Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
WASHINGTON � As the Supreme Court’s argument docket slowly shrinks, competition for cases within the growing Supreme Court bar becomes more intense, and lawyers who capture even one argument in a term likely feel as though the appellate gods have smiled on their practices. The gods more than smiled on one high court practitioner last term: Maureen E. Mahoney, head of the appellate and constitutional practice groups at Latham & Watkins. Mahoney not only argued more cases than any other private practitioner � a total of four � but she won three of the four and all in a variety of areas of the law. A former deputy solicitor general, Mahoney won reversals in the term just ended in: Rockwell International v. U.S., reversing a whistleblower’s victory under the federal False Claims Act after finding he was not an “original source.” Safeco v. Burr; Geico v. Edo, holding that Safeco Insurance Co. did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act and although Geico may have violated that law, it did not do so “recklessly,” Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n v. Brentwood Academy, holding that the TSSAA’s anti-recruiting rule does not violate the First Amendment rights of Brentwood, which had voluntarily joined the TSSAA and had agreed to abide by the rule. Her only defeat came in MedImmune v. Genentech, allowing a patent licensee to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging a patent’s validity without first breaching a contract or failing to pay licensing fees. But, by seeking an affirmance, she was bucking a trend in the high court, which has been reversing patent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the last several terms. This term, the justices reversed that circuit in all three patent cases. Close on Mahoney’s heels in number of cases argued were three other veteran Supreme Court litigators with three cases each: Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Carter G. Phillips of Sidley Austin, and Seth P. Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The court remains stingy in granting argument time to amicus parties, with the exception of the U.S. government and the states.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.