Jeff Lamken has argued 20 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed dozens more on a wide range of topics, including administrative law, civil rights, criminal procedure, energy law, intellectual property, and telecommunications law. Before founding MoloLamken LLP, Mr. Lamken headed BakerBotts' Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Washington, D.C., and served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice.

Representative Engagements

Cases argued before
the United States Supreme Court:

• Mac's Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Company LLC, 130 S. Ct. 1251 (2010) (whether a franchisee may recover for "constructive termination" or "constructive nonrenewel" under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act when the franchisee continues to operate the franchise)
• Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, --- S. Ct. ---, No. 08-861, 2010 WL 2555191 (S. Ct. June 28, 2010) (whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, violates separation of powers or the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
• NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, 130 S. Ct. 693 (2010) (whether the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which protects the integrity of wholesale energy contracts, applies when a rate set by contract is challenged by an entity that was not a party to the contract)
• BP America Production Company and Atlantic Richfield Company v. Rejane Burton, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management, et al., 549 U.S. 84 (2006) (whether the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a) applies to federal agency orders requiring the payment of money claimed under a lease or other agreement)
• City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (whether persons aggrieved by violations of the 1996 Telecommunications Act may bring an action for damages and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988)
• Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) (whether a claimant's ability to perform her former job precludes an award of disability benefits where that job no longer exists in significant numbers)
• Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (whether prisoners have a constitutional right to receive visits while incarcerated, and whether Michigan's prison policies violate such a right)
• Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634 (2003) (whether reconsideration of an order granting a directed verdict of acquittal violates double jeopardy)
• Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (2003) (whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), which tolls state limitations periods while claims are pending in federal court, may constitutionally be applied in a suit against a state's political subdivisions)
• Barnhart v. Walton, 533 U.S. 976 (2001) (whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits if his inability to work lasts less than 12 months)
• Wisconsin Dep't of Health and Family Servs. v. Blumer, 534 U.S. 73 (2002) (whether the "income-first" methodology for determining eligibility is permissible under the Medicaid statute)
• Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (whether a prisoner may bring a constitutional claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons)
• Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (2001) (whether the Interstate Agreement on Detainers requires the dismissal of criminal charges for violation of its "anti-shuttling" provision)
• Lujan v. G&G Fire Sprinklers, 532 U.S. 189 (2000) (whether states must afford contractors a hearing before withholding payments because of the contractors' failure to pay prevailing wages)
• Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (whether squeezing soft luggage to determine its contents is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment)
• Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long-Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1 (2000) (whether the judicial review procedures provided by the Medicare statute are exclusive)
• Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255 (1999) (whether a subcontractor may bring an equitable lien action against the government when the prime contractor fails to pay the subcontractor)
• Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (whether short-term business visitors to a home have a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to support a Fourth Amendment claim)
• Montana v. Crow Indian Tribe, 523 U.S. 696 (1998) (whether an Indian tribe may obtain restitution of taxes that the state unlawfully collected from contractors mining coal on tribal lands)
• Cohen v. De La Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) (whether punitive damages awards for fraud are dischargeable in bankruptcy)

• Sabri v. United States, 124 S. Ct. 1941 (2004) (whether the federal government may prosecute corruption in state agencies receiving federal funds)
• United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004) (whether DEA agents have authority to arrest abroad)
• Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis Trinko, 124 S. Ct. 872 (2004) (whether an incumbent telephone company's violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 also violates federal antitrust laws)
• Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (whether the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1996 violates the "limited Times" requirement of the Constitution's Copyright Clause)
• FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc., 537 U.S. 293 (2003) (whether the FCC's revocation of radio licenses for nonpayment violates the Bankruptcy Code)
• Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 (2001) (whether the Department of Transportation's race-conscious contracting violates the Equal Protection Clause)
• Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (whether officers may be entitled to qualified immunity in excessive force cases)
• Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (whether Congress may prohibit publication of illegally intercepted conversations consistent with the First Amendment)
• TrafFix Devices, Inc v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (whether a product feature covered by an expired utility patent may be protected as trade dress)
• American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (whether Pennsylvania's workers' compensation system violates due process)
• Humana Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299 (1999) (whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq., bars application of the federal RICO statute in insurance fraud cases)

• Recognized as a leading appellate practitioner. Chambers USA Guide America's Leading Business Lawyers, 2009 (appellate)
• Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, 2006-2010
• Recognized as a "Washington D.C. Super Lawyer" by Law & Politics, 2007-2009
• Named to the "Fab Fifty" list of 50 most promising young litigators under 45 by American Lawyer, 2007
• Washingtonian Top Lawyers, 2007, 2009

• Stanford Law School, J.D., 1990
  Nathan Abbott Scholar
  Kurzman Prize
  Order of the Coif
  Senior Editor, Stanford Law Review
• Haverford College, B.A., 1986, magna cum laude, political science
  Department Prize in Mathematics
  Phi Beta Kappa

• District of Columbia
• California
• United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, the Federal Circuit, and the District of Columbia Circuit
• United States District Courts for the District of Columbia, the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas
• United States Supreme Court

• U.S. Supreme Court Update: Developments and Trends, With an Emphasis on High Points-and Low Points-in Appellate Advocacy," 15th Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals, The University of Texas School of Law, Austin, June 3, 2005.

• The little law firm that could (5/31/2011)
  
  
• Supreme Court Upholds PCAOB
  
  
• Lamken lauded as "Visionary" in Legal Times' Awards
  
  
• Molo and Lamken both named to Lawdragon 500
  
  
• Lamken wins unanimous PMPA decision in U.S. Supreme Court for Shell
  
  
• AM Law cover story profiles ML's new approach
  
  
• Lamken argues important PMPA case for Shell in U.S. Supreme Court
  
  
• ML wins 8-1 decision in U.S. Supreme Court in key energy pricing case
  
  
• Firm on winning side for amicus in Nascar antitrust suit
  
  
• Lamken argues PCAOB Case - firm's second in Supreme Court this term
  
  
• Musical Chairs: Shearman & Sterling and Baker Botts Partners Start New Firm
  
  
• Prominent Litigators Launch Elite National Boutique
  
  
• Shearman, Baker Botts Lawyers Join to Form Boutique