Jones Day - Services - Statutory & Regulatory Litigation

Jones Day lawyers engage in a very broad range of litigation-raising issues concerning the interpretation and enforcement of statutes and governmental regulations. This work runs the gamut from esoteric disputes over the meaning of ambiguous statutory language, through challenges to statutory and regulatory enactments on constitutional and/or administrative grounds, to highly contentious defense of enforcement actions, brought in the name of government entities. It concerns actions and enactments of both the federal and the state governments and proceeds in courts at all levels of the federal and state systems.

Our litigators have particular experience with litigation involving federal agencies including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the International Trade Commission, the National Credit Union Administration, the United States Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, State and Transportation, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Park Service and the United States Postal Service.

In recent years, Jones Day lawyers have been involved as primary counsel to parties in cases decided on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court involving interpretation or challenges to legislation addressing age discrimination (Case 1, 2), campaign finance reform, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, free speech, ERISA, truth in lending, federal court jurisdiction, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, state regulation of international commerce, and rent control. Our lawyers have filed many more amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing statutory interpretation and regulatory issues (Case 1, 2, 3).

We regularly confront a broad array of statutory and regulatory interpretation issues in litigation pending in the lower federal courts and in the state courts. Sometimes these issues arise in the context of affirmative actions brought on behalf of clients to challenge the constitutionality of governmental schemes impacting particular parties in severe and unjustifiable ways. Examples of such litigation include claims under the Just Compensation and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. For example, the Firm participated in litigation during the 1990s challenging arbitrary assessments under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, which culminated in the partial invalidation of that statute (Eastern Enterprises). The Firm has also participated for many years in the "Winstar" litigation, challenging arbitrary consequences of FIRREA, enacted in the late 1980s, upon certain thrift savings institutions (Case 1, 2). In addition, Jones Day lawyers have handled numerous cases involving electoral redistricting and claims under the Voting Rights Act (Case 1, 2).

Not infrequently, these issues are presented in the context of enforcement actions brought by, or on behalf of, the federal government or various state governments. Such cases that the Firm has handled include a series of matters brought against the tobacco industry by state and federal governments; federal and state Attorney General actions brought against the eye care, pharmaceutical, and health care (Case 1, 2) industries; cases involving voting rights and redistricting; actions brought by the Federal Communications Commission and the National Labor Relations Board; and a large number of cases brought under the False Claims Act (Case 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) by individuals empowered under the statute to sue on behalf of the U.S.

The Firm has also handled matters where these issues arise in the context of contract and other disputes with government agencies (Case 1, 2, 3) or in private disputes that depend upon the interpretation and application of federal statutes and regulations (Case 1, 2, 3). Jones Day also regularly handles matters where these issues arise in international litigation involving foreign government entities (Case 1, 2).

	Print Page Email Page Select a Language Statutory & Regulatory Litigation - Overview
Lawyers Staff Overview Experience Professionals Main Practice Government Regulation	Jones Day lawyers engage in a very broad range of litigation-raising issues concerning the interpretation and enforcement of statutes and governmental regulations. This work runs the gamut from esoteric disputes over the meaning of ambiguous statutory language, through challenges to statutory and regulatory enactments on constitutional and/or administrative grounds, to highly contentious defense of enforcement actions, brought in the name of government entities. It concerns actions and enactments of both the federal and the state governments and proceeds in courts at all levels of the federal and state systems. Our litigators have particular experience with litigation involving federal agencies including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the International Trade Commission, the National Credit Union Administration, the United States Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, State and Transportation, the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States Park Service and the United States Postal Service. In recent years, Jones Day lawyers have been involved as primary counsel to parties in cases decided on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court involving interpretation or challenges to legislation addressing age discrimination (Case 1, 2), campaign finance reform, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, free speech, ERISA, truth in lending, federal court jurisdiction, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, state regulation of international commerce, and rent control. Our lawyers have filed many more amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing statutory interpretation and regulatory issues (Case 1, 2, 3). We regularly confront a broad array of statutory and regulatory interpretation issues in litigation pending in the lower federal courts and in the state courts. Sometimes these issues arise in the context of affirmative actions brought on behalf of clients to challenge the constitutionality of governmental schemes impacting particular parties in severe and unjustifiable ways. Examples of such litigation include claims under the Just Compensation and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. For example, the Firm participated in litigation during the 1990s challenging arbitrary assessments under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, which culminated in the partial invalidation of that statute (Eastern Enterprises). The Firm has also participated for many years in the "Winstar" litigation, challenging arbitrary consequences of FIRREA, enacted in the late 1980s, upon certain thrift savings institutions (Case 1, 2). In addition, Jones Day lawyers have handled numerous cases involving electoral redistricting and claims under the Voting Rights Act (Case 1, 2). Not infrequently, these issues are presented in the context of enforcement actions brought by, or on behalf of, the federal government or various state governments. Such cases that the Firm has handled include a series of matters brought against the tobacco industry by state and federal governments; federal and state Attorney General actions brought against the eye care, pharmaceutical, and health care (Case 1, 2) industries; cases involving voting rights and redistricting; actions brought by the Federal Communications Commission and the National Labor Relations Board; and a large number of cases brought under the False Claims Act (Case 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) by individuals empowered under the statute to sue on behalf of the U.S. The Firm has also handled matters where these issues arise in the context of contract and other disputes with government agencies (Case 1, 2, 3) or in private disputes that depend upon the interpretation and application of federal statutes and regulations (Case 1, 2, 3). Jones Day also regularly handles matters where these issues arise in international litigation involving foreign government entities (Case 1, 2).