Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Alexander Dubose Jefferson
Daniel L. Geyser is Chair of the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Practice. He focuses on complex and high-stakes appellate litigation, representing clients in the Supreme Court of the United States and in courts of appeals nationwide. He was named one of Law360’s 2019 “Appellate MVPs,” an honor awarded to only four lawyers in the United States.
Dan is widely regarded as one of the nation’s leading Supreme Court and appellate lawyers. The Legal 500 reports that Dan is “recognized by peers and clients alike as ‘an extraordinary oral advocate and brief writer,’” “stand[ing] out for his sheer brainpower and creative thinking”; clients say “Geyser’s intellect and analysis are peerless”; “‘[h]is legal analysis is brilliant and on point, and his written and oral advocacy is very strong and powerful.’” Chambers USA describes Dan as a “‘superb lawyer with impeccable judgment and a wonderful manner in oral arguments,’” adding he has “‘that rare ability to make clients and legal counsel at ease, even under difficult circumstances. He instills confidence.’”
Dan is among an elite group of lawyers who regularly handles significant cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has argued eleven U.S. Supreme Court cases in private practice, more than any other active Texas lawyer. He recently had three cert. petitions granted in a 12-month period (a feat matched by few global firms), and personally handled over 5% of the Court’s merits docket in OT 2018. He has been named to the National Law Journal’s “Appellate Hot List,” earned weekly honors as a Law360 “Legal Lion,” achieved national appellate rankings in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500, and was listed among the “veritable who’s who of the Supreme Court bar” (Empirical SCOTUS). His petitions are regularly featured among the “Petitions of the Week” on SCOTUSblog, and he was named OT 2017’s “top performing” brief-writer among the Court’s repeat players (based on a 2018 empirical study using brief-analyzing software). He is a three-time winner of the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award for excellence in brief-writing before the Supreme Court.
Dan routinely matches up against the top litigators in the country. He has convinced the Supreme Court to grant review over the opposition of elite appellate groups at multiple Am Law 20 firms, and his recent wins have come against superstars at Am Law 10 firms and the Solicitor General’s Office. In the past half-decade, Dan is among the top five lawyers nationwide for total Supreme Court arguments in private practice, notching “rare victor[ies]” (SCOTUSblog) and “huge win[s]” (Reuters) in cases that industry experts said could not be won. And Dan is already set to argue another major case in the Supreme Court’s upcoming Term, a closely watched battle involving the Federal Arbitration Act and federal jurisdiction; the case was one of Dan’s two cert. grants in 2021 alone.
Beyond the Supreme Court, Dan handles high-stakes matters in appellate courts nationwide, litigating cases in virtually every major area of federal law (especially securities, bankruptcy, patents, ERISA, and arbitration). For plaintiffs, he has crafted legal strategy in matters generating over a half-billion in recovery. For defendants, he has won appeals in 8- and 9-figure disputes. He has special expertise at the rehearing stage, and has argued before the en banc Ninth Circuit (winning 10-1). In addition to an active federal practice, Dan has handled landmark state-court appeals, including arguing seven times before the Texas Supreme Court.
Before joining ADJ, Dan ran his own award-winning appellate practice; served as the appellate chair of a prominent litigation boutique (also leading that firm to the National Law Journal’s “Appellate Hot List” and a Chambers USA national-appellate ranking); and was an appellate partner in one of the nation’s top litigation firms, building its appellate practice while focusing especially on complex patent appeals and bankruptcy cases.
From 2007-2011, Dan served in the Office of the Solicitor General of Texas, where he conducted and supervised appellate litigation for the State. In addition to handling his own docket, his experience in the office included advising other divisions on appellate and trial strategy, revising countless briefs in cases across all subject areas, and extensively preparing other attorneys (in moot courts and otherwise) for oral argument. In his last week on the job, Dan argued before the Texas Supreme Court in Severance v. Patterson, one of the State’s most important cases in recent memory—a constitutional attack on the public’s historic access to open beaches; he had earlier won “a rare motion to rehear the case” (Austin American-Statesman, 2011). The same week, Dan also won a major case in the U.S. Supreme Court, Sossamon v. Texas, involving Congress’s spending power and state sovereignty; Dan wrote the State’s briefs in that case and crafted its core legal theories and appellate strategy. He was also the principal writer of the State’s invitation brief in Rhine v. Deaton, a case marking the very first time the U.S. Supreme Court called for a state solicitor general to file a brief expressing the views of a State.
Dan graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with honors and distinction, from Stanford University, and with honors from Harvard Law School, where he was the Notes Chair of the Harvard Law Review, a best-brief winner and oralist on the championship team of Harvard’s moot-court competition, and a research assistant to Professor Laurence H. Tribe, working on his academic writing and appellate docket. After law school, Dan clerked for the Hon. Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has received the State Bar of California’s Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services and is a past appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Pro Bono Panel.
Mike Jayne is an attorney for the U.S. Department of Education. Previously, he worked for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Theodore C. (Ted) Hirt was an attorney in the Department of Justice's Civil Division from August 1979 to March 2016. He was in its Federal Programs Branch from 1979 to 2008 (trial attorney, senior trial counsel, assistant director), and then in its Office of Immigration Litigation from 2008 to 2016 (trial attorney and senior litigation counsel). Among his responsibilities (September 2001 to March 2016) was being an advisor to the Assistant Attorneys General for the Civil Division, who serve ex officio on the Civil Rules Advisory Committee. Mr. Hirt’s areas of specialization include First Amendment issues, internet and telecommunications law, and electronic discovery. From 1976 to 1979, he was an associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Kampelman. From 1975 to 1976 he was an attorney in the Prehearing Division of the Michigan Court of Appeals.
President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies
Lawrence J. Spiwak is President of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that studies broad public-policy issues related to governance, social and economic conditions, with a particular emphasis on the law and economics of the digital age. Mr. Spiwak is a prolific scholar whose work is frequently cited by policymakers, major news media and academic journals around the world, and is in the top 1.3%of authors downloaded on the Social Science Research Network. Mr. Spiwak currently serves as the co-chair of the Federal Communications Bar Association’s (FCBA) committee responsible for overseeing the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW JOURNAL and is a member of the program committee of the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (“TPRC”). Mr. Spiwak is also the recipient of the FCBA’s Distinguished Service Award. Prior to joining the Phoenix Center, Mr. Spiwak was a Senior Attorney with the Competition Division in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel from 1994-1998. While in college, Mr. Spiwak was accepted into the Presidential Stay-In School program where he was responsible for delivering classified and confidential material among senior White House and Reagan Administration officials and received a full FBI security clearance. Mr. Spiwak received his B.A. with Special Honors from the George Washington University and his J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Mr. Spiwak is a member in good standing of the bars of New York, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
Stephanie N. Taub serves as Senior Counsel with First Liberty Institute, focusing on litigation, appellate advocacy, and legal education.
While at First Liberty, her article on the rights of faith-based organizations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics. She has also authored pieces published in National Review, the Daily Signal, the Washington Times, the Des Moines Register, and the New York Daily News. In 2017, Taub was named one of 15 recipients of the James Wilson Fellowship in natural law.
Before joining First Liberty, Taub worked as a law clerk to the Honorable Reed O’Connor in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas.
Taub is a Harvard Law School graduate in the class of 2014 and a Blackstone Fellow in the class of 2012. During law school, she served as Co-President of the HLS Christian Fellowship and Managing Technical Editor of the Harvard Human Rights Journal. Taub spent her law school summers defending religious liberty in public interest law firms and clerking in the Texas Office of Solicitor General.
For her undergraduate studies at the University of Southern California, Taub graduated summa cum laude, majoring in Business Administration with a minor in Philosophy.
Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Theodore C. (Ted) Hirt was an attorney in the Department of Justice's Civil Division from August 1979 to March 2016. He was in its Federal Programs Branch from 1979 to 2008 (trial attorney, senior trial counsel, assistant director), and then in its Office of Immigration Litigation from 2008 to 2016 (trial attorney and senior litigation counsel). Among his responsibilities (September 2001 to March 2016) was being an advisor to the Assistant Attorneys General for the Civil Division, who serve ex officio on the Civil Rules Advisory Committee. Mr. Hirt’s areas of specialization include First Amendment issues, internet and telecommunications law, and electronic discovery. From 1976 to 1979, he was an associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Kampelman. From 1975 to 1976 he was an attorney in the Prehearing Division of the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Partner, Conner & Winters
Donn C. Meindertsma is a partner in the Washington, DC office of Conner & Winters.
Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Devin Watkins is an attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Devin Watkins previously worked at the Cato Institute as a legal associate and interned at the Institute for Justice. At the Cato Institute, Watkins worked on a variety of Supreme Court cases, and one of the briefs he worked on was cited by the Court. His op-eds have appeared in National Review Online, The Hill, Time, and The Federalist among others.
Watkins holds a Juris Doctor cum laude from George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, where he was the development editor on the Mason Law Review. Prior to his legal career Watkins was a senior software developer at Intel and WebMD. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey.
Watkins is a member of the Virginia State Bar, the District of Columbia Bar, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Bar, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Bar.
Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Alexander Dubose Jefferson
Daniel L. Geyser is Chair of the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Practice. He focuses on complex and high-stakes appellate litigation, representing clients in the Supreme Court of the United States and in courts of appeals nationwide. He was named one of Law360’s 2019 “Appellate MVPs,” an honor awarded to only four lawyers in the United States.
Dan is widely regarded as one of the nation’s leading Supreme Court and appellate lawyers. The Legal 500 reports that Dan is “recognized by peers and clients alike as ‘an extraordinary oral advocate and brief writer,’” “stand[ing] out for his sheer brainpower and creative thinking”; clients say “Geyser’s intellect and analysis are peerless”; “‘[h]is legal analysis is brilliant and on point, and his written and oral advocacy is very strong and powerful.’” Chambers USA describes Dan as a “‘superb lawyer with impeccable judgment and a wonderful manner in oral arguments,’” adding he has “‘that rare ability to make clients and legal counsel at ease, even under difficult circumstances. He instills confidence.’”
Dan is among an elite group of lawyers who regularly handles significant cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has argued eleven U.S. Supreme Court cases in private practice, more than any other active Texas lawyer. He recently had three cert. petitions granted in a 12-month period (a feat matched by few global firms), and personally handled over 5% of the Court’s merits docket in OT 2018. He has been named to the National Law Journal’s “Appellate Hot List,” earned weekly honors as a Law360 “Legal Lion,” achieved national appellate rankings in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500, and was listed among the “veritable who’s who of the Supreme Court bar” (Empirical SCOTUS). His petitions are regularly featured among the “Petitions of the Week” on SCOTUSblog, and he was named OT 2017’s “top performing” brief-writer among the Court’s repeat players (based on a 2018 empirical study using brief-analyzing software). He is a three-time winner of the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award for excellence in brief-writing before the Supreme Court.
Dan routinely matches up against the top litigators in the country. He has convinced the Supreme Court to grant review over the opposition of elite appellate groups at multiple Am Law 20 firms, and his recent wins have come against superstars at Am Law 10 firms and the Solicitor General’s Office. In the past half-decade, Dan is among the top five lawyers nationwide for total Supreme Court arguments in private practice, notching “rare victor[ies]” (SCOTUSblog) and “huge win[s]” (Reuters) in cases that industry experts said could not be won. And Dan is already set to argue another major case in the Supreme Court’s upcoming Term, a closely watched battle involving the Federal Arbitration Act and federal jurisdiction; the case was one of Dan’s two cert. grants in 2021 alone.
Beyond the Supreme Court, Dan handles high-stakes matters in appellate courts nationwide, litigating cases in virtually every major area of federal law (especially securities, bankruptcy, patents, ERISA, and arbitration). For plaintiffs, he has crafted legal strategy in matters generating over a half-billion in recovery. For defendants, he has won appeals in 8- and 9-figure disputes. He has special expertise at the rehearing stage, and has argued before the en banc Ninth Circuit (winning 10-1). In addition to an active federal practice, Dan has handled landmark state-court appeals, including arguing seven times before the Texas Supreme Court.
Before joining ADJ, Dan ran his own award-winning appellate practice; served as the appellate chair of a prominent litigation boutique (also leading that firm to the National Law Journal’s “Appellate Hot List” and a Chambers USA national-appellate ranking); and was an appellate partner in one of the nation’s top litigation firms, building its appellate practice while focusing especially on complex patent appeals and bankruptcy cases.
From 2007-2011, Dan served in the Office of the Solicitor General of Texas, where he conducted and supervised appellate litigation for the State. In addition to handling his own docket, his experience in the office included advising other divisions on appellate and trial strategy, revising countless briefs in cases across all subject areas, and extensively preparing other attorneys (in moot courts and otherwise) for oral argument. In his last week on the job, Dan argued before the Texas Supreme Court in Severance v. Patterson, one of the State’s most important cases in recent memory—a constitutional attack on the public’s historic access to open beaches; he had earlier won “a rare motion to rehear the case” (Austin American-Statesman, 2011). The same week, Dan also won a major case in the U.S. Supreme Court, Sossamon v. Texas, involving Congress’s spending power and state sovereignty; Dan wrote the State’s briefs in that case and crafted its core legal theories and appellate strategy. He was also the principal writer of the State’s invitation brief in Rhine v. Deaton, a case marking the very first time the U.S. Supreme Court called for a state solicitor general to file a brief expressing the views of a State.
Dan graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with honors and distinction, from Stanford University, and with honors from Harvard Law School, where he was the Notes Chair of the Harvard Law Review, a best-brief winner and oralist on the championship team of Harvard’s moot-court competition, and a research assistant to Professor Laurence H. Tribe, working on his academic writing and appellate docket. After law school, Dan clerked for the Hon. Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has received the State Bar of California’s Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services and is a past appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Pro Bono Panel.
Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
Daniel L. Geyser
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that...
As Far As Reasonably Practicable: Reimagining the Role of Congress in Agency Rulemaking
Mike Jayne
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance
TeleforumCourthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
TeleforumIs Our Modern Administrative State Unmoored from the Morality of Law?
Ted Hirt
A review of The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law, by Richard A. Epstein (Manhattan Institute...
The Preemption Predicament Over Broadband Internet Access Services
Lawrence J. Spiwak
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
NY v. HHS and the Challenge of Protecting Conscience Rights in Healthcare
Stephanie Taub
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Have the American People Irrevocably Ceded Control of Their Government to the Modern Administrative State?
Ted Hirt
A review of Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First...
Whistling in Chevronland: Why Department of Labor Interpretations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Whistleblower Provisions Do Not Deserve Judicial Deference
Donn C. Meindertsma
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Topics
A Most Unusual Brief From the Solicitor General: Threading the Needle on Auer Deference
Last week, the Solicitor General filed the United States’ eagerly anticipated response brief in Kisor...