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.

Yesterday, Daniel argued on behalf of intervenors in support of the FCC’s Open Internet Rule, which requires broadband internet access service providers to treat all internet traffic equally.

Today, the firm filed the brief for respondents in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980. Kevin Russell will argue the case for the respondents on November 6, 2024.

Photo by Timothy Hales Bennett

Last week, the firm filed a brief on behalf of intervenors in support of the FCC’s net neutrality rules.

Photo by John Schnobrich

Over the past month or so, Russell & Woofter has filed briefs in three patent appeals (one of which was mentioned previously), all involving challenges to patents for lens assemblies for mobile devices. The briefs are here, here, and here.

Photo by Jonah Pettrich

Supreme Court grants review of Delligatti v. United States, which was supported by the Amicus Curiae Brief of Daniel Woofter on behalf of the National Assocation of Public Defense in support of the petitioner.

Today, the firm filed its opening brief in the Federal Circuit in Largan Precision Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 24-1468.

Photo credit: Zach Ramelan

On Friday, Daniel Woofter argued on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants in In re: London Silver Fixing, Ltd., No. 23-929.

The firm filed the Reply Brief For The Petitioner today in Escobar v. Texas, No. 23-934, requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court grant review of the case and vacate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence of death, as both Petitioner and the State of Texas, which has confessed error in its Brief For Respondent In Support, have urged.

Today we filed an opposition to certiorari in Amalgamated Bank v. Facebook, No. 23-980. Facebook seeks review of the favorable Ninth Circuit decision the firm obtained on behalf of our clients in a securities class action arising from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Photo by Dawid Sokołowski

On April 12, the firm filed a Rule 23(f) petition to appeal one of the first district court decisions construing and applying the “mismatch framework” announced in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 77 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2023).

Today, the firm filed the Cert. Reply in Gordon v. May, No. 23-629 (U.S.), urging the Supreme Court to review a legal question that respondent acknowledges has deeply divided the federal courts of appeals 4 to 7.

Today, Daniel Woofter filed an Amici Curiae Brief on behalf of NAPD and MACDL in Guardado v. Massachusetts, No. 23-886 (U.S.), urging the Supreme Court to review whether there is an exception to its double jeopardy jurisprudence that gives the prosecution a second trial in which to supply missing evidence when there was a change in the law after the first proceeding was complete.

Today, Daniel and Kevin filed the Cert. Reply in Rafay v. Jackson, No. 23-636 (U.S.), seeking a summary reversal from the Supreme Court for the Ninth Circuit to consider a habeas claim the panel overlooked—that Atif’s conviction was premised on a confession coerced by police tactics that are inherently coercive.