicare Part D preemption
Zhejiang Med. Co. v. Kaneka Corp., 2019 WL 2082159 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Achieved summary affirmance in the appeal of a multi-week patent trial*
United States ex rel. Szymoniak v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 679 F. App’x 299 (4th Cir. 2017): In this False Claims Act case relating to the 2009 financial crisis, secured a unanimous win for the defendant*
Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017): Obtained reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a patent matter, winning an important decision addressing divided infringement*
Matter of Haler, 708 F. App’x 836 (5th Cir. 2017): Secured reversal for their client in a case construing the reach of the fraud exception to bankruptcy discharge*
American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 836 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016): Won an unequivocal victory for the plaintiffs in this “reverse FOIA” case*
Guilford College v. McAleenan, 2020 WL 1980132 (M.D.N.C. 2020): On behalf of a consortium of leading colleges and universities, achieved a nationwide permanent injunction to an immigration policy detrimental to the interests of international students
In re Tropp, 748 F. App’x 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018): In this complex patent case, successfully reversed the adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board*
Nat’l Venture Capital Ass’n v. Duke, 291 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2017): Won vacatur of a rule purporting to delay implementation of the International Entrepreneur Rule, a program that provides immigration status to certain qualified founders of US-based start-ups*