{ Spot Image }
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
F: 202.536.2010

  • Law clerk to the Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor, United States Supreme Court
  • Law clerk to the Honorable Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Honors & Awards
  • Recognized as a leading appellate practitioner, Chambers USA Guide to America's Leading Business Lawyers, 2005-15 (appellate)
  • Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, 2006-2015
  • Recognized as a "Washington D.C. Super Lawyer" by Law & Politics, 2007-2015
  • Named to the "Fab Fifty" list of 50 most promising young litigators under 45 by American Lawyer, 2007
  • Washingtonian Top Lawyers, 2007, 2009, 2011-2014
  • Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America
  • Stanford Law School, J.D., 1990
  • Nathan Abbott Scholar
  • 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
  • Kurzman Prize
Bar and Court Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • California
  • United States Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, D.C., and Federal Circuits
  • United States District Courts for the District of Columbia, the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas
  • United States Supreme Court
Professional Affiliations
  • American Academy of Appellate Lawyers
  • Member, Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court
  • Member, American Bar Association Litigation Section

Jeffrey A. Lamken

Jeff Lamken, a nationally recognized appellate practitioner, has argued 23 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed dozens more on a wide range of topics, including administrative law, the First Amendment, antitrust, bankruptcy, civil rights, criminal procedure, energy law, intellectual property, search and seizure law, separation of powers, and telecommunications law.  He has also handled matters in virtually all the federal courts of appeals and many state appellate courts.  Mr. Lamken also develops, briefs, and argues critical motions in significant trial matters.

Before founding MoloLamken, Mr. Lamken headed Baker Botts' Supreme Court and Appellate Practice in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Lamken has served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice, and was a partner in the Washington D.C. litigation boutique Kellogg Huber & Hansen.

Since 2005, Mr. Lamken has been recognized each year by Chambers & Partners Guide of America's Leading Business Lawyers (Nationwide) as a top appellate practitioner.  The 2015 edition calls him a "really outstanding" practitioner, who is "incredibly knowledgeable and quick to understand issues," noting that "he is a fierce advocate" with a "very detailed" approach.  The 2014 edition describes him as "a real leading player - a superstar lawyer."  In the 2011 edition, peers lauded Mr. Lamken as "a wonderfully talented appellate lawyer" and "a joy to work with."

Representative Matters

Cases argued before the United States Supreme Court:

  • Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (U.S. argued Jan. 13, 2016) (whether a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single pending case violates the separation of powers)
  • First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 132 S. Ct. 2356 (2012) (whether Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 gives purchasers standing to sue title insurers under Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution absent an allegation that the title insurers’ statutory violations had any impact on the price or quality of the services) (representing respondent)
  • Mac's Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Company LLC, 559 U.S. 175 (2010) (whether a franchisee may recover for "constructive termination" or "constructive nonrenewal" under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act when the franchisee continues to operate the franchise)
  • Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (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 Mktg., LLC v. Maine Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 558 U.S. 165 (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 Am. Prod. Co. v. Burton, 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)

Selected party briefs in the United States Supreme Court:

  • Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012) (whether the term "individual" in the Torture Victim Protection Act limits suits to natural persons)
  • Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011) (whether private securities fraud plaintiffs must prove loss causation to obtain class certification)
  • Jones v. Harris Assocs., 559 U.S. 335 (2010) (establishing the standard for determining whether an investment adviser's fees violate its statutory fiduciary duty to the fund it manages)

Selected amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court:

  • Comptroller v. Wynne, 135 S. Ct. 1787 (2015) (brief of amicus curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce addressing whether a State can tax its residents on out-of-state income without providing a credit for out-of-state taxes)
  • Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) (brief of amicus curiae Cablevision Systems Corp. in a copyright challenge to Aereo's Internet television retransmission service)
  • Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) (brief of amicus curiae Yahoo! Inc. and other high-tech companies addressing the degree of particularity required for patent claims)
  • Alice Corp. Party Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (brief of amici curiae Microsoft Corporation, Adobe Systems Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company addressing the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act)
  • Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), & Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014) (brief of amici curiae Yahoo! Inc. and other high-tech companies addressing the “exceptional case” standard for fee-shifting under § 285 of the Patent Act)
  • EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (brief of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce in a suit challenging the EPA’s rules implementing the interstate pollution restrictions of the Clean Air Act) 
  • Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) (brief of amicus curiae The Coalition for 21st Century Medicine addressing the patent eligibility of isolated human DNA under § 101 of the Patent Act)
  • Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2012) (brief of amicus curiae DRI ­— The Voice of the Defense Bar addressing whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff is offered a payment that would satisfy all of the plaintiff’s claims)
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (brief of amici curiae Altria Group and other leading U.S. companies addressing the need for significant proof of a general policy of discrimination to certify an employment-discrimination class action) 
  • Altria Grp. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (brief of amicus curiae Chamberof Commerce addressing whether federal law preempts state-law fraud challenges to FTC-authorized statements in cigarette advertising)
  • Morgan Stanley Capital Grp. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, 554 U.S. 527 (2008) (brief of amici curiae economics professors addressing the standard for abrogation of long-term energy contracts under Mobile-Sierra doctrine)
  • Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312 (2007) (brief of amici curiae timberland owners and managers addressing whether predatory-bidding antitrust claims require proof of recoupment)


  • "Oral Argument Before Trial and Appellate Courts," 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, 2010.
  • "IP Considerations from a Supreme Court Insider," 6th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course, Texas Bar CLE, San Antonio, TX, 2010.
  • "Intellectual Property Law Cases Before the Supreme Court," State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, 2006.
  • "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, TX, 2005.

News & Appearances