Today, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal in United States ex rel. O’Connor v. U.S. Cellular Corp., No. 23-7041, see Slip Opinion, holding that the clients’ qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act can proceed despite the defendants’ public-disclosure defense. The court found that the relators materially added to publicly available information by uncovering evidence that defendant Advantage Spectrum—which obtained $113 million in FCC bidding credits as a supposed small business—never functioned as an independent company and appears to have been a shell controlled by defendant U.S. Cellular—a multi-billion dollar corporation that could not qualify for the discounts itself.

This victory comes as the Firm also pursues Supreme Court review in a related case against “King Street” (a different sham company that predated Advantage), where similar allegations brought by the same relators were dismissed. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court requested a response to the Firm’s cert. petition seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in that case. See United States of America ex rel. O’Connor v. USSC Wireless Investment Inc., No. 25-271 (U.S.).

Yesterday the firm filed an amicus brief supporting Gold Star families in their terrorism financing lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and other international banks, arguing that the banks’ money laundering of Taliban drug proceeds foreseeably helped fund IED attacks against U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan. The brief, filed on behalf of former high-ranking defense and intelligence officials who worked for decades to disrupt the well-documented narcotics-terrorism nexus, contends that a Second Circuit panel improperly dismissed the families’ claims despite extensive congressional and Executive Branch findings establishing the nexus between drug money laundering and terrorist violence.

The Firm filed a cert. petition challenging the D.C. Circuit’s restrictive False Claims Act standards that dismissed whistleblowers’ $163 million fraud case for failure to plead an exception to an affirmative defense in their complaint and despite their material contributions to what was publicly known about the fraud. The petition argues the decision conflicts with Cunningham v. Cornell University and creates an impossible original-source materiality standard that fractures and deepens a multi-circuit conflict.

Yesterday, the Firm filed the Amicus Brief of Legal Historians and Scholars of Representative Litigation in Support of Respondents in Labcorp v. Davis, No. 24-304 (S. Ct.). The brief offers historical context showing that today’s class actions comport with the original understanding of Article III and the founding generation’s endorsement of bifurcated representative suits in equity—resolving shared questions first, then figuring out who is entitled to what second.

Yesterday, the Firm filed a Supplemental Brief for the Petitioner in Escobar II, arguing that the Court should grant Areli Escobar’s capital case petition in light of the Court’s recent decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025).

Today, the Firm filed the Intervenors’ Petition For Rehearing En Banc in the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to correct a panel opinion that creates a circuit conflict on a question of exceptional national importance: whether broadband internet access service is a “telecommunications service” subject to open-internet rules under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Photo in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division

Last Friday, the Firm filed the Cert. Petition in Martinez v. City of Rosenberg, No. 24-892 (U.S.), asking the Court to resolve an important question that has deeply divided the circuit courts of appeals for decades: Is an otherwise unreasonable use of excessive force permitted under the Fourth Amendment so long as it results in no, or only minor, injuries?

On Thursday, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s dismissal of our client’s claims and remanded for further proceedings. Daniel Woofter argued the case of The Wonderful Company LLC v. Nut Cravings Inc. early last month.

On Monday, Daniel and Kevin filed a Cert. Petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the capital petitioner’s case in Shockley v. Vandergriff, No. 24-517.