• Attorneys



• Cases and Documents



• Alan Morrison Supreme Court Assistance Project



• Freedom of Information Clearinghouse



• Consumer Justice Project



• Internet Free Speech



• Fellowship and Employment Opportunities



• FAQs



• Litigation Group
  E-Update

"The Pink Sheet" Profiles The Litigation Group

“There is no better litigation job in the country, period," seconded David Vladeck, who left the group in 2002 after 27 years to become a professor at Georgetown University’s Law Center. The caliber of litigation is unsurpassed, he said.

Click here to read the article.

Victory!

Public Citizen Litigation Group Achieves Resounding Success in The U.S. Supreme Court

As the 2007-2008 U.S. Supreme Court's Term draws to a close, we have an opportunity to reflect on the Litigation Group's record of success at the Court this year. Not a week goes by where you don't hear of the Court's increasing conservatism, its willingness to slam shut the court house door, and its pro-business slant. Each claim is debatable, but there's no doubt that it's harder today than it was a generation ago to garner public interest victories in federal courts.

But that makes our record this year all the more amazing. We were lead counsel and argued four cases before the High Court this term - which is remarkable for a nine-lawyer office - and we won three of them. In each victory, we defeated the Bush Administration, and, in two, a big corporation was against us as well.

This year's Supreme Court Term brought to 55 the number of cases that our lawyers have argued before the Court. And when you take into account all of the Supreme Court briefs we have filed, all the influential amicus briefs we have authored, and all the successful cert. oppositions we have written to preserve public interest victories, we have worked on literally hundreds of Supreme Court cases over the years. And then there's our Supreme Court Assistance Project, established in 1990, where each year we help dozens of public interest litigators with their cases before the Court.

Although each case is different, they have a common theme: preserving ordinary consumers' access to the courts. So, whether it's fighting the pernicious expansion of the federal preemption doctrine, maintaining the vitality of federal attorney's fees legislation, or preserving Americans' right to their day in court, the Litigation Group is fighting for the public interest before the highest court in the land.

• Warner-Lambert v. Kent

On March 3, The Supreme Court affirmed a decision rejecting the drug industry's claim to immunity from lawsuits in Michigan. The 4-to-4 decision in Warner-Lambert v. Kent is a great victory for the patients involved in the case, all of whom suffered very serious liver damage from the diabetes drug Rezulin. At a time when the FDA is by its own admission underfunded, the ability of injured patients to hold drug companies liable for injuries caused by their products is particularly important.

• Reigel v Medtronic

PCLG's only loss this Term was Riegel v Medtronic, where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal medical device law preempts state-law claims seeking damages for injuries caused by medical devices that received premarket approval from the FDA. Though the decision was terribly disappointing, we immediately began work on a congressional override.

• Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff

On June 2, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff that paralegal services must be reimbursed as attorney fees at market rates under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) — the attorney fees-shifting statute that applies to most cases brought against the federal government. Over the years, EAJA has been the means for awarding fees to "little guys," such as Social Security claimants, disabled veterans, and small businesses who challenge improper government conduct.

• Taylor v. Sturgell

Finally, in Taylor v. Sturgell, the Supreme Court rejected an expansive theory of "virtual representation" and held that nonparties can only be bound by a judgment under very limited circumstances. In the 9-0 decision handed down just last Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that someone can be barred from bringing a case based on the theory that he was adequately represented by a party to a previous case if that previous party did not understand himself to be representing the nonparty. Our victory in Taylor upholds the basic principle of American law that everyone is entitled to their own day in court.

The Litigation Group's Supreme Court work is as vital and important as ever. If you want to support the Group, please click here.

Public Citizen Litigation Group is the litigating arm of Public Citizen. The Group specializes in cases involving health and safety regulation, consumer rights, access to the courts, open government, and the First Amendment, including Internet free speech.

We litigate cases at all levels of the federal and state judiciaries and have a substantial practice before federal regulatory agencies. Our efforts are also pursued through programs such as the Alan Morrison Supreme Court Assistance Project and the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse.

featured focus on...
	Why Preemption Proponents Are Wrong Corporations defending products liability cases — concerning defective cars, mislabeled drugs, dangerous pesticides, or hazardous household cleaners — argue that federal regulation of their products bars (or "preempts") any recovery by people injured by those products. In this article, Litigation Group Director Brian Wolfman explains that, in fact, public health is maximized when court remedies work alongside federal regulation. Posted with permission of TRIAL (March 2007). Copyright American Association for Justice.
	Active Cases in the Supreme Court Public Citizen attorneys have argued 55 cases in front of the Supreme Court. For current information on our role in Supreme Court cases, visit the Alan Morrison Supreme Court Assistance Project.
	Internet Free Speech Public Citizen has developed a program of litigation and other forms of advocacy which protects the rights of ordinary citizens against those powerful entities who would seek to curtail or surpress the exchange of ideas and criticism this new technology enables
	Challenging Presidential Secrecy Public Citizen and a coalition of historians and journalists have brought suit challenging an Executive Order that seeks to give former presidents, vice presidents, and their agents the ability to block the release of records that must be released under the 1978 Presidential Records Act.