Andrew Tutt

Andrew Tutt

Andrew Tutt focuses on Supreme Court, appellate, and complex litigation. He has won cases in federal courts across a broad cross-section of subjects, with particular experience in administrative law, intellectual property law, and civil rights law. He has argued and won three cases in the United States Supreme Court, led appeals in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits and led the strategy, briefing, and argument in complex cases in federal district courts nationwide.

Recently, Andrew argued and won a significant victory in the United States Supreme Court establishing an important structural constitutional principle and safeguarding the reemployment rights of thousands of veterans and servicemembers. The Court took the rare step of granting certiorari to a state intermediate court of appeals, without a circuit conflict, over the Solicitor Generals recommendation that the Court deny the case.

In another recent matter before the United States Supreme Court, Andrew identified a meritorious pro se petition for certiorari. Representing the petitioner pro bono, Andrew and a team of Arnold & Porter attorneys persuaded the United States Supreme Court to grant the petition, securing reversal and his clients release from federal custody.

In a recent case, Andrew persuaded the Fourth Circuit to recognize that livestreaming police officers in the discharge of their duties is First Amendment protected activity.

In another recent case, Andrew convinced the Tenth Circuit to join six other federal courts of appeals in recognizing that individuals have a clearly established First Amendment right to record police officers in the discharge of their duties in public subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In another case, Andrew persuaded the Fourth Circuit that a federal district court fundamentally misapprehended the evidence and arguments in a high-stakes bench trial, winning, on clear error review, a reversal and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of his client.

In another case in the Fourth Circuit, Andrew won a preliminary injunction and summary judgment for the City of Baltimore against changes to grant criteria used to award nearly US$300 million annually. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit granted initial hearing en banc, split with the en banc Ninth Circuit, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on four independent grounds.

In the Ninth Circuit, Andrew successfully represented three federal grantees in a high-profile challenge to the criteria used to award US$100 million in annual federal grants. Andrew persuaded the court of appeals to reverse the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and exercise its discretion to reach the merits and strike down the unlawful award criteria in light of the case's "national impact."


A person listed as a contributor has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's "contributor" page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a contributor are those of the contributor.