Our team of litigators collectively has decades of experience in trial and appellate litigation, with particular expertise in litigation involving the federal government. We know how the federal government will defend against actions because we have done just that, either as attorneys for the Department of Justice in high-stakes constitutional and administrative law matters, or as in-house counsel for the agencies being sued. In private practice, the members of our team have won cases of enormous public import, including multiple victories at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our approach to litigation is client-centric. We provide candid pre-litigation assessments on the strength of clients’ potential claims, the risks and benefits of bringing suit, and the likely costs of litigation. We do not bring lawsuits to generate headlines for our firm. We file suit only when we believe it is the best option available to our clients.

In the short time since we launched our firm, we have achieved litigation success in a number of matters, including:

• Protect Democracy Project v. Office of Management & Budget, No. 1:25-cv-01111 (D.D.C.): We represent Protect Democracy in challenging OMB’s refusal to comply with a federal law that requires OMB to post its “apportionments” of congressional appropriations online. We won summary judgment at the district court, and the government is now appealing.

• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Kennedy, No. 1:25-cv-00342 (D.R.I.): We represent state coalitions against domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as organizations that provide services to the homeless, in challenging new conditions that HHS and HUD are imposing to preclude grantees from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion and “gender ideology.” The agencies are imposing these conditions in a manner specifically designed to expose grantees to False Claims Act liability. We won a temporary restraining order against imposition of the conditions, and preliminary injunction proceedings are ongoing.

• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-00279 (D.R.I.): We represent state coalitions against domestic violence and sexual assault in challenging new conditions being imposed by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) on its formula and discretionary grants. Those conditions, which carry the threat of False Claims Act liability, cover topics including diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender ideology, serving undocumented persons, social justice efforts, and interactions with law enforcement. After we sued, we successfully negotiated a stipulation pursuant to which our clients would not need to sign the certifications to these conditions in order to apply for grants, while preliminary injunction proceedings took place. The proceedings are pending.

• Global Health Council v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00402 (D.D.C.): We represent a group of contractors and grantees challenging, among other things, the refusal of USAID and the State Department to spend foreign aid appropriations that Congress provided for humanitarian, health, and democracy-promotion purposes. Since joining the case in April, we have defeated an effort by the government to narrow the scope of the district court’s preliminary injunction, and won in large part a motion to enforce that preliminary injunction over the government’s strenuous objection. Dan Jacobson argued the appeal of the preliminary injunction before the D.C. Circuit, and a decision is expected soon.

• Child Trends, Inc. v. Kennedy, No. 8:2025-cv-01479 (D. Md.): When our client learned that HHS was about to terminate seven of its grants critical to its continued operations, we brought a due process challenge to block HHS from terminating the grants without notice and an opportunity to be heard. After we filed the lawsuit and the district court indicated that we would likely succeed in our argument that our client had a due process property interest in its grants, we successfully negotiated a settlement pursuant to which HHS agreed not to terminate any of the client’s grants through the remainder of their budget periods.

• Anchorage School District v. Dep’t of Education, No. 1:25-cv-00347 (D.R.I.): We represent a coalition of school districts, teachers unions, a state PTA, and a nonprofit organization challenging the Department of Education’s unwillingness to release billions of dollars in formula grant funds that must be distributed to local school districts. Shortly after we sued and moved for a preliminary injunction, the Department released the withheld funds that were supposed to be released on July 1. The case is ongoing.